Mistral News thread

The only new ships they have are corvette sized and they are having problems getting new frigates into service.

the sky is not falling... existing types they have experience with like the Talwars (Krivaks) can be produced easily enough but the new vessels have new systems with new electronics and new weapons.

Fortunately once the problems are sorted out they will be able to produce them in large numbers because they are multirole vessels, not specialised small batch ship families.

Once they are producing destroyers... new modern destroyers that will be comparable to cruisers from the 1980s they will have a much stronger force and a much stronger base and ship building industry to grow further. In other words once they have the basics ready they can develop the force multipliers that little nations can't afford and don't have... like helicopter carriers and aircraft carriers.

I think their subs are in a good place, though production has been scaled back at the moment because of the economic situation, that is just normal common sense... don't go into debt, just reschedule production.

kvs wrote: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.

i dont agree on this. When the mistral contract was signed relations with France were different even if at that time it wasnt so far from russia-georgian war. I think Holland now tries to show a face of "the leader that doesn't succumb" because his positive views in France are in record low for French president. Besides that, we see the example of a simple amphibious landing ship (ivan gren) that has passed over 10 years of construction, so even if domestic industry had worked on a plan of an LHD/LHA, in how much time would the first have been delivered?? i dont think so, so fast as Mistrals

Ivan gren though was constantly going back and forth for what it is supposed to be equipped with, added in the issues with some subsystems. Boat in itself was ready, but a lot of bullcrap on the side caused issues.

If they had it cut clear on day 1 what ivan gren was supposed to have, mixed in with already used and proven tech, the ship would have been built and in use significantly sooner. Ships like Gorshkov has issues due to subsystems it seems, so that also will take time to fix.

Ivan gren though was constantly going back and forth for what it is supposed to be equipped with, added in the issues with some subsystems. Boat in itself was ready, but a lot of bullcrap on the side caused issues.

If they had it cut clear on day 1 what ivan gren was supposed to have, mixed in with already used and proven tech, the ship would have been built and in use significantly sooner. Ships like Gorshkov has issues due to subsystems it seems, so that also will take time to fix.

the problem is more fundamental that that.

When you speak to someone who has never owned or used a computer, how do you explain to them what use they are? How do you get someone to realise what a computer can do for them?

Very simply just giving them one is just the start of it... they need to learn about what computers can and can't do well and then match that with the things they want to do or don't want to do... for example having the computer to do computational jobs for them so they don't have to use a paper spreadsheet.

Very simply the Ivan Gren was built and got to testing before they realised it couldn't do some of the things they wanted it to do.

experience with the Ivan Gren and some experience with the Mistrals means they probably have a much better idea of what they do and don't want.

Think of it in the same way they went about UAVs. they could have had a big brain storm and thought of all the things they might want from a UAV and then given that to their MIC to make and then once made they could evaluate them and make requests for changes.

What has worked better is to buy on the international market some UAVs from Israel... even old generation ones... and had a play with them to see what they could and couldn't do. Once they have some experience they will have a better idea of what they actually wanted... and they can keep using the Israeli UAVs for training and experience, so their requests for new capabilities are realistic and will be practical and useful.

Of course they can build a Mistral, but the overall design has already gone through the testing and evaluation process so it is a mature considered and tested design...

Using it as a basis they will be better able to improve things that they think needs improvements (ie icebreaking capability and modifications of weapons and systems.)

It is much easier to add features to a brand new design than to add it to an existing design.

Lots to do to de-Russify the ships. I wonder what the resale limitations are going to be.

PARIS, August 3. /TASS/. French taxpayers run the risk of paying a heavy price for the authorities’ desire to get rid as soon as possible of two Mistral helicopter carriers that were originally built for Russia, the Eco business newspaper wrote on Sunday.

"France proposed to return to Russia the 785 million euros it paid previously. However, apart from the compensation amount, the question of the future of the warships is of paramount importance as well," the newspaper wrote. It noted that the French Navy had three ships of this class, and it did not need the new ones, considering the fact that it had no money to purchase them." "The only possible solution in this situation is to sell the helicopter carriers as soon as possible, even at a low price," the article said.

According to the newspaper, the maintenance of the vessels "costs the DCNS shipbuilding corporation from 1 to 2 million euros per month." "The corporation has no illusions and realizes that the French government will compensate it for far from all expenses," the newspaper wrote. "France urgently needs to find customers. However, Canada often mentioned in this context, is by no means an easy client," Eco wrote, adding that India could too become a potential customer.

