Future of the French/Russian Mistral LHDs

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
That actually happened to Argentina a couple of years ago, one of their warships was repossessed while docked in Ghana. I think it's very unlikely the Russian made parts of the ship will be returned to Russia. For one thing they're welded to the rest of the ship, and in any case Russia would have no use for them, since it isn't capable of building the rest of a Mistral by itself.
I think we will see things improve barely enough that France will hand it over, perhaps delayed for a few months.

Its a lot more complicated than just a ship. Russia is not Argentina.

It comes down to does the west want to engage with Russia? How are they going to engage and what happens when things go south.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
From what I see from media and various forum discussion and Russian official statement, their main goal on working with French with Mistral is getting modern ships contruction tech and management ( including but not least modern modular construction mgt and tech). In short, building large ships more efficiently.

They still have design and technical capabilities, and not entirely agree in saying that capabilities is lost during 90's and early 2000'ish manufacturing neglect. But seems they have to catch up much on more efficient construction capabilities and manufacturing mgt, which seems that is one of their main goal in this Mistral co-op with French.

I see that will be the major set back if this co-op has to be terminating before the 2nd batch of Russian Mistral build in Russia commences. They can build another version of Mistral on their own, however whether they already mastered more effective western yards practices with just supporting French yards with their modules parts of Mistral, remain to be seen.
 

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
From what I understand the suspension is going to be reviewed in October or November. There's been talk that the contract may be cancelled and that Russia might seek compensation in an international court, which would at least allow Putin to save face a bit.
It's not a suspension, only a delay, from what I understand the Russians own these vessels, they aren't France's to sell. France can put of delivering them for as long as they want, but sell them, to someone else, I can't see that happening.
 

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
and in any case Russia would have no use for them, since it isn't capable of building the rest of a Mistral by itself.
And what do you base that on? Russia was going to build the 3rd and 4th Mistrals in Russia.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I see that will be the major set back if this co-op has to be terminating before the 2nd batch of Russian Mistral build in Russia commences. They can build another version of Mistral on their own, however whether they already mastered more effective western yards practices with just supporting French yards with their modules parts of Mistral, remain to be seen.
Which I think is the main issue. While I think the Russians can do it, it will most likely be much more expensive and difficult than what they had hoped it would be. Taking up more time and resources to do it. It may also turn out to be less of the "new way" than hoped. It could set back in service dates a decade and could cost a lot more (ie double the cost), resulting in only one more ship being built.

I would imagine the pressure of outside orders would have been useful in driving efficiency in Russian yards. With that now disappearing, that could be the biggest loss for the future of Russian defense.

While I don't know about France holding onto the ship, (and who would buy it?) the French could live with the rest of the deal cancelled. Which is most likely what NATO is really concerned about (not 1 Mistral, but Russia operating 4 with yard improvements to build more large scale projects).

I bet the Spanish are quietly happy the dodge the bullet on this one.
 

JohnT

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #26
And what do you base that on? Russia was going to build the 3rd and 4th Mistrals in Russia.
I'm rather skeptical that that was ever going to happen. For example, in 2008 Medvedev announced that Russia would build a fleet of nuclear powered carriers to enter service within a decade, which of course is baloney . Moscow also claims that it will procure 100 new warships within the next six years, which again is nothing but a fantasy. If Russia was capable of building warships of this complexity and scale then it would not have relied on buying them from a NATO member, which clearly has backfired.

However my main point is that you can't simply cut off blocks of a ship that have been welded together and then attach them to a new ship. Besides, the plan was to build the third and forth vessels in partnership with the French, which at this point is not happening. I also doubt that France would agree to send some parts of the ship back to Russia.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Proceedings:

Stavridis: Russian Mistrals Could Work Well As NATO Rapid Reaction Force Asset

The suspended delivery of two French-built amphibious warships to the Russian Navy could give NATO an opportunity to buy a ready-made platform for its planned rapid reaction force, retired Adm. James G. Stavridis — former NATO Supreme Allied Commander — told USNI News on Thursday."France has made a good decision stopping the sale process — it would be absurd for NATO to be providing assistance to Ukraine on the one hand while selling arms to Russia on the other," said retired James G. Stavridis — U.S. Naval Institute’s Chair of the Board of Directors — said in a statement to USNI News."If the [Russian] arms embargo continues, then the idea of NATO purchasing one or even two as part of a rapid reaction force might make sense… "[But] it is too soon to tell, given discussion today about ceasefires and political settlement."Stavridis comments follow a Wednesday announcement from the office French President François Hollande suspending the delivery of the ships as part of a $1.53 billion program.Citing the continued Russian involvement in violence in Eastern Ukraine, the Hollande administration concluded, "the conditions under which France could authorize the delivery of the first helicopter carrier are not in place."It is yet unclear if the suspension of delivery will be permanent.This week — as part of the ongoing NATO conference in Wales — alliance leaders will likely approve the creation of a, "very high-readiness force able to deploy at very short notice," NATO secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Monday as reported by The Wall Street Journal."This force can travel light, but strike hard if needed."NATO currently has a response force, but the new unit could assemble in two days instead of five.The force that could pair well with the Russian Mistrals, said Eric Wertheim — naval analyst and author of U.S. Naval Institute’s Combat Fleets of the World."I [think] that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization should examine acquiring the two ships as NATO alliance assets operating in support of their newly proposed rapid reaction force," he said.

