Future of the French/Russian Mistral LHDs

[hauritz]

the russians have indicated that they are not worried about a delayed delivery - but they will pursue on non delivery

Reading this it is pretty easy to understand why the Russians probably don't really care that much. It seems like France has more to lose than Russia in this deal..

France Will Renege on Mistral Helicopter-Carriers Sale to Russia: President Francois Hollande | Global Research

 

[John Fedup]

Reading this it is pretty easy to understand why the Russians probably don't really care that much. It seems like France has more to lose than Russia in this deal..

France Will Renege on Mistral Helicopter-Carriers Sale to Russia: President Francois Hollande | Global Research

Depending on how much money Russia still owes for these ships, I would agree they might not be in a hurry to receive them given the 40% decline in the value of the rubble relative to the U.S. dollar.

 

[Nick underscore]

Reading this it is pretty easy to understand why the Russians probably don't really care that much. It seems like France has more to lose than Russia in this deal..

France Will Renege on Mistral Helicopter-Carriers Sale to Russia: President Francois Hollande | Global Research

I caught this article and confirms what gf indicated above. The question is how long realistically and financially France can keep both the completed Sevastapol and the Vladivostok (under construction) in this non-delivery status.

Depending on how much money Russia still owes for these ships, I would agree they might not be in a hurry to receive them given the 40% decline in the value of the rubble relative to the U.S. dollar.

I'm sure this contract included FX hedging /caps for both parties, but in this case particularly for the RF govt. If not in the contract the I'm sure through Russian central bank. I believe this is the case on many large long-term delivery based military contracts.

 

[KiwiRob]

Reading this it is pretty easy to understand why the Russians probably don't really care that much. It seems like France has more to lose than Russia in this deal..

If Holland was a French President with some backbone he'd stick two fingers up to Obama and deliver, if I was French I would be ashamed. America shouldn't meddle in European affairs.

I'm pretty sure Russia has the full blueprints to the design, Baltisky did build hull sections, and it shouldn't be too difficult to knock up a complete vessel in Russian yards.

 

[KiwiRob]

Depending on how much money Russia still owes for these ships, I would agree they might not be in a hurry to receive them given the 40% decline in the value of the rubble relative to the U.S. dollar.

What has the USD got to do with a vessel purchased and already paid for in Euros?

 

[John Fedup]

What has the USD got to do with a vessel purchased and already paid for in Euros?

The decline of the rubble relative to the Euro is significant as well but if you are correct and the vessels are paid for then none of this matters.

 

[Blackshoe]

I'm pretty sure Russia has the full blueprints to the design, Baltisky did build hull sections, and it shouldn't be too difficult to knock up a complete vessel in Russian yards.

Yes, because they've been so good at building new ship designs (especially since this would be the largest ship the Russians have built, probably ever) in the last 20 years, especially ones with advanced systems (and even better at integrating those systems together)./sarcasm

 

[Blackshoe]

Eh. It gets complicated. Ultimately France is not required to stop those deliveries by aggression against a friendly nation. It's a decision based on expediency not on principle. Because Russian defense officials don't value the Mistral deal, they're willing to play a game with them, and are putting France in a position where delivering them will look bad, but not delivering them will be expensive. Notice how no similar issues have arisen with say Thales thermals for the T-90 and the T-72B3, or with the Thals TopSight for the MiG-29K and KUB variants.

Thales is a private company and not owned by the French Government is the difference (although DCNS is only majority owned by the French gov, and I'm sure it's way, way more complicated than I make it out to be).

I'm actually somewhat surprised there hasn't been pressure on Thales to stop the deal.

 

[KiwiRob]

Yes, because they've been so good at building new ship designs (especially since this would be the largest ship the Russians have built, probably ever) in the last 20 years, especially ones with advanced systems (and even better at integrating those systems together)./sarcasm

Half these vessels were built in Baltisky Shipyard in St Petersburg so I'd say if they can build half they can built the other half as well. The main slipway is certainly large enough.

Russians have built bigger vessels, by displacement the Artika Class nuclear ice breakers are the same size, the new Project 22220 icebreakers will be bigger. Plus there's been a few classes of aircraft carrying cruisers larger than Mistral, ok they were built in Soviet times, the design bureau still exists as well. Admiralty built a series of ice class tankers in the early 2000's which are bigger than a Mistral.

I have no doubt they can do it, it's all down to political will rather than industrial capacity.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I have no doubt they can do it, it's all down to political will rather than industrial capacity.

Which is the problem, if they say no, Russia gets a billion for each one and they build them anyway, with two to practice on, with more work for Russian yards. Russia wins either way.

What ever the Russians wanted to learn from the french has already happened.

Which is the realization I think the French have come to.

I don't think the Russians and the French will be doing any more deals between them.

 

[Blackshoe]

Half these vessels were built in Baltisky Shipyard in St Petersburg so I'd say if they can build half they can built the other half as well. The main slipway is certainly large enough.

