Future of the French/Russian Mistral LHDs

[swerve]

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..

But western governments don't set the oil price! There's this thing called capitalism. Private firms buy oil, refine it, & sell it. Many of their suppliers are state-owned firms, but they're not western, in the sense you mean (oil producers in Europe & North America are private firms), & the biggest group of governments controlling state firms has failed to reach agreement on demanding a higher price.

The west is not Russia. It works differently.

Read the financial & trade press. The talk is of producers undercutting each other, desperate for sales, because new capacity has come on line faster than consumption has gone up. Remember that the former biggest importer has replaced a large proportion of its imports with domestic production of oil & gas, thus taking a lot of demand out of the international market.

 

[Feanor]

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

When I say the west, I don't mean the USA. Russia has made a huge mistake in this crisis, because they've managed to seriously piss off the core European nations. Ex-WarPac has been screaming about Russia forever. Some of them anyways (the ones Russia hasn't bought). Nobody really listened before. Russia has made the mistake of thoroughly alienating their best friends in the west; France, Germany, Italy, etc.

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

Same as above.

But western governments don't set the oil price! There's this thing called capitalism. Private firms buy oil, refine it, & sell it. Many of their suppliers are state-owned firms, but they're not western, in the sense you mean (oil producers in Europe & North America are private firms), & the biggest group of governments controlling state firms has failed to reach agreement on demanding a higher price.

Let's not get off topic into a discussion on the nature of economics. Governments have influence on the price of oil, quite a lot of it. If you disagree with my assessment that's fine, but I think we've clashed over this same subject before. There is a meshing of private and public at the highest levels, which makes the distinction quite flimsy when we're talking about macro-economics.

Well there I go, derailing it myself, after saying let's not. We can continue the discussion in a separate thread in off-topic or pm's.

The west is not Russia. It works differently.

Read the financial & trade press. The talk is of producers undercutting each other, desperate for sales, because new capacity has come on line faster than consumption has gone up. Remember that the former biggest importer has replaced a large proportion of its imports with domestic production of oil & gas, thus taking a lot of demand out of the international market.

So you think we're looking at a long term drop in oil prices? Maybe. We'll see I guess.

 

[swerve]

Long term? Probably not. New fields are expensive, either because they're deep underwater or because they're low-grade stuff such as shale or tar sands, which it's hard to get oil out of. Very few easy & cheap to exploit oilfields are found nowadays, I don't think there'll ever be another Saudi Arabia.

That puts a floor under the long term price, unless there's a revolution in some electricity generating technology.

 

[Nick underscore]

A new owner for the pair of Mistral's is coming closer, with Egypt being mentioned regularly over the last few weeks. On Friday, it was reported that Saudi Arabia may do the purchase/ financing, on behalf of the Egypt.

The recently compeleted canal expansion has created a desire to also expand the capabilities of the Egyptian armed forces. I'm sure the current Yemeni crisis is providing a case for cause. The Saudi's are also financing Lebanon's €3 billion acquisition of French arms, in a bid to modernize its armed forces.

Egypt and others interested in French Mistrals - Reuters

Some details have been provided on the settlement and more details will be released to the French parliament in the next month.

The total refunded monies, include the two advance payments made by Russia of €893mio, plus France also repays Moscow's costs. These include the training of 400 sailors last year and the removal all installed Russain equipment and the incurred shipping costs back to Russia.

France had offered a settlement of €785mio, while Russia has asked for compensation of €1.163bio, according to Russian Kommersant.

Mistral Dispute With Russia Settled, France Eyes Exports

 

[swerve]

IIRC Egypt has denied that it is interested.

 

[CheeZe]

China might want them. It'd give them three carriers. Though there's also the possibility that China would buy them just to sell them to the Russians.

Do we know how much France is considering each one for?

 

[swerve]

1) They aren't carriers, & can't be converted to fly anything China has or can get except helicopters.
2) They're not for sale to China.
3) As much as it can get.

 

[CheeZe]

So ... it's not a helicopter carrier?

Where do you have the information that its not for sale to China?

 

[Goknub]

No, it's an amphibious assault ship or a Landing Helicopter Dock. Carrier means fixed wing and the Mistrals don't even have a ramp for STOVL aircraft.

Giving the politics between the US and China, if France were to even attempt to sell them it'd probably end the military relationship between them and the US.

 

[CheeZe]

That is an aircraft carrier. The Mistrals are listed as helicopter carriers by the French. Both helicopter and aircraft carriers fall under the category of carriers. Thus, if theoretically purchased by China, such a sale would give them three carriers.

Politics would, conceivably, have prevented DCNS from even making a Russian sale in the first place even before the Ukraine annexations by Russia. The 2008 war in Georgia and disagreements between the US and Russia over Syria were already eroding their relationship. But politics allowed the Russians to do as they pleased. I hardly think the Obama administration has the courage to do anything quite so drastic, considering how it hasn't done anything drastic in foreign policy terms.

I don't see politics between the US, France and China being the only reason to stop a potential sale in that direction. If anything, it would be swerve's roundabout way of saying China has no use for such a platform.

The one I'm surprised to see on the list is Singapore. I wasn't aware MinDef was looking to acquire that sort of large helicopter deployment capability. Nor did I think the Mistral suited the RSN's needs given its size.

 

[vonnoobie]

That is an aircraft carrier. The Mistrals are listed as helicopter carriers by the French. Both helicopter and aircraft carriers fall under the category of carriers. Thus, if theoretically purchased by China, such a sale would give them three carriers.