The newspaper pointed to the fact that the two warships needed "de-Russification." This concerns, in particular, dismantling the powerful heating system, if a ship will be purchased by India, which doesn’t need such equipment. It’s also necessary to change the system software and resolve a number of other issues related to the helicopter hangars. "All this will require considerable funds, and the potential customers are aware of the fact that Paris is in a hurry to get rid of the vessels. These are by no means perfect conditions for negotiations with the customers. As a result, it is the French taxpayer that runs the hazard of being forced to dip into his pocket to repay part of the costs accompanying the sale of these Mistral warships," the newspaper wrote.

^ I think the biggest problem isn't even that, but finding a buyer.

-French Navy: Obviously doesn't need them, would leech money from perspective frigates that they need much more.
-Canadian Navy: Named as a contender, but nope nope nope. Gov is still running deficits, army spending has already been cut several times, justifying a billion spent for 100% political reasons won't fly after the scandals around the F-35 purchase. Harper won't push something like that through right before an election.
-Aussies? Nope, they have their own.
-India? Biggest possibility, I'm sure their navy would love the new toys, would take a lot of diplomatic wrangling though. I wouldn't bet on it happening though, India's in talks to maybe lease another sub and Moscow could easily use that as leverage.

Maximmmm wrote:^ I think the biggest problem isn't even that, but finding a buyer.

-French Navy: Obviously doesn't need them, would leech money from perspective frigates that they need much more.
-Canadian Navy: Named as a contender, but nope nope nope. Gov is still running deficits, army spending has already been cut several times, justifying a billion spent for 100% political reasons won't fly after the scandals around the F-35 purchase. Harper won't push something like that through right before an election.
-Aussies? Nope, they have their own.
-India? Biggest possibility, I'm sure their navy would love the new toys, would take a lot of diplomatic wrangling though. I wouldn't bet on it happening though, India's in talks to maybe lease another sub and Moscow could easily use that as leverage.

Surely you are not suggesting that Moscow would want the French to suffer by dissuading possible customers?

How about the Indians buy them as they are now and Moscow or even India refits them with all the gear currently sitting in warehouses in Russia?

JohninMK wrote:

Maximmmm wrote:^ I think the biggest problem isn't even that, but finding a buyer.

-French Navy: Obviously doesn't need them, would leech money from perspective frigates that they need much more.
-Canadian Navy: Named as a contender, but nope nope nope. Gov is still running deficits, army spending has already been cut several times, justifying a billion spent for 100% political reasons won't fly after the scandals around the F-35 purchase. Harper won't push something like that through right before an election.
-Aussies? Nope, they have their own.
-India? Biggest possibility, I'm sure their navy would love the new toys, would take a lot of diplomatic wrangling though. I wouldn't bet on it happening though, India's in talks to maybe lease another sub and Moscow could easily use that as leverage.

Surely you are not suggesting that Moscow would want the French to suffer by dissuading possible customers?

How about the Indians buy them as they are now and Moscow or even India refits them with all the gear currently sitting in warehouses in Russia?

Oh c'mon, nobody suggest that...

Just like no one here would ever suggest that India should wait couple of years, until French are desperate enough to practically give them away, before they buy them.

JohninMK wrote:

Maximmmm wrote:^ I think the biggest problem isn't even that, but finding a buyer.

-French Navy: Obviously doesn't need them, would leech money from perspective frigates that they need much more.
-Canadian Navy: Named as a contender, but nope nope nope. Gov is still running deficits, army spending has already been cut several times, justifying a billion spent for 100% political reasons won't fly after the scandals around the F-35 purchase. Harper won't push something like that through right before an election.
-Aussies? Nope, they have their own.
-India? Biggest possibility, I'm sure their navy would love the new toys, would take a lot of diplomatic wrangling though. I wouldn't bet on it happening though, India's in talks to maybe lease another sub and Moscow could easily use that as leverage.

Surely you are not suggesting that Moscow would want the French to suffer by dissuading possible customers?

How about the Indians buy them as they are now and Moscow or even India refits them with all the gear currently sitting in warehouses in Russia?

Sounds good. I don't understand what Maximmmm means either. Maybe the man just doesn't see the big picture.

Surely it would be nice and profitable if France pays for the de-russification of these vessels, sells them to India, and India then pays Russia to russify them again with some Naval Tors or Pantsirs, Paket-E/NK anti-torpedo systems, Dyugon-class landing craft and perhaps Ka-52K, Ka-29 & Ka-27 helicopters

flamming_python wrote:Sounds good. I don't understand what Maximmmm means either. Maybe the man just doesn't see the big picture.

Surely it would be nice and profitable if France pays for the de-russification of these vessels, sells them to India, and India then pays Russia to russify them again with some Naval Tors or Pantsirs, Paket-E/NK anti-torpedo systems, Dyugon-class landing craft and perhaps Ka-52K, Ka-29 & Ka-27 helicopters

Not a bad idea, India buys a good Heli-carrier from France and then buy even better choppers, weaponry from Russia, a win-win relations wise, but this all depends on India's requirements and considering India's schizophrenic procurement strategies, this plan is unlikely to happen.

