Millions of euros at stake over French helicopter carrier ship deal
Published: 24 November, 2009, 20:05
Edited: 28 October, 2010, 09:26
TAGS: Arms, Military, Russia, Europe, Vehicles, Big deal
A state-of-the-art French warship has sailed into St. Petersburg – not only peacefully, but also with hopes that the largest deal ever struck between Russia and a Western country could be on the cards.
During the Mistral helicopter carrier’s three-day stay in St Petersburg, the Russian Navy and shipbuilders will be able to examine the vessel and to assess its characteristics.
Mistral is also expected to take part in joint Russian-French naval exercises to be held in the Baltic Sea in a couple of days.
Russia’s Navy showed great interest in the French helicopter carrier at an international naval show in St Petersburg in June.
A Mistral helicopter carrier has a standard crew of 160, but it can take onboard an additional 450 people, and even 900 people for a brief period of time, while its cargo deck has room for up to 40 tanks, or 70 cars.
The vessel’s helicopter unit normally consists of 16 choppers, six of which can be simultaneously placed on the takeoff deck.
Two months later, sources at the Navy’s Main Staff confirmed that such a vessel might be purchased for the Russian naval forces, Itar-Tass news agency says.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin will be visiting France on November 26-27, and then a final decision on the purchase of a Mistral-type vessel for the Russian Navy is expected to be made, as well as the purchase of a license to build three or four such ships in Russia.
Russian Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin said on September 19 that Russia is seeking technology to boost its shipbuilding industry by buying the Mistral ship, according to Ria Novosti news agency.
The deal’s one major disadvantage is its price tag. The vessel can cost Russia up to 500 million euros, which is why the deal has many opponents in Russia who say that the country has to remain self-sufficient in ship-building.
They add it would be better to allocate the money to local ship-builders who are still struggling with the global economic crisis.
24.11.2009, 15:26
Three policemen charged over murder of teenagerThree members of