Mistral News thread

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

Not as much as you might think, and exports of the same or similar technology can offset the development costs...

Having standardised engines and sensors and weapons means development costs are reduced, performance is increased, logistics is simplified, and in theory production should be optimised.

Who are these allies and trade partners?

Russia shares a land border with China, but not Cuba, Vietnam, India, or many other client states... now including Iraq and Syria and Egypt. New markets in central and south america and Asia and africa also demand trade routes.

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

They will be provoked no matter what Russia does, so Russia should do what it likes and ignore the little yapping dogs.

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

Basing helicopter carriers there will require an infrastructure upgrade and require further investment for support and logistics... without such vessels it will stagnate.

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

Say what...

Here is a link to a very very large map of Antarctica showing quite a few Russian bases...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Antarctic_Region.png

Next step is to sanction France over the seizure of Russian assets based on the Dutch kangaroo tribunal that "retried"
the Khodorkovsky case without proper evidence and with zero jurisdiction and awarded a $50 billion settlement.
This sort of brazen abuse needs to be punished viciously.

Yes... how about a 100 billion dollar case against the Dutch for defammation about the airliner the Kiev forces shot down last year... trying to blame Russia indeed...

Collapse of Mistral deal to make Russia more pragmatic — lawmaker

Russia was guided by Soviet-era principles when it inked the Mistral deal, member of the State Duma Defense Committee Franz Klintsevich says

MOSCOW, July 31. /TASS/. Scrapping the Mistral warship deal will make Russia be more pragmatic even in relations with its traditional partners, member of the State Duma Defense Committee Franz Klintsevich has told TASS.

"Only tough realists survive in this world. I think the appropriate conclusions will be drawn. Under current conditions, we will have to be tough pragmatists even in relatons with our traditional partners," Klintsevich said.

He noted that Russia was guided by Soviet-era principles when it inked the Mistral deal. "They say France is our old friend, so the price of the contract doesn’t matter," he said.

The €1.12 billion contract for the construction of two Mistral-type helicopter carriers for the Russian Navy was signed in June 2011. Under the contract, Russia was expected to receive the first of the two warships, the Vladivostok, in the autumn of 2014. However, Paris suspended the ship’s handover to Russia at the very last moment over Moscow’s stance on developments in neighboring Ukraine.

It was planned that the second ship dubbed the Sevastopol would be handed over to Russia in the second half of 2015. But the deal was suspended like in the case with the first Mistral ship.

French President Francois Hollande said on Monday that the decision on whether or not to deliver Mistral helicopter carriers to Russia would be taken "in the coming weeks."

i wonder why the MIC of France didn't push French government on Mistral issue

If it takes 6 years + for a russian shipyard to complete a corvette what makes you think it can build a russian alternative to the mistrals?

You will say they can of they kust change their attitude and competence but it doesn't look like united russia is presently making an actual effort or showing even marginal interest in forcing them to do that or that they will in the future.

If I was a navy commander I would take the chance to get already built ships rather than wait 1+ decade to recieve and alternative while the enemy is getting dozens of ships every few years.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:If it takes 6 years + for a russian shipyard to complete a corvette what makes you think it can build a russian alternative to the mistrals?

You will say they can of they kust change their attitude and competence but it doesn't look like united russia is presently making an actual effort or showing even marginal interest in forcing them to do that or that they will in the future.

If I was a navy commander I would take the chance to get already built ships rather than wait 1+ decade to recieve and alternative while the enemy is getting dozens of ships every few years.

I am pretty sure the Russian Navy would love to have the mistrals and it has hurt the Russian Navy a lot but it has no choice here. They have to go the hard route of learning to do it themselves, I know that is a long and hard but it is the only way.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:If it takes 6 years + for a russian shipyard to complete a corvette what makes you think it can build a russian alternative to the mistrals?