Looks like the ride is finally over:
http://lenta.ru/news/2015/08/05/mistral/

Lenta is reporting that an agreement was reached during a phone conversation between the two heads of state. An undisclosed amount of money has been returned and the ships will be free for the French to do with as they please after Russian equipment has been taken off.

Maximmmm wrote:Looks like the ride is finally over:
http://lenta.ru/news/2015/08/05/mistral/

Lenta is reporting that an agreement was reached during a phone conversation between the two heads of state. An undisclosed amount of money has been returned and the ships will be free for the French to do with as they please after Russian equipment has been taken off.

yes I believe its confirmed, they also have the news @ RT

http://www.rt.com/news/311682-mistral-putin-hollande-cancel/

Yup a done deal. No figure for the settlement amount given apart from return of money paid. So perhaps no compensation. Also seems France can sell to anyone.

PARIS (Sputnik) — Russian President Vladimir Putin and French President Francois Hollande have made a decision to terminate the contract on construction and delivery of Mistral-class helicopter carriers to Moscow, the Kremlin press service announced Wednesday. "The president of the Russian Federation and the president of the Republic of France have made a joint decision of termination of the contract for construction and delivery of two Mistral-class amphibious assault ships, signed in June 2011," the statement said.

According to the statement, Moscow considers the issue to be fully settled. The French side has already transferred the funds to Russia, and will be able to use both vessels after the equipment is returned.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150805/1025436555.html#ixzz3hyC3b68K

From France 24

President François Hollande's office announced Wednesday that a deal had been reached with President Vladimir Putin to pay Russia compensation for cancelling the delivery of two French Mistral warships over the Ukraine crisis.

Russia would be "fully reimbursed" for the two warships, the Elysée Palace said in a statement.

http://www.france24.com/en/20150805-hollande-putin-agree-compensation-cancelled-mistral-deal

^ Looks like we were right to assume that Putin wanted to keep relations warm with Hollande. Let's hope that 1bil gets put to some good use right now.

i think France will pay around $1.3 Billion , but russia should charge more since russia has already paid them $800 mil , the cost of training the troops should also be included not to mention this puts russia behind by 5 years atleast if russia decides to built thier own

ricky123 wrote:

i think France will pay around $1.3 Billion , but russia should charge more since russia has already paid them $800 mil , the cost of training the troops should also be included not to mention this puts russia behind by 5 years atleast if russia decides to built thier own

Russia seems to be quite good at writing contracts, even so its unlikely consequential loss was in this contract. Also it looks like both sides wanted out with no loss of face on an equal basis. Once that was agreed then neither side was going to 'screw' the other.

I would lay money on one of the French negotiating positions being that they would indeed return all the Euros they received if Russia accepted that any 'other' costs they incurred would be paid from the capital gain on that sum due to exchange rate changes. Plus the Russian shipyards had received money from DNCS for their subcontract work.

Can't see the US being very happy with this, Russia off the hook with a pile of cash in the back pocket.

JohninMK wrote:

ricky123 wrote:

i think France will pay around $1.3 Billion , but russia should charge more since russia has already paid them $800 mil , the cost of training the troops should also be included not to mention this puts russia behind by 5 years atleast if russia decides to built thier own

Russia seems to be quite good at writing contracts, even so its unlikely consequential loss was in this contract. Also it looks like both sides wanted out with no loss of face on an equal basis. Once that was agreed then neither side was going to 'screw' the other.

I would lay money on one of the French negotiating positions being that they would indeed return all the Euros they received if Russia accepted that any 'other' costs they incurred would be paid from the capital gain on that sum due to exchange rate changes. Plus the Russian shipyards had received money from DNCS for their subcontract work.

Can't see the US being very happy with this, Russia off the hook with a pile of cash in the back pocket.

All sweetness and light between the two sides does not stop the French opposition putting the boot in.

PARIS, August 6. /TASS/. Conclusive refusal to supply two helicopter carriers of the Mistral class to Russia has displayed the feebleness of the French government that has to act with an eye to Washington and Brussels in conducting its policies, the deputy of the French National Assembly, Thierry Mariani, who represents the opposition right-off-center Republicans party said on Wednesday.

Hollande has made a concession and France has subdued to pressures from the US and the EU, he twittered, calling August 5 the day of mourning for what had been left of French independence.

Simultaneously, Mariani stressed the substantial financial damage that the disruption of the agreement on Mistrals would bring to France, adding that the authorities preferred hushing up this aspect of the problem for the time being.

The government could not sum up its courage and inform the taxpayers about the amounts of money this political and diplomatic disaster would cost them.