"Additionally the two 20,000-ton vessels could support NATO mine-countermeasures (MCM) operations or be on standby for humanitarian assistance duties."It wouldn’t be the first time NATO purchased and operated its own military assets."There would be a precedent for joint ownership of NATO maritime and even air assets. NATO has operated the research ship NRV Alliance as well as the oceanographic tender CRV Leonardo," Wertheim said"NATO also operates a fleet of E-3 airborne early warning and control (AWACS) aircraft as well as a force of C-17 cargo aircraft operated by multi-national NATO crewmembers."

The U.S. Navy also experimented with mixed multi-national NATO crews to some success in the 1960s.The inclusion of the Mistrals into the NATO arsenal opens up a range of possibilities for the reaction force.The Russian Mistrals — Vladivostok and Sevastopol — have been modified to carry heavier Russian helicopters and are optimized for Arctic operations, allowing a rare cold weather operating capability for NATO. Most Western ships are optimized to work in tropical climates.The ships could also serve as a logistics sea base for expeditionary forces from NATO without creating a large terrestrial footprint — much like U.S. Navy and Marine Amphibious Ready Groups and Marine Expeditionary Unites. (ARG/MEU).A cancellation of the Russian Mistral deal could have a significant affect on the French defense industry.Russia has paid France most of the price tag for the two ships and a cancellation of the program could result in a total refund plus $325 million in contract penalties, reported the BBC on Thursday."Unless an alternative buyer or use is found for these two ships, cancelation could have a negative impact on their economy, employment and shipbuilding industry," Wertheim said.A NATO purchase could defray that cost, he said.The cancellation would also degrade the long-term outlook for the Russian Navy’s amphibious capabilities."Without the two French Mistral class vessels, Russia’s navy has only a handful of small landing ships, none of which carry helicopters or have flight decks," Wertheim said. "Their newest class of tank landing ships has been under construction since 2004 and have yet to enter service. Without these French ships, Russia remains a decade or more away from gaining a similar capability."Russia contracted France to build the two ships shortly after its 2008 with Georgia. Russian commanders had trouble deploying large numbers of troops on the coast — prompting the deal with France.

Source : USNI
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I believe that the sale will be completed. It ( the suspension of sale) is simply another "tool" to get Putin to curb his aggression.
Historically the French have been closer to Russia than the bulk of NATO plus Hollande is in such a weak position that his left wing union backers will win the day.
It may take 6 months or a year and the deal is such that anything other than honouring the contract becomes a nightmare for DCNS and the govt.
No refs here just gut feel based on France's long held practice of being Russia's "friend" in the western alliance.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
However now that Russia has invaded Crimea perhaps it will build a couple of Mistrals in Sevastopol, using Ukrainian workers and with the experience gained from working on the first two Mistrals.
Those yards are pretty much in shambles. I certainly hope they don't try to do that. It would be a spectacular "dolgostroy" in Russian terminology (something that takes a ridiculous amount of time to finish).
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
"Additionally the two 20,000-ton vessels could support NATO mine-countermeasures (MCM) operations or be on standby for humanitarian assistance duties."
Supporting MCM ops? That's a pretty... American idea. Especially considering no navy in Europe has MCM helos currently, as they're effectively considered a resource hog and loss of both capability and efficiency compared to the manned-vessel/USV/AUV combination currently run. And for the task of moving USVs or for a humanitarian assistance standby, there's older LPDs in European Navies around that certain countries would gladly sell for far less than a newbuilt Mistral...

Creating a NATO MEU? With which troops - provided by whom, with which specializations, and who's gonna pay for that extra? Cuz for the most part, there aren't really any amphibious-specialized forces in Europe that do not already have their designated transport assets. And those who don't have them (any more) may still carry the name, but lost their specialization two decades ago.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Creating a NATO MEU? With which troops - provided by whom, with which specializations, and who's gonna pay for that extra?
And whom are they pressuring to increase defense spending? They also have pretty minimal amphibious capability. Largest economy in europe?

I don't see it all coming together. I don't see France jumping out of the deal and wearing the cost to help NATO and I don't see anyone else covering the cost and paying for Frances choices. I don't see Russia being happy with this either and de-escalating. Im sure the Americans love the idea, but I don't see anyone able to pull it all together and be the glue to make it work.

France has always played a complex diplomatic game.
 

JohnT

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #32
Creating a NATO MEU? With which troops - provided by whom, with which specializations, and who's gonna pay for that extra? Cuz for the most part, there aren't really any amphibious-specialized forces in Europe that do not already have their designated transport assets. And those who don't have them (any more) may still carry the name, but lost their specialization two decades ago.
Seven NATO countries have just agreed to contribute to a 10,000 strong JEF, some of which will be permanently deployed, so I don't see why that couldn't include a marine element. Perhaps those members who don't have high end amphibious units could provide more ground troops, and leave the MEU to those countries that do have it.