You will say they can of they kust change their attitude and competence but it doesn't look like united russia is presently making an actual effort or showing even marginal interest in forcing them to do that or that they will in the future.

If I was a navy commander I would take the chance to get already built ships rather than wait 1+ decade to recieve and alternative while the enemy is getting dozens of ships every few years.

One of the biggest hurdles is that the Ukraine conflict proved that the EU has firmly aligned with the US, and if there are any issues with the Mistrals, we're going to be stuck up shit creek as access to parts will undoubtedly be cut off.

I remember reading a few weeks ago that were were already experiencing issues with parts for the old ropucha class built in Poland, after the recent fall in relations.

Better to suffer a delay of 6-7 years than pre-emptively compromise your shiny new ships.

This ride ain't over yet boys.
lenta.ru/news/2015/07/31/pas_de_mistral/

Big man Hollande saying there's no agreement yet.

I think it is time to put pressure on france. Not only demand the money back + them breaking the contract, I would also start stripping French assets in Russia like they are doing to Russia - For repercussion for their asset freezes as well as not returning the payments for Mistral.

France would be jumping and screaming but will be quickly to try and solve the issues.

sepheronx wrote:I think it is time to put pressure on france.  Not only demand the money back + them breaking the contract, I would also start stripping French assets in Russia like they are doing to Russia - For repercussion for their asset freezes as well as not returning the payments for Mistral.

France would be jumping and screaming but will be quickly to try and solve the issues.

It's been long time for that. The Kremlin's been pussyfooting it since we agreed to recognize Poroshenko's regime.
I think their line of though is that since both Germany and the UK are firmly in the hands of the US, it's better to keep relations warmer with the French. Doubt that'll work though.

Maximmmm wrote:

sepheronx wrote:I think it is time to put pressure on france.  Not only demand the money back + them breaking the contract, I would also start stripping French assets in Russia like they are doing to Russia - For repercussion for their asset freezes as well as not returning the payments for Mistral.

France would be jumping and screaming but will be quickly to try and solve the issues.

It's been long time for that. The Kremlin's been pussyfooting it since we agreed to recognize Poroshenko's regime.
I think their line of though is that since both Germany and the UK are firmly in the hands of the US, it's better to keep relations warmer with the French. Doubt that'll work though.

That is most likely. There is still a strong rift in germany regarding Russian sanctions, but it is true that France has an even larger rift (I think a lot of it is also historical as well, since France (disregarding Napoleon's invasion) seemed to have far better relations with Russia). France is trying to toe the line for USA at the moment and brussels. But lets see how long. I also think it is a pointless endeavour but lets see.

Maximmmm wrote:This ride ain't over yet boys.
lenta.ru/news/2015/07/31/pas_de_mistral/

Big man Hollande saying there's no agreement yet.

Jesus, it's like Mexican and Turkish soap operas had a love child....

Will those Frenchies make up their mind already....

PapaDragon wrote:

Maximmmm wrote:This ride ain't over yet boys.
lenta.ru/news/2015/07/31/pas_de_mistral/

Big man Hollande saying there's no agreement yet.

Jesus, it's like Mexican and Turkish soap operas had a love child....

Will those Frenchies make up their mind already....

They are delaying it all as much as they can. They want it all. They want to be able to pressure Russia, at the same time, sell them the mistrals and make money, without making anyone angry. So they are going to try to play this out till sanctions are lifted (if ever).

France screwed themselves. First these ships and now the Indian Rafale. Shame Egypt bought Rafale's as it would have been funny if Egypt canceled that.

sepheronx wrote:

France screwed themselves.  First these ships and now the Indian Rafale.  Shame Egypt bought Rafale's as it would have been funny if Egypt canceled that.

I can't begin to imagine the backchannel pressure/deal sweetening that happened in Egypt.