Russians have built bigger vessels, by displacement the Artika Class nuclear ice breakers are the same size, the new Project 22220 icebreakers will be bigger. Plus there's been a few classes of aircraft carrying cruisers larger than Mistral, ok they were built in Soviet times, the design bureau still exists as well. Admiralty built a series of ice class tankers in the early 2000's which are bigger than a Mistral.

The design bureaus for those aircraft carrying cruisers may exist, but the shipyards that built them don't. At least not in Russia anymore, and I don't think Mykolaiv would be interested in doing business right now.

And there's a difference between building civilian ships and building warships; the systems involved bring it to a completely different scale of complexity.

As best I could determine, the last major surface ship the Russians (vice Soviet yards) built was the Project 1144/KIROVs, built at Baltiysky. I'm not sure that's a good analog to a modern ship design and construction project, so it'd be starting over from new, essentially.

Admiralty might be able to do it, but their most recent warship efforts were the Project 677 submarines, which worked out so well they've never been commissioned and the yard went back to building KILO variants.

Finally, money is now an issue, and it's not going to be a matter of just putting money into the project until it finishes, no matter the project or the costs.

All of these spell real trouble to me to the ability of the Russians to pull it off.

Then again, I was under the impression what the Russians really wanted out of the MISTRALs was to learn modern shipbuilding techniques under supervision of the French, which would mean if they aren't going to get them...why bother building one in the first place?

 

[KiwiRob]

The design bureaus for those aircraft carrying cruisers may exist, but the shipyards that built them don't. At least not in Russia anymore, and I don't think Mykolaiv would be interested in doing business right now.

And there's a difference between building civilian ships and building warships; the systems involved bring it to a completely different scale of complexity.

As best I could determine, the last major surface ship the Russians (vice Soviet yards) built was the Project 1144/KIROVs, built at Baltiysky. I'm not sure that's a good analog to a modern ship design and construction project, so it'd be starting over from new, essentially.

Admiralty might be able to do it, but their most recent warship efforts were the Project 677 submarines, which worked out so well they've never been commissioned and the yard went back to building KILO variants.

Finally, money is now an issue, and it's not going to be a matter of just putting money into the project until it finishes, no matter the project or the costs.

All of these spell real trouble to me to the ability of the Russians to pull it off.

Then again, I was under the impression what the Russians really wanted out of the MISTRALs was to learn modern shipbuilding techniques under supervision of the French, which would mean if they aren't going to get them...why bother building one in the first place?

You got that right, the yards in Ukraine, especially those in Nikolayev couldn't built a harbour tug; one important fact you probably don't know is most of the skilled shipbuilders in Ukraine left for Russia long ago, yards which employed thousands and now like ghost towns. Ukraines shipbuilding industry was mostly geared towards Russia, with Russian owners as main clients. Russia now controls the best yard in Ukraine, Zalyv in Kerch.

Depends on the type of civilian vessel you're talking about, nuclear powered icebreakers are complex vessels, so far only Russia has built them (two hulls built in Finland in the 80's, the reactors installed in Russia).

You're also ignoring the fact that Baltisky built hull sections for the Russian Mistrals, which are built to commercial standards not military standards. If they can build hull sections, they can build a complete vessel, it's not rocket science it's shipbuilding.

 

[swerve]

.... Mistrals, which are built to commercial standards not military standards. ...

Commercial commercial standards, or commercial military standards? The latter is becoming very common now - & everything I've heard is that it produces ships which meet & military standards.

Indeed, ships built to naval standards have been classed under commercial rules for warships. The RN has done this. One can therefore say that the Type 23 frigates are built to commercial standards, since they meet a commercial set of rules.

The Type 45 hulls were designed & built to Lloyds Naval Rules. That is, 'commercial' standards.

According to the MN, the Mistrals were the first warships to be fully compliant from the start with MARPOL & SOLAS - i.e. commercial rules. Bureau Veritas & the French navy worked together on BV rules for warships,starting with the Mistrals. BV & RINA developed an adapted set of rules for the FREMMs. So they're all built to 'commercial' standards. All new Danish warships are built to DNV naval rules.

 

[KiwiRob]

From what I know commercial commercial standard, with some RMRS rules thrown in for good measure.

 

[Feanor]

The design bureaus for those aircraft carrying cruisers may exist, but the shipyards that built them don't. At least not in Russia anymore, and I don't think Mykolaiv would be interested in doing business right now.

The Nikolaev yards are in shambles. It doesn't matter whether they want to do business, they simply can't.

And there's a difference between building civilian ships and building warships; the systems involved bring it to a completely different scale of complexity.

As best I could determine, the last major surface ship the Russians (vice Soviet yards) built was the Project 1144/KIROVs, built at Baltiysky. I'm not sure that's a good analog to a modern ship design and construction project, so it'd be starting over from new, essentially.

It's one thing to say it would be difficult, it another to say it would impossible. Given political will and sufficient finance, Russia could certainly build a domestic helicopter carrier.

Admiralty might be able to do it, but their most recent warship efforts were the Project 677 submarines, which worked out so well they've never been commissioned and the yard went back to building KILO variants.

The subs were experimental and the problems seemed to be their sub-systems.