The Kremlin and the Elysees Palace said on Wednesday Russian and France had terminated the agreement on the Mistrals and France was reimbursing the appropriate costs to Russia.

Any chance Russia might have gotten several ready-made French frigate engines as part of compensation? One can dream, right?

PapaDragon wrote:Any chance Russia might have gotten several ready-made French frigate engines as part of compensation? One can dream, right?

Aren't the FREMMs using GE turbines?
But yeah, one can dream

Yuk... don't think much of your dreams...

Having a French or US engine in a Russian frigate would put them in the place they are now with Ukrainian engines... they need that like they need a hole in the head...

GarryB wrote:Yuk... don't think much of your dreams...

Having a French or US engine in a Russian frigate would put them in the place they are now with Ukrainian engines...  they need that like they need a hole in the head...

Exactly.

There is no technical reason Russia shouldn't be producing its own great naval turbines.
It seems it was primarily political, as well as probably beauracratic inertia who saw no need to change things that led the turbines to be continued to be produced in Ukraine.
That will all change now.

Russia has a long history of turbine production for aviation, with many different engines. As one knows, naval turbines are simply aviation turbines at their core, adapted for naval purposes. The LM2500 as used in the FREMM, Arleigh Burke, Italian carrier Cavour, the new Australian Canberra LHD, Kongo, the Independence class littoral vessels, ....etc etc is a design rooted in the 1960's, and is a derivitive of the GE CF6 as used on the first Airbus and DC-10 airliners from almost 50 years ago.

The marine Spey turbine, based on the Spey as used in the Buccaneers and Phantoms in the 1960's, is also about 50 years old, and is still being used in naval vessels that have just been recently built, such as the Dutch De Zeven Provincien class, and Japanese Akizuki Class that was commissioned last year in 2014.

The new Type 45 Daring class uses turbines that "draws heavily on technology from the RR RB211 and Trent families of aviation gas turbines" which are core engines from almost 50 years ago and 25 years ago respectively.

All Russia needs is time to switch existing designs to local production, which is being done, and thereafter start a logical development path.
It doesn't need US, UK, or French engines.

wilhelm wrote:

GarryB wrote:Yuk... don't think much of your dreams...

Having a French or US engine in a Russian frigate would put them in the place they are now with Ukrainian engines...  they need that like they need a hole in the head...

Exactly.

There is no technical reason Russia shouldn't be producing its own great naval turbines.
It seems it was primarily political, as well as probably beauracratic inertia who saw no need to change things that led the turbines to be continued to be produced in Ukraine.
That will all change now.

Russia has a long history of turbine production for aviation, with many different engines. As one knows, naval turbines are simply aviation turbines at their core, adapted for naval purposes. The LM2500 as used in the FREMM, Arleigh Burke, Italian carrier Cavour, the new Australian Canberra LHD, Kongo, the Independence class littoral vessels, ....etc etc is a design rooted in the 1960's, and is a derivitive of the GE CF6 as used on the first Airbus and DC-10 airliners from almost 50 years ago.

The marine Spey turbine, based on the Spey as used in the Buccaneers and Phantoms in the 1960's, is also about 50 years old, and is still being used in naval vessels that have just been recently built, such as the Dutch De Zeven Provincien class, and Japanese Akizuki Class that was commissioned last year in 2014.

The new Type 45 Daring class uses turbines that "draws heavily on technology from the RR RB211 and Trent families of aviation gas turbines" which are core engines from almost 50 years ago and 25 years ago respectively.

All Russia needs is time to switch existing designs to local production, which is being done, and thereafter start a logical development path.
It doesn't need US, UK, or French engines.

I doubt that the problem is technical, it will be manufacturing capacity, which is already at full stretch mainly making turbines for aircraft. It is the setting up of new facilities with machine tools, skilled staff etc that will take the time. Mind you, with a recession looming in the West there may be some opportunities to purchase gear there that can't be made locally in time.

I doubt that the problem is technical, it will be manufacturing capacity, which is already at full stretch mainly making turbines for aircraft. It is the setting up of new facilities with machine tools, skilled staff etc that will take the time

But is Russia atleast doing some efforts to set up new facilities and training new skilled staff? it may take time, but at least they are going somewhere instead of doing nothing at all

Project Canada wrote:

I doubt that the problem is technical, it will be manufacturing capacity, which is already at full stretch mainly making turbines for aircraft. It is the setting up of new facilities with machine tools, skilled staff etc that will take the time

But is Russia atleast doing some efforts to set up new facilities and training new skilled staff? it may take time, but at least they are going somewhere instead of doing nothing at all

Russia is already building other engines needed for various type of ships.

http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/65865/?pid=675274#comments