5 years ago you guys were LOVING this deal, best decision ever from russia, or how we "needed" that damn mistral you guys said while i wrote:

NationalRus wrote:Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:38 am
   i think this ship is totaly useless for us, i just don't get it how this big flotting target .....hugggm sorry i mean "Helicopter carrier" is usefull for russia, if we would fight a war thousends of km away of our country i get it, or have a enclave thousends of km away i would get it too... but this big sea target... huhm sorry i mean helicopter carrier just screams to rot in the damn harbour

   i see this purchase as a political one, like breaing the wall of western cuntrys selling armament to russia, but its useless.. if the wannt to realy break this wall in the heads of cold war politicans the should have gone for a rafale deal... or to lay down the cards one the table completly a pure technology deal... and not this USELESS sea box/grave

i just pray russian goverment learned ther lesson once and for all

NationalRus wrote:5 years ago you guys were LOVING this deal, best decision ever from russia, or how we "needed" that damn mistral you guys said while i wrote:

NationalRus wrote:Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:38 am
   i think this ship is totaly useless for us, i just don't get it how this big flotting target .....hugggm sorry i mean "Helicopter carrier" is usefull for russia, if we would fight a war thousends of km away of our country i get it, or have a enclave thousends of km away i would get it too... but this big sea target... huhm sorry i mean helicopter carrier just screams to rot in the damn harbour

   i see this purchase as a political one, like breaing the wall of western cuntrys selling armament to russia, but its useless.. if the wannt to realy break this wall in the heads of cold war politicans the should have gone for a rafale deal... or to lay down the cards one the table completly a pure technology deal... and not this USELESS sea box/grave

i just pray russian goverment learned ther lesson once and for all

I was with you on that one.

I never liked this deal.  I was lambasted on MP.net due to my viewpoint of the deal and thought it was total corruption.

Hopefully they get past this BS.

Maximmmm wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

France screwed themselves.  First these ships and now the Indian Rafale.  Shame Egypt bought Rafale's as it would have been funny if Egypt canceled that.

I can't begin to imagine the backchannel pressure/deal sweetening that happened in Egypt.

There would have had to be quite the # of suitcases full of cash for that deal, as Egypt is paying a LOT for those jets.

Yet the deal is ending in Russia's favor... They didn't get the ships, but they got a lot of technology, knowledge and experience of modular construction, and a payout as well.

sepheronx wrote:I think it is time to put pressure on france.  Not only demand the money back + them breaking the contract, I would also start stripping French assets in Russia like they are doing to Russia - For repercussion for their asset freezes as well as not returning the payments for Mistral.

France would be jumping and screaming but will be quickly to try and solve the issues.

Why?

It's like with the Ukraine thread - you guys don't get it again.

Time is on Russia's side.
How can it possibly be any other way while France is paying millions every month just to maintain those Mistral hulks in harbour?

France will sign. If it doesn't, all Russia has to do is precisely nothing - until France eventually has no choice but to come back and sign.

GarryB wrote:Not as much as you might think, and exports of the same or similar technology can offset the development costs...

Having standardised engines and sensors and weapons means development costs are reduced, performance is increased, logistics is simplified, and in theory production should be optimised.

A large fleet benefits more from standardisation than a smaller fleet.

GarryB wrote:Russia shares a land border with China, but not Cuba, Vietnam, India, or many other client states... now including Iraq and Syria and Egypt. New markets in central and south america and Asia and africa also demand trade routes.

Just being on friendly terms does not make them allies and superior trade partners of Russia.
Russia's (military) allies are in the CSTO and its best trade partners are the ones which matters the most.

GarryB wrote:They will be provoked no matter what Russia does, so Russia should do what it likes and ignore the little yapping dogs.

They claim it for the sake of their anti-Russian narrative. Do not give them credibility by letting them have a point.

GarryB wrote:Basing helicopter carriers there will require an infrastructure upgrade and require further investment for support and logistics... without such vessels it will stagnate.

Heli carriers are too vulnerable and important to be based on a potential frontline.
Nor are they needed there, unless you are planning to abandon the location.