Finally, money is now an issue, and it's not going to be a matter of just putting money into the project until it finishes, no matter the project or the costs.

All of these spell real trouble to me to the ability of the Russians to pull it off.

It remains to be seen. I'm not sure the west can keep the oil price low for a significant period of time. But you may be right.

Then again, I was under the impression what the Russians really wanted out of the MISTRALs was to learn modern shipbuilding techniques under supervision of the French, which would mean if they aren't going to get them...why bother building one in the first place?

Russia needs those helicopter carriers. Quite badly. VMF operations in support of Assad demonstrate the need for force-projection capabilities nicely.

 

[swerve]

...
It remains to be seen. I'm not sure the west can keep the oil price low for a significant period of time. ....

That reads as if you think it's a deliberate policy. Not so! It's due to economies slowing down (including China's - a very big factor indeed, as it's the biggest importer) & OPEC not agreeing to cut production.

If Japan re-opens some nuclear power stations, as the current government hopes to, it'll go down further.

 

[Nick underscore]

That reads as if you think it's a deliberate policy. Not so! It's due to economies slowing down (including China's - a very big factor indeed, as it's the biggest importer) & OPEC not agreeing to cut production.

If Japan re-opens some nuclear power stations, as the current government hopes to, it'll go down further.

Going further..

U.S. shale production is a big supply-side factor, but you couldn't say this trend is related directly to deliberate 'western' policy. U.S. is now pretty much independent of import of oil since 1985..

As you mentioned OPEC not cutting production is an indirect policy and on three levels..
i) Iran is financially hindered (always a 'plus' for some Gulf countries)
ii) US shale operating margins are squeezed (although, this has to go signifacntly lower for this to be realised) and the view is to push some producers out of the mkt
iii) the RF is financially affected and some link this to continuing support of al-Assad

 

[Blackshoe]

It remains to be seen. I'm not sure the west can keep the oil price low for a significant period of time. But you may be right.

The thing is, the West doesn't have to do keep oil prices low, since the Russians balanced their budget at a rate of $105 a barrel (though independent analysts think it's closer to $120 a barrel), which is not a rate that has happened very often (see the graph on the page there).

So it doesn't matter if oil prices stay low, as long as they don't go absurdly high again, Russia can't afford it.

Not that it really matters, since, as Robert Coalson notes, the Russians haven't able to connect oil prices with GDP growth anyway, thanks to corruption.

 

[Feanor]

The thing is, the West doesn't have to do keep oil prices low, since the Russians balanced their budget at a rate of $105 a barrel (though independent analysts think it's closer to $120 a barrel), which is not a rate that has happened very often (see the graph on the page there).

So it doesn't matter if oil prices stay low, as long as they don't go absurdly high again, Russia can't afford it.

Not that it really matters, since, as Robert Coalson notes, the Russians haven't able to connect oil prices with GDP growth anyway, thanks to corruption.

Well it becomes a question of what they will cut. They could cut defense spending but so far they seem to be hell bent on cutting everything but. Even before this price collapse, Russian observers were criticizing the government for not increasing healthcare or education spending enough, while spiking the defense budget, the MVD budget, etc. One of the first steps they have taken in response to the obvious cash shortage they will face is to freeze salaries of government officials. So no more inflation adjustments for them. This is a fairly symbolic move, but it looks very good domestically, and it may make it easier for people to swallow cuts to other sectors, in favor of keeping defense spending high.

That reads as if you think it's a deliberate policy. Not so! It's due to economies slowing down (including China's - a very big factor indeed, as it's the biggest importer) & OPEC not agreeing to cut production.

If Japan re-opens some nuclear power stations, as the current government hopes to, it'll go down further.

There's a war in Syria, and Iraq, Libya is still unstable, and while economies are slowing down, they're not in active recession. Demand for oil, in absolute numbers, should still be increasing. So I do think it's a deliberate policy. The timing is just too perfect.

Of course remember, the OPEC states have all balanced their budgets at oil prices higher then $70. So they will have to do something to avoid their own budgetary problems. And the big ones, like Saudi Arabia, depend on their oil revenue even more then Russia.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm not sure the west can keep the oil price low for a significant period of time. But you may be right.

Its actually the Saudis who don't want to shift their prices within OPEC

There's some enthusiasm with some to blame the US on the current pricing but they aren't the ones that OPEC countries are trying to convince to readjust the prices to keep Russia, Nigeria and Venezuela from having to take responsibility for their economies (these 3 are the ones most affected outside of a sheer desire to turn a profit, these 3 have directly impacted economies)

As for the continual blaming of the US by some on here about the Mistrals, they're conveniently ignoring the fact that its the ex WARPAC countries that are screaming the loudest and have been the ones hammering the French

the continued BS about blaming the US for pushing a freezing of the Mistrals is a cute rewrite of what's actually happening. - ie ite the eastern europeans and some skandinavians who have been belting the french about growing some cojones

But nonetheless the anti-US mantra will strike a convenient cord for some despite the reality of who is actually vigorously berating the french - and its not the US