Russia Arms Purchase: French Mistral or Spanish/Netherlands Rotterdam
This is a discussion on Russia Arms Purchase: French Mistral or Spanish/Netherlands Rotterdam within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; So recently, Russia said that it is in the talks with the Spanish and Netherlands on purchasing a 3-4 Rotterdam ...
Russia Arms Purchase: French Mistral or Spanish/Netherlands Rotterdam
So recently, Russia said that it is in the talks with the Spanish and Netherlands on purchasing a 3-4 Rotterdam Amphibious Assault ships rather than France's Mistral ships. Whether this is real, or an action to get France to sell the electronic systems with the Mistral's, what do you guys think? Which do you think would be a better deal for Russia's interests?
So recently, Russia said that it is in the talks with the Spanish and Netherlands on purchasing a 3-4 Rotterdam Amphibious Assault ships rather than France's Mistral ships. Whether this is real, or an action to get France to sell the electronic systems with the Mistral's, what do you guys think? Which do you think would be a better deal for Russia's interests?
Ok, now I'm looking at some numbers (I'm a little unfamiliar with these kinds of ships). So, the Mistral can carry WAY more than the Rotterdam, it has more punch.
Would Russia be getting more "bank for their bunk" with the Rotterdam's? Don't you think that the Rotterdam's would also fulfill Russia's interests?
I'm not an expert in this area, but in my opinion, I think that Russia would also significantly boost its capabilities with the Rotterdams. I doubt that Russia will be able to persuade France to sell the confidential computer systems which Russia needs.
Does anyone know who owns the IP for most of the electronic stuff? As Decca used to be British company does HMG have any say-so in technology transfer...?
Further to this SENIT-9 appears to be based on NATO interfaces. Surely this is non-exportable? And as for SYRACUSE sat-com surely the NATO standard is [SkyNet] HMG-IP? Does this make full-suite delivery difficult...?
So if the communication equipment is restricted to NATO members, why is Russia complaining about it? Russia demands that it comes "fully equipped" with everything but helicopters and specifically said they want the communication, navigation, and weapon systems. They either have a way to integrate it or want to disect the system.
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,138
Threads:
The ship is mainly meant as an expeditionary command ship, and helicopter carrier. The cargo capacity for troops is considered secondary, if not tertiary. Traditional "desantnie korabli" are meant for that role. Keep that in mind when assessing the options.
The ship is mainly meant as an expeditionary command ship, and helicopter carrier. The cargo capacity for troops is considered secondary, if not tertiary. Traditional "desantnie korabli" are meant for that role. Keep that in mind when assessing the options.
Then why does Russia want the French comm systems so badly? They won't integrate with the Russian systems (I just read an article trashing Russia's comm systems).
The ship is mainly meant as an expeditionary command ship, and helicopter carrier. The cargo capacity for troops is considered secondary, if not tertiary. Traditional "desantnie korabli" are meant for that role. Keep that in mind when assessing the options.
I think this is debatable. The reason I say this is because of two reasons. First, Russia doesn't have any amphibious assault ships which are great tools for projecting power. Not only does their Northwestern Fleet lack one, but also there Pacific Fleet; Russia's trade in the Pacific has been growing and they could use the benefits of an amphibious assault ship.
Second, in late 2009 a Russian general made a very controversial comment. He said that if Russia had the MIstral's, they would have been able to deploy troops within 3 hours (this quote may be a little off, but if you Google it you'll find it) rather than 26 hours in the South Ossetia war. This comment shows that Russia is really considering the troop portion.
Lastly, I could envision Russia deploying one or two Mistrals for anti-piracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
They want not only the system but full ToT. In other words, the ability to integrate the system with current and future Russian comms.
Hmmm, not a bad idea. That would make sense.
Is it worth the price though? Each ship will cost around $750 million USD. Russia has an estimated $10 billion USD budget for procurment. This deal would cost at least $3 billion USD, not including any necessary upgrades, personel, or helicopter purchases. I think Russia should consider the Rotterdams a bit more. Just my opinion.
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,138
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by huskerguy7
I think this is debatable. The reason I say this is because of two reasons. First, Russia doesn't have any amphibious assault ships which are great tools for projecting power. Not only does their Northwestern Fleet lack one, but also there Pacific Fleet; Russia's trade in the Pacific has been growing and they could use the benefits of an amphibious assault ship.
Second, in late 2009 a Russian general made a very controversial comment. He said that if Russia had the MIstral's, they would have been able to deploy troops within 3 hours (this quote may be a little off, but if you Google it you'll find it) rather than 26 hours in the South Ossetia war. This comment shows that Russia is really considering the troop portion.
Lastly, I could envision Russia deploying one or two Mistrals for anti-piracy.
It's the official position of the VMF that the ship will be mainly a command ship. What lower-ranking commanders are thinking for themselves, between the lines, as they consider the purchase is up for debate.
Quote:
Hmmm, not a bad idea. That would make sense.
Is it worth the price though? Each ship will cost around $750 million USD. Russia has an estimated $10 billion USD budget for procurment. This deal would cost at least $3 billion USD, not including any necessary upgrades, personel, or helicopter purchases. I think Russia should consider the Rotterdams a bit more. Just my opinion.
Nice thread guys.
First off the money wouldn't come from the procurement budget. The 2007-2015 re-armament program has no money set aside for the Mistral. If purchased, it would be funded by independent budget allocations. Second off it's a multiyear program. Only the first ship would be bought abroad, the other 3 built in Russia under license, and this would take place over a considerable amount of time. So the cost wouldn't come out of a single year, but out of many years, as payments are made.
Does anyone know who owns the IP for most of the electronic stuff? As Decca used to be British company does HMG have any say-so in technology transfer...?
...& for those who can't be bothered reading, THALES bought a company called RACAL, who originally bought out DECCA.
In other words, THALES (the FRENCH) own the IPR...
...& as for the old DECCA GPS system, well they pulled the plug on that in March 2000. Not bad, killed a system that provided 99.5% accuracy for over 50 years, & was used across the globe by saliors & soliders alike !
So the question is, will our FRENCH colleagues sell the technology to the highest bidder ??
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,138
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve
Why does a command ship need a dock, big vehicle deck, hangar, & full-length helicopter deck?
Those are considered secondary capability, at least from what I can infer. To be perfectly honest, I don't know. I suspect that it's intended as a command ship for major amphibious landings, with the regular transports carrying most of the troops, while the Mistrals providing tac-air, and C4I functions, as well as carrying a decent amount of troops themselves. But that's just guesswork. And it certainly doesn't fit well into the current VMF structure.
Those are considered secondary capability, at least from what I can infer. To be perfectly honest, I don't know. I suspect that it's intended as a command ship for major amphibious landings, with the regular transports carrying most of the troops, while the Mistrals providing tac-air, and C4I functions, as well as carrying a decent amount of troops themselves. But that's just guesswork. And it certainly doesn't fit well into the current VMF structure.
Seem to me that the seems the wrong way round. As those are a central aspect of the design. Especially when C4I and command vessels have got huge superstructures such as the Blue Ridge class and others. Unless their planning to build on the flight deck and fit all the various comm suites. Don't the Russians still want it fitted with Western systems won't that defeat the object of connecting to all the their other stuff from three different arms.
________________
Colin McRae 1961-2007 true champion
Unofficial Royal navy cheering section