GarryB wrote:Say what...

Here is a link to a very very large map of Antarctica showing quite a few Russian bases...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Antarctic_Region.png

These are research stations.
There are nations like Chile which claim parts of the Antarctica and maintain stations in Antarctica in order to strengthen their claims.
Russia is not one of them.

Russia need such ships in Arctic and Pacific theater for operations around Russian islands there, bringing troops, equipment and providing helicopter support. This is why Russia design their own LHDs with similar capabilities.

Regarding Mistrals, I think Russia will sooner or later receive them. French NAVY doesn't need them as they don't have money for additional Mistrals also there will be additional costs to redesign and reequip them for French use, they could not sell them and they have large expenses having them in port. In 2017 Hollande will leave his office as he will not be reelected and the new president Le Pen will deliver them to Russia, if the case will not be solved to that time or sell them again for a half of a price to finally solve the problem. For Russia it is worth to wait those two years and get those ships far cheaper, than what the original price was.

If it takes 6 years + for a russian shipyard to complete a corvette what makes you think it can build a russian alternative to the mistrals?

Given the design plans and the funds to do the job the rear halves of the two Mistrals built were made in Russian shipyards on time and to budget...

If I was a navy commander I would take the chance to get already built ships rather than wait 1+ decade to recieve and alternative while the enemy is getting dozens of ships every few years.

The purpose behind buying French ships was speed only. The Russian shipyards can of course build a more suitable vessel for Russia, but the timeframe would be a decade.

One of the biggest hurdles is that the Ukraine conflict proved that the EU has firmly aligned with the US, and if there are any issues with the Mistrals, we're going to be stuck up shit creek as access to parts will undoubtedly be cut off.

the transfer of technology agreements with the ships should cover local manufacture of parts... so it should not be an issue.

5 years ago you guys were LOVING this deal, best decision ever from russia, or how we "needed" that damn mistral you guys said while i wrote:

They would and will be useful vessels, the decision was correct... they wanted them urgently and this was the best option.

The fact that France is being a bitch about it is hardly a fault of Russia.

i just pray russian goverment learned ther lesson once and for all

If the Mistrals are never delivered the Russian Navy will get the Russian shipyards to build them an equivalent vessel that will not be in service likely till 2025 and will end up costing rather more than 1.5 billion euros... though it will likely be in rubles and it will be money spent inside the Russian economy instead of French shipyards.

I never liked this deal.  I was lambasted on MP.net due to my viewpoint of the deal and thought it was total corruption.

Why do you think it was corruption? 1.2 billion is not bad for two modern 20K ton ships.

France will sign. If it doesn't, all Russia has to do is precisely nothing - until France eventually has no choice but to come back and sign.

Exactly... even without fines Russia is getting its money back and will likely be taking its components off the vessels too... it misses out on introducing two large ships rapidly into service, and will likely have to wait for some time for something similar to enter service, but land changes in the far east in terms of basing and military equipment mean these ships are no longer desperately needed to ensure the safety of territory. They can take their time and get exactly the ships they want now.

A large fleet benefits more from standardisation than a smaller fleet.

I would disagree... if you only have ten ships and three are for anti sub use and three are for air defence and four are dedicated antiship destroyers then you can have three different engine types, with three different main battery missile launchers and different sensors and equipment... it actually makes rather more sense to standardise with one main battery missile launcher like UKSK, then all ten ships can be loaded with anti sub or anti ship or land attack missiles or mixtures... they can all have the same engine, similar sensors... whereas a large fleet you can afford to have very different types.

Standardisation works in both cases to reduce costs and simplify maintainence and support and training.

Just being on friendly terms does not make them allies and superior trade partners of Russia.
Russia's (military) allies are in the CSTO and its best trade partners are the ones which matters the most.

Of course it doesn't make them best buddies... just because Russia sells them stuff doesn't mean Russia should risk anything for them, but if they want to it would be good if they actually could rather than just possibly could.

