france has refunded Russia over their Mistral class carriers [Archive]

Ian Corrigible

10th Aug 2015, 11:31

I wonder if Russia got it's money back in Roubles, or a 'hard' currency like the Euro?
Per a post from the main Mistral thread, the deal was Euro-denominated (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/546881-well-done-france-5.html#post8793076).

Anyone got a requirement for two helicopter assault ships?
Saudi Arabia is supposedly "desperate" to buy them for Egypt (http://www.france24.com/en/20150807-france-mistral-warship-egypt-saudi-arabia-repurchase).

Heathrow Harry

10th Aug 2015, 12:35

I can imagine a number of people would be interested - they'd be right of the shelf for a start................. and very capable too

skydiver69

10th Aug 2015, 15:37

Are they better than HMS Ocean or the two Albions or are they too different in their design and intention to draw a direct comparison?

AnglianAV8R

10th Aug 2015, 16:07

"or a 'hard' currency like the Euro?"

Really ? We live in a strange world... The Euro is the classic 'fiat currency', yet Russian has been steadily increasing its gold reserves to support the ruble.

Of course, it all comes down to a question of confidence...... Which just goes to show that our currencies are a con trick ;)

KenV

10th Aug 2015, 19:33

"or a 'hard' currency like the Euro?"

Really ? We live in a strange world... The Euro is the classic 'fiat currency', yet Russian has been steadily increasing its gold reserves to support the ruble.

The term "hard currency" has nothing to do with a gold standard or with gold reserves backing the currency.

Heathrow Harry

12th Aug 2015, 10:40

"Are they better than HMS Ocean or the two Albions or are they too different in their design and intention to draw a direct comparison?"

"Ocean" - LPH 1998 22500 tonnes 17 kt 12 Sea King + 6 Lynx; 285 ships crew+ 206 air support - max 1275

"Albion"- LPD 2003/2004 18500tonnes 18 kt 4 landing craft + 2 Chinook sized spots 325 ships crew + 303 to 708 troops

"Mistral" - LHDM/BPC -2006-2012 16794 tonnes 19 kt 4 landing craft + 6 spots for CH-53 or Osprey (hangar space for 16 Puma) 160 ships crew +400-900 troops

so a lot cheaper to man and probably the same as Ocaan & Albion in capability - but you get both in one ship

TBH we'd be better off with 4 of these rather than the QE class carriers

Heathrow Harry

28th Aug 2015, 14:31

Apparently Egypt are first in line with Singapore and Canada also interested

KenV

3rd Sep 2015, 20:54

Now UAE has officially declared interest. Who knows, maybe France will have a bidding war on their hands.

UAE Confirms Interest in Mistral Ship (http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2015/09/03/united-arab-emirates/71651330/)

Heathrow Harry

5th Sep 2015, 09:15

Lot of benifit to be able to buy off the shelf rather than bespoke - at least you know the damn things exist and are operating......

Navaleye

7th Sep 2015, 09:35

Am in Toulon today and have been aboard FS Dixmude and I can tell you they are very capable ships. I'm all in favour of a raid on St Nazaire and grabbing a couple. On FS Forbin later, should make an interesting comparison to a T45

Tourist

7th Sep 2015, 10:35

"
so a lot cheaper to man and probably the same as Ocaan & Albion in capability - but you get both in one ship

TBH we'd be better off with 4 of these rather than the QE class carriers

Harry

Do you really think the world works like that?

If the same vessel does both roles, the space on board has to be compromised.

Don't get me wrong, Ocean is an awful warship in many ways and built to civvy not naval standards, but at least it has hangar space.

Re your comparison with the QE.

Does the fact that you have no knowledge of naval aviation whatsoever not cause you to hesitate for even a moment before demonstrating it on this forum?

salad-dodger

7th Sep 2015, 10:40

Lot of benifit to be able to buy off the shelf rather than bespoke
Lots of disadvantages with buying COTS too.........

S-D

Navaleye

7th Sep 2015, 12:40

Three Mistral's in Toulon today and CdeG. They haven't been to sea in quite some time due to France being broke.

They will take any offer they can get for the two ex Russian ships once the have stripped out the Russian kit.

Biggus

7th Sep 2015, 16:39

Tourist,

While not specifically defending HH, I feel that I should point out that "..having no knowledge whatsoever..." of a subject hasn't stopped a great many ppruners commenting on numerous threads over many years!!