However the Mistrals wouldn't have to act purely as amphibious assault ships. They could be used as troop and equipment transports, and as a platform for all types of helicopter operations and humanitarian efforts.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Yep. Can operate as a hospital ship, vehicle/helicopter transport (done by France to get heavy stuff to Mali), evacuation of civilians from hot spots (done by France), helicopter carrier (staying offshore, not landing anything - done) - all sorts of stuff. An LHD is inherently very useful for lots of things other than amphibious landings.
 

Blackshoe

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
It's oversimplification saying that Russia has no ability building Mistral class ships on their own. Building their own version from the scratch is deemed less efficient considering French willingness at that time selling their design. Afterall this first two manufacture in French with parts from Russia and the other two option, where manufacture in Russia.

Are you really sure that by this time Russia has not have Mistrall design already ? For Nation that already build their own Carrier, it's bit degrading saying they do not have capabilities building something like Mistrall on their own..I think this issue has been discussed on the length in various forumd including this one. Please do differentiate between not capable, and business choice for more efficient way.
The thing is, Russia hasn't built a ship this size since the Project 1174/Ivan Rogov-class LSDs in starting in the 1970s, and Yantar is busy building Project 11711s Ivan Grens right now. Prior to that, we're talking about the Prject 68bis/Sverdlov-class cruisers in the 1950s.

All the other large Soviet surface ships-the Moskvas, the Slavas, the Kirovs, the Kuznetsovs? They weren't built in Russia. They were built in Ukraine, and I don't think Nikolaev is going to be open for Russian business anytime soon.

There are really good reasons to doubt the Russians' ability to build such a ship as the Mistrals; their surface ship construction program has not been stellar lately, and they've been shown to have major issues integrating advanced systems into new platforms.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
Well the work for Vikramaditya practically is near to total rebuild, which what was Baku nearly change overall. They've done it in Sevmash and not at Black Sea Shipyard. Don't get me wrong, the work on Vikramaditya 'also' shown much deficiencies on Russian shipyard on constructing large naval vessels project. Which is why the Co-op with France on Mistral projects is essential for them to improve their shipyard capabilities on more efficient construction tech and management on large naval projects.

I just don't agree with the statement that Russian shipyard already lost capabilities for constructing large naval vessels. Vikramaditya shown they still have capabilities (yes Vikramaditya is not build one from scratch, but then it's nearly total rebuild), 'even' it is also shown much deficiencies on their shipyard construction and management for efficient modern large vessels projects.
 

Blackshoe

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Well the work for Vikramaditya practically is near to total rebuild, which what was Baku nearly change overall. They've done it in Sevmash and not at Black Sea Shipyard. Don't get me wrong, the work on Vikramaditya 'also' shown much deficiencies on Russian shipyard on constructing large naval vessels project. Which is why the Co-op with France on Mistral projects is essential for them to improve their shipyard capabilities on more efficient construction tech and management on large naval projects.

I just don't agree with the statement that Russian shipyard already lost capabilities for constructing large naval vessels. Vikramaditya shown they still have capabilities (yes Vikramaditya is not build one from scratch, but then it's nearly total rebuild), 'even' it is also shown much deficiencies on their shipyard construction and management for efficient modern large vessels projects.
As you noted, the Vikramaditya isn't exactly the most successful example of refit. Even if we are counting it as a success, there's a world of difference between working on an existing hull and assembling a new one, and it's the "assembling a new one" part that is very much in question for Russia.
 

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
As you noted, the Vikramaditya isn't exactly the most successful example of refit. Even if we are counting it as a success, there's a world of difference between working on an existing hull and assembling a new one, and it's the "assembling a new one" part that is very much in question for Russia.
It was a "success" in that a floating, working ship EVENTUALLY emerged. It was a complete disaster by any other definition, and provided years of amusement for anyone watching from the sidelines.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
It was a "success" in that a floating, working ship EVENTUALLY emerged. It was a complete disaster by any other definition, and provided years of amusement for anyone watching from the sidelines.
And the Australian government complains about Australian shipbuilding!
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
It was a "success" in that a floating, working ship EVENTUALLY emerged. It was a complete disaster by any other definition, and provided years of amusement for anyone watching from the sidelines.
Well that's exactly how a domestic LHD program would go. Eventually a working ship would emerge. That's why they bought the Mistrals.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
It was a "success" in that a floating, working ship EVENTUALLY emerged. It was a complete disaster by any other definition, and provided years of amusement for anyone watching from the sidelines.
and not to put too fine a point on it, but I've seen some of the French work on the Mistrals and it was pretty awful. They shot themselves in the foot for some euro sales due to that quality control issue

the russians aren't in the same ballpark as the french go, so I would imagine that the quality control problems would be exponential

eg modular sections for flight decks are supposed to be seamless and universally flat when finally joined up. if you can't get an aviation support asset to have that fundamentally done right then question marks appear on the quality of the rest of the build
 
Top