They claim it for the sake of their anti-Russian narrative. Do not give them credibility by letting them have a point.

You mean Russia should shape its foreign policy to avoid fulfilling the perverted beliefs of those snakes in the grass? Russia should not give them a second thought and should do what suits them when it suits them.

Heli carriers are too vulnerable and important to be based on a potential frontline.
Nor are they needed there, unless you are planning to abandon the location.

Why are they vulnerable? We are not talking about a civilian transport ship filled with helicopters like the British used in the Falklands. These vessels will be military, they will be armed and they will have their own ECM and ESM system to defend themselves....

These are research stations.
There are nations like Chile which claim parts of the Antarctica and maintain stations in Antarctica in order to strengthen their claims.
Russia is not one of them.

Most bases there are supported by the military of that country, why should the Russian bases be different?

That the rear sections were built on time means nothing. Hulls are piss-easy. What our issues often are is with what goes into the hull.
Remember that one of the key sticking points of the original contract was us getting our hands on SENIT.

It was a good deal when we signed it, who would have thought the Ukrainian state would shoot itself in the head.

Only one of the ships was going to have the NATO compatible systems on it, the other was to have all Russian software and systems AFAIK... the current issues they are having are with engines (ie more specifically Ukrainian sourced Gas turbines) and brand new weapons (poliment/redut) and brand new main guns (100mm guns the size and weight of previous generation 76.2mm gun mounts)...

None of these things is relevant to the Mistral or potential replacement vessels.

The reasons for signing the deal made sense and still make sense, the problem is that France has an irrational leader at the moment.

I rather hope they don't deliver them... I think they would be useful vessels, but then I also think carriers would be useful vessels too and I don't think they should start building new carriers any time soon either.

I think they should get the kinks sorted out with their frigates and destroyers and once they are in production and in service in numbers then other vessels should be looked at.

In 2008 the Russian Navy was pretty weak, and it is not super strong now, but I think the urgent need for helicopter carriers has gone, so take time and design something that will be useful and capable and suit Russias needs more accurately.

Serdyukov needs to be shot for high treason. Instead of tasking Russian industry with building these ships he outsourced the
work to Russia's rabid enemy NATO. Russia got no product and lost years as a result.

It's funny how NATO leaders think that Russia is desperate to sell natural gas to the EU and can be coerced to ship
via Ukraine. With comprador scum like Serdyukov I can see how they would think this way. Russia needs to
spend billions on its own industry and not on NATO's industry. A billion dollars spent abroad translates into a total
of 2 billion dollars loss for Russia (minimum since there are amplifier effects as well) since the money is not spent on
domestic economic activity and simply leaves Russia's GDP. Russia could cover a loss of 50% of its EU gas market with
$12 billion per year reduction in imports.

GarryB wrote:Only one of the ships was going to have the NATO compatible systems on it, the other was to have all Russian software and systems AFAIK... the current issues they are having are with engines (ie more specifically Ukrainian sourced Gas turbines) and brand new weapons (poliment/redut) and brand new main guns (100mm guns the size and weight of previous generation 76.2mm gun mounts)...

None of these things is relevant to the Mistral or potential replacement vessels.

The reasons for signing the deal made sense and still make sense, the problem is that France has an irrational leader at the moment.

I rather hope they don't deliver them... I think they would be useful vessels, but then I also think carriers would be useful vessels too and I don't think they should start building new carriers any time soon either.

I think they should get the kinks sorted out with their frigates and destroyers and once they are in production and in service in numbers then other vessels should be looked at.

In 2008 the Russian Navy was pretty weak, and it is not super strong now, but I think the urgent need for helicopter carriers has gone, so take time and design something that will be useful and capable and suit Russias needs more accurately.

Garry B, you say that the Russiam Navy is not super strong right, why is that? How strong is the navy compared to other navies of the world?