Heathrow Harry

7th Sep 2015, 16:59

Tourist

7th Sep 2015, 17:49

Tourist - my comment was based on the likely use of any RN vessel - the surface fleet spends almost all of its time on anti-piracy patrols, anti-drug patrols, humanitarian relief and small scale interventions

The QE & PoW will suck personnel and cash out of the rest of the fleet - and we'l lprobably only be able to have one active at any time

far better to have four Mistral's TBH

Utter cr@p.

Understandable that a passing civvy might think that, perhaps, because that's what the recruitment videos show, but actually the RN does other stuff most of the time.

Biggus

All too true.....

Bigbux

7th Sep 2015, 22:19

Perhaps we could persuade Mr Cameron to part with some more of the £13n overseas aid budget and buy them. Flotel, international aid platform, refugee lifeboat - ideal.

And whilst I'm sure we will all bask in the glory of having 2 mahoosive aircraft carriers; they are overkill for our foreseeable level of use for them. The deck size and shape are designed for cat & trap ops - fill it with helicopters if you like but its one hell of a hi-value asset to go skulking around the littoral with. They will take some defending and we don't have that many assets to throw around.

Tourist

8th Sep 2015, 07:18

And whilst I'm sure we will all bask in the glory of having 2 mahoosive aircraft carriers; they are overkill for our foreseeable level of use for them.

I feel I should congratulate you on your ability to foresee the next 50 years.

Out of interest, did you foresee the Falklands War?
9/11?
Fall of the Berlin Wall?
Arab Spring?

No?

Bigbux

8th Sep 2015, 21:53

The fall of the Berlin Wall was actually quite predictable; however, I was totally unaware of the pivotal role that British Aircraft Carriers played in it.

rh200

8th Sep 2015, 23:27

I was totally unaware of the pivotal role that British Aircraft Carriers played in it.

The Falklands campaign helped convince the soviet empire that western military might and will power, could not be overcome. Hence robbed them of the will to continue the fight, hence helped bring down the wall.:E:p

Bigbux

9th Sep 2015, 21:44

The Falklands campaign helped convince the soviet empire that western military might and will power, could not be overcome. Hence robbed them of the will to continue the fight, hence helped bring down the wall.:E:p

Nice angle, I'll take it!:D

Heathrow Harry

10th Sep 2015, 12:10

"Actually the RN does other stuff most of the time"

but then they never tell us about it??? Seriously?????

these days the meeja are filled with press promotion stuff from all the armed forces on just about everything

I'm sure the RN would put in anything worthwhile.............. if only to impress their Lords & Masters

glad rag

10th Sep 2015, 14:01

That advert is very good, you know the one; born in... made in the royal navy...it does portray the challenges very well.

:D

All the RAF does is show some diversity promo and speeded up video of tiffies....:yuk:

oldgrubber

10th Sep 2015, 20:08

HH,
I would like to think that you are just having a “wind up” with your posts because they are; to put it mildly a bit childish if not meant in jest. If you were joking, then fair game you got me.
I was Navy for 33 years and although I have worked with the RAF and the Army I wouldn’t have a clue about their big picture tasking, deployments, drafts, jollies, etc, etc, etc. With this in mind I wouldn’t risk posting a statement (or statements) like those contained in your posts on this thread. (About them)
I certainly didn’t spend all my time off the coast of Somalia or the Falklands so I’m not sure what Navy you’re referring to, but I did do all of the above as you stated and much more.
Operating one carrier at a time may be the plan anyway, so rather than just being a result of having insufficient manpower and resources, having an immediate readiness vessel which is operated “turn and turn about” could actually be a damn good way of having a capability with the ability to expand in time of emergency. Don’t forget, we did just that with the three Invince class for years and with everyone lean manned too far it is actually another way of keeping the bean counters happy.
As for self-promotion, the Royal Navy is and always will be pathetic at telling people what they have done/are doing. We are good at moaning when we have lost another capability due to seeming inept top level leadership, but by then its usually too late. If the Admirals and Generals and Air Marshals sorted things out by measuring todgers, we might win once in a while.
Or maybe not Ha Ha.

