Hmm...

It's hardly a "warship", but an Assault vessel capable of deploying a battalion, if that. I can understand why the French did it, as it boosts cooperation and gets the French a nice little boost to their own shipbuilding.

However, what kind of technology is being transferred in this deal? I note that they will be part built in Russia, so there will be a technological boost to their own shipbuilding, which is in dire need of it.

I dont think it is too much to be concerned about, at the end of the day. It's not as if they are selling them advanced Frigates or Destroyers.

Well as France is not a member of NATO, this poses no conflict of interest for either party, does it? Just one capitalist nation trading with another, one big happy family. Freedom!

Well, Israel just sold them USraeli UAV technology. I wouldn't be surprised when the day comes the American hick soldiers are routed by their own tech.

It will be equipped with all the "bells & whistles", including high flying surrender flag?

Just my 2-cents

[edit on 2-10-2009 by Aggie Man]

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost
Well as France is not a member of NATO, this poses no conflict of interest for either party, does it? Just one capitalist nation trading with another, one big happy family. Freedom!

France is a member of NATO

They rejoined this year, April 4th to be exact.

Originally posted by Ulala
would you be happy with this kit under their command ?

Doesn't bother me one bit if Russia wants to waste their money. Russia is about as worrisome as a cloudy day.

What does this say for Russian shipyards? Have they slid that far from their cold-war capabilities that they're now buying their ships from elsewhere?

I find it weird. Russian president declared that Russia plans to build 5 aircraft carriers in the next two decades. And yet they have to buy much smaller ships from France? I fail to see how it connects. Mistral-class ships and technology connected with them is surely not enough. And the fact that Russian federation cannot built this kind of ships is by itself very weird.

I stand corrected! I forgot all about that. I wonder if NATO should be thanking Sarkozy or cursing him?

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
What does this say for Russian shipyards? Have they slid that far from their cold-war capabilities that they're now buying their ships from elsewhere?

Russia no longer has access to the Ukrainian shipyards (e.g. Nikolayev), so that may be a reason. Although they still have indigenous capacity (e.g. St Petersburg) it is probable these yards are a victim of under-investment due to the decline in Russian naval spending post Cold War.

I imagine that part of the deal would be the modernisation of Russian shipbuilding capability - both infrastructure and skills. Would the deal include license building the hulls in Russia?

Regards

I love these threads!

Why the hell do you guys think war is so profitable? Corporations know no loyalty. They will sell to whoever will buy! They don't care who's side you are/we are on. That's why war will never end............there is too much profit for it. Is it the rich CEO's who work for Lockheed and Boeing who are out fighting wars? Is it the rich French CEO out fighting wars? Is it the greedy politicians aligning themselves with and sucking off these military industrial companies out fighting wars? HELL NO! It's some impressionable, young, naive, farmboy from Nebraska fighting like a puppet on a string!

This racket of wars has been going on for 100+ years. And what do we do? SUPPORT THE TROOPS!

For those wondering why Russia isn't building the ships itself - it is not because Russia has no ship building capabilities or modern shipyards. In order for Russia to build its own ship like the Mistral, it will need to be designed from the ground up, as similar Cold-War era Soviet designs are too outdated. After the lengthy design phase, it will take many years to enter development, testing, and finally production stage.

Meanwhile Russia sees an urgent need for an assault ship like Mistral right now, based on the lessons of the South Ossetian war. Russia has adequate amount of submarines, destroyers, and missile cruisers in its fleet, but it is seriously lacking in assault ships. So buying the Mistral is a stopgap solution, untill Russia develops and builds their own counterpart ships.

Furthermore, Russian shipyards are operating or soon will be at near capacity. There is a number of new submarines being laid up, belonging to Lada and Borei class, and the Steregushchy class corvettes. Then there is a number of submarines and surface ships undergoing repairs and upgrading.

So buying the Mistral class ships from France makes sense as a stopgap solution. Russia does lack shipbuilding capacity compared to some Western countries, but it is not in as critical shape as some people here state.

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
I find it weird. Russian president declared that Russia plans to build 5 aircraft carriers in the next two decades.

The "5 aircraft carrier" announcement is a very ambitious project. There is no telling what the needs of the Russian navy will be more than a decade into the future, let alone who will lead Russia and whether the new President will want to continue the project.

And even if the carriers did get the full go ahead, two decades is a long time to wait for something that might suddenly become urgently needed. The South Ossetian war was a lesson to the Russian armed forces, of the need to have readily available assault ships capable of deploying a battalion in areas not immediately reachable from Russian territory.



It would be interesting to speculate where these 4 ships would be based. My guess is that one or two in the Black Sea and the rest in the Baltic. Or even more interestingly, Russia has for a long time been holding talks to station navy ships at Tartus base in Syria. Could this be part of the same plan?

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
And yet they have to buy much smaller ships from France? I fail to see how it connects. Mistral-class ships and technology connected with them is surely not enough.

Assault ships capable of deploying armored battalion and infantry are different from aircraft carriers. A full scope navy needs both types of ships for maximum operational effectiveness. Plus, the carriers are more than a decade away from production, and Russia needs something to fill the gap now.

And of course the Mistrals are not enough - but Russia has other ships/submarines under development itself. The assault ship like Mistral is the only type of vessel missing from the Russian navy, with no available design plans or experience.

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
And the fact that Russian federation cannot built this kind of ships is by itself very weird.

It can, but it will be more costly and far longer for Russia to do it itself. It is more efficient for Russia to focus building ships that it has a lot of experience with and has available designs - like submarines, corvettes, missile cruisers, and even carriers.

Originally posted by eldard
Well, Israel just sold them USraeli UAV technology. I wouldn't be surprised when the day comes the American hick soldiers are routed by their own tech.

Yup, Ignorance at it's best. Did you really have to call Americans hicks? I mean was that really necessary? Why so negative? Do I call you names? Do I act like I am any better than you? Deny Ignorance plz.

P.S. Until you have the spine to tell that to a marine's face I would refrain from saying that here where you have a little baby blanket you like to call anonymity.