Politics would, conceivably, have prevented DCNS from even making a Russian sale in the first place even before the Ukraine annexations by Russia. The 2008 war in Georgia and disagreements between the US and Russia over Syria were already eroding their relationship. But politics allowed the Russians to do as they pleased. I hardly think the Obama administration has the courage to do anything quite so drastic, considering how it hasn't done anything drastic in foreign policy terms.

I don't see politics between the US, France and China being the only reason to stop a potential sale in that direction. If anything, it would be swerve's roundabout way of saying China has no use for such a platform.

The one I'm surprised to see on the list is Singapore. I wasn't aware MinDef was looking to acquire that sort of large helicopter deployment capability. Nor did I think the Mistral suited the RSN's needs given its size.

No it is not an aircraft carrier, An Aircraft carrier operates or has the ability to operate fixed wing aircraft, The Mistral's do not have that capability at all as they lack not only the facilities to support them but also the ski jump needed to launch them.

And they will not be sold to China for one simple but very big factor, The EU has an arms embargo on China. But if you want to go further into it they simply dont have any fixed wing aircraft to operate off of them, They could only use choppers.

Singapore is no real surprise, The Mistrals only require a small crew at most times and size wise they are not really that big, nor is it beyond there financial capabilities or military capabilities for that matter.

 

[CheeZe]

No it is not an aircraft carrier, An Aircraft carrier operates or has the ability to operate fixed wing aircraft, The Mistral's do not have that capability at all as they lack not only the facilities to support them but also the ski jump needed to launch them.

And they will not be sold to China for one simple but very big factor, The EU has an arms embargo on China. But if you want to go further into it they simply dont have any fixed wing aircraft to operate off of them, They could only use choppers.

Singapore is no real surprise, The Mistrals only require a small crew at most times and size wise they are not really that big, nor is it beyond there financial capabilities or military capabilities for that matter.

If you read my post, you will see that I am not calling the Mistrals aircraft carriers. I am rebutting others who do not consider the class to be carriers at all. I have never maintained that they are aircraft carriers. Only carriers in the broader sense of the term.

It's big compared to what we currently have. The Endurance class is the biggest we have and the Mistrals outmass them considerably. I don't doubt we have the money nor the military capability. I just don't see this being something we can use since our helicopter fleet isn't so big that we need a Mistral. Nor does the RSN or Army often make battalion sized deployments overseas. AFAIK, the last big deployment was East Timor. The Iraq/Afghanistan deployments were medical or military support teams rather than combat troops.

 

[t68]

If you read my post, you will see that I am not calling the Mistrals aircraft carriers. I am rebutting others who do not consider the class to be carriers at all. I have never maintained that they are aircraft carriers. Only carriers in the broader sense of the term.

It's big compared to what we currently have. The Endurance class is the biggest we have and the Mistrals outmass them considerably. I don't doubt we have the money nor the military capability. I just don't see this being something we can use since our helicopter fleet isn't so big that we need a Mistral. Nor does the RSN or Army often make battalion sized deployments overseas. AFAIK, the last big deployment was East Timor. The Iraq/Afghanistan deployments were medical or military support teams rather than combat troops.

RSN was looking at expanding the Endurance class into a LHD with a small fixed wing capability, they also had a demonstration from memory on the F35B in the US and they seemed interested but have not heard anything for some time

 

[swerve]

So ... it's not a helicopter carrier?

Where do you have the information that its not for sale to China?

The word 'carrier', not qualified by 'helicopter' is only used for fixed-wing aircraft carriers. Ditto 'aircraft carrier'. Helicopters are aircraft, but it is generally understood that they are not meant by the word 'aircraft' in 'aircraft carrier'. This is for historical reasons: aircraft carriers existed before helicopters, so the term came to mean exclusively carriers of fixed-wing aircraft.

To refer to a helicopter carrier, one must use the word helicopter. Language is like that - not always consistent.

As vonnoobie says, there is an EU arms embargo on China in force, which France subscribes to. It's not complete, but it covers warships. China could buy such things as the engines (dual-use, & there's no military end-use control in force on them) but not the ships.

 

[Feanor]

IIRC Egypt has denied that it is interested.

Egypt has publicly denied interest. Though I heard rumors of negotiations with the Saudis.

 

[Ranger25]

Egypt has publicly denied interest. Though I heard rumors of negotiations with the Saudis.

Makes sense for Both parties. They're both(Egypt and Saudi) involved for the first time in some expeditionary warfare in Yemen. Perhaps they're realizing the utility of the Class.

 

[swerve]

But that's expeditionary warfare across a long land border.

 

[Ranger25]

But that's expeditionary warfare across a long land border.

My understanding is that some of the armor I. Place was deployed over the water into Aden?

 

[Feanor]

My understanding is that some of the armor I. Place was deployed over the water into Aden?

It apparently was. Then again the Saudis buy things not for real needs but seemingly based on the "oooh shiny" factor.

 

[Joe Black]

RSN was looking at expanding the Endurance class into a LHD with a small fixed wing capability, they also had a demonstration from memory on the F35B in the US and they seemed interested but have not heard anything for some time

Some references of Singapore's LHD (or locally called JMMS):
Navy Careers - Our Assets | Future Development

Singapore’s Aircraft Carrier Ambitions | Defence Aviation

Exposed: Singapore's Aircraft Carrier in Disguise | The National Interest