Cheers now

Heathrow Harry

11th Sep 2015, 12:05

I'm not winding anyone up

You'll find similar arguments to mine - the QE's will stress manning, the surface navy's main tasks over last 30 years have been anti-piracy etc we' need more Mistral type vessels - echoed by such diverse people as Steve Bush of "Warship World", Conrad Waters and his contributors in "World Naval Review", Janes, Nick Childs "Britains Future navy" etc etc

I really believe that a single carrier isn't going to add much and may well affect the number of more useful, smaller surface vessels we'll be able to buy and operate

I know a lot of people on here would love to go back to a multi-carrier fleet but it ain't going to happen - the main reason we lose capabilities is not due to inept leadership but to escallating costs and the refusal of the electorate to pay taxes and spend on defence at the rates we did from 1939- 1978

The front line in the Navy are like the other forces - trying to stretch what they have to do everything they used to do - and they do an amazing job - but eventaully the cracks start to show.

It isn't fair on them and we're conning ourselves if we continue to believe we can do everything at current rates of expenditure

switch_on_lofty

11th Sep 2015, 21:45

Single Carrier - No. Hence Continuous Carrier Capability.
http://c69011.r11.cf3.rackcdn.com/512fb1c910044d51a836fe3856d5620f-0x0.pdf

Manning challenges - Yes.
The hidden crisis - Royal Navy manpower | Save the Royal Navy (http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-hidden-crisis-royal-navy-manpower/)

The "born in X but made in the RN" ads. Not sure we really want to aim for people who "didn't like school" or "exam results weren't great" but apparently it's striking a chord with the yoof of today.

Heathrow Harry

20th Sep 2015, 16:14

Hmmm - not sure we'll be able to operate two - or even one and a half

as for "Not sure we really want to aim for people who "didn't like school" or "exam results weren't great" I totally agree but you can only select from the volunteers - and right now the Navy isn't exactly a career aspiration for many young people

in the past you could alwys flog the "see the world" story but these days they can go anywhere on their own bat

best to emphasise the technical training they get I think - the RN and the RAF have a real edge over the Army in that regard

HAS59

21st Sep 2015, 12:12

HH, you give us all a laugh, keep it up mate.
The Mistral Class is very good at what it does – but there are a lot better ships out there for that role. The RN do NOT need them, we have Ocean, which is not brilliant but okay for now. We also have the two LPD’s, again not very good but okay for now.
What we will have is two large carriers for the next 40 to 50 years.
Now if you don’t know what the value of having a large carrier is then … I feel for you. You clearly have not been paying attention.
The navy will operate what it has and what it will have despite the difficulties they may face. That’s what the services do. The QE2 is an asset that has been designed to be adaptable to accommodate future aircraft types. No-one knows what challenges the ship(s) will face in the future, but having the ships operating and the crews trained in a multitude of tasks (which the whole world need not know about) makes us all safer.
Mistral … pah!

JointShiteFighter

21st Sep 2015, 14:14

and small scale interventions

Really? The "small scale interventions" you speak of, in my lifetime at least, have been anything but! Something that requires assets from all three services is a large and significant Operation. It doesn't have to be an enormous Task Force such as the Falklands campaign to be a "large scale" intervention....

Heathrow Harry

21st Sep 2015, 15:22

HAS59 - I'm only repeating what a variety of people who are more expert than I are saying in print

see last years Save the Navy website

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-hidden-crisis-royal-navy-manpower/

Around 31,00 RN personnel - and they were short

"This can be illustrated by figures for the escorts; the minimum trained crew requirement for the Type 23 Frigates is 2,060, with 180 vacant positions. The Type 45 destroyers require at least 1,010 but are 80 people short. On average these ships are putting to sea missing about 8% of their required crew, putting additional stress on their ships companies and undermining their resilience"

and you are going to have to find around 1500 extra crew for each carrier according to Jane's

Sure a carrier gives you additional capabilities - but if they are at the expense of current capabilities you are robbing Peter to pay Paul

ImageGear

23rd Sep 2015, 15:12

Offloaded indeed...and what will Egypt do with them..?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34335224

President Francois Hollande and Egypt's President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi "agreed on the principle and the terms of the acquisition", a statement said.

France halted the planned sale to Russia in late 2014, following the conflict in eastern Ukraine.

It has not divulged how much Egypt will pay for the warships, but Paris insists it is not out of pocket.

Differences over the cost had been reported during the French-Egyptian negotiations.

Russia agreed to buy the two warships - which can each carry 16 helicopters, four landing craft and 13 tanks - in a 2011 deal worth €1.2bn (£843m; $1.3bn).

Russia had paid about €840m in advance before the deal was stopped as the Ukrainian conflict erupted with Russia's annexation of Crimea.

After intense negotiations, Paris finally agreed in August to fully reimburse Russia, as well as foot the bill for training sailors and building port infrastructure in Vladivostok.

Scepticism

Egypt is fighting a long-running insurgency in its northern Sinai region.

That conflict intensified after the military overthrew Islamist President Mohammed Morsi in 2013.

The government has also launched an extensive crackdown on Islamist groups, including mass death sentences for members of Mr Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood.

This is only Egypt's latest purchase of military hardware from France.

Earlier this year, Egypt also bought 24 advanced Rafale fighter jets from France - prompting complaints from human rights groups that there was mounting evidence that Egypt had committed war crimes when it bombed Libyan targets.

oldgrubber

23rd Sep 2015, 19:44

HH,
Apologies for the "childish" remark before, it was a bit ...childish.
I aknowledge the fact that these people are published and apparently experts in there field but have they actually done it. Have they gone to war in a big grey canoe, or rendered aid, or launched an aircraft etc etc etc.
Once again you quote figures that imply a continuous operation of both carriers, when at the moment that is not the preferred option.
I can tell you that sending a ship to sea won't happen if key personnel are missing, the skipper will call opdef and someone will get a pier head jump to fill that billet.
Of course the Navy is undermanned, we all know that getting bumped from one sea draft to another is a sure fire way to encourage PVR, hence sign on bounties and easy access to mortgage advances of pay are used to entice and tie in personnel to longer periods of service. (not so easy to PVR when you have a mortgage to pay). The Navy are also notoriously bad at accrediting technical training to align with other forces and civvy institutes, just ask the lads and lasses who thought FAA Technician training would get them accredited properly. (not me I was too old)
The current capabilities are severely hamstrung by having no fast jet FAA, that is a fact (and I was a pinger/bagger not a zoomie, so that statement hurt). So an aircraft carrier IS essential to the Royal Navy, the RAF can't supply that capability everywhere, that is a fact; so Peter is just going to have to man up and pay up.

Cheers now

Heathrow Harry

25th Sep 2015, 14:49

No problem

Can't speak for all the "authorities" quoted but I know Steve Bush of "warship World" served as an officer for quite a while in frigates and destroyers and was in the '91 Gulf War

Nick Childs is/has been Defence Correspondent for the Beeb World Service and worked for Janes Defence Weekly and has been to most conflicts since '82.

Conrad Waters uses a long list of ex-Navy (or rather ex-navies) writers and Janes is.... Janes.........

I wish you were right that the Govt would cough up some more cash for defence AND explain in straight terms that this is NECESSARY to the Great British Public - but they are scared of being flamed on Twitter etc - truly pathetic

PS God knows what the Egyptians are going to do with the Mistral's - power projection in N Africa and the Red Sea - but it looks an expensive way of doing it......................

Out Of Trim

25th Sep 2015, 22:43

God knows what the Egyptians are going to do with the Mistral's - power projection in N Africa and the Red Sea - but it looks an expensive way of doing it......................

Perhaps, Egypt will sell them to Russia! :E

rh200

26th Sep 2015, 10:57

Perhaps, Egypt will sell them to Russia!

Don't laugh, probably suggested by the French.:p

Heathrow Harry

26th Sep 2015, 11:00

swap them for the fighter aircraft they're buying....................

you buy, you sell.......

racedo

27th Sep 2015, 22:23

Perhaps, Egypt will sell them to Russia! :E

Didn't the French require Russian approval who to sell them to because of end user certificates etc ?

Heathrow Harry

28th Sep 2015, 16:18

I suspect a French End User Certificate look s very like an Sales Order

and if the Russians get them eventually in return for the 'planes they are selling to Egypt they sure aren't going to complain

Haraka

29th Sep 2015, 17:10

"Egypt has agreed to buy two Mistral helicopter carriers from France for 950 million euros after their sale to Russia was cancelled in August, and may equip them with Kamov Ka-52 helicopters from Russia."
.
.
.
. The price apparently........ ( From S.A.)

NutLoose

29th Sep 2015, 17:36

So France say they will not be out of pocket on Flogging on two new carriers costing 900 million Euros....

It makes you wonder how redesigning two catapults for ours cost

In the strategic defence and security review (SDSR), the prime minister insisted the carriers would have to be converted to include "cats and traps" to allow a version of the new Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) to be catapulted from the decks and caught by arrestor wires on landing. But the Guardian has been told the cost of the modification has spiralled out of control, to between £1.9 and £2bn.

Someone somewhere is getting shafted..... Oh wait, that's us.

Government plans U-turn on aircraft carriers as catapult costs spiral | Politics | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/mar/18/u-turn-aircraft-carriers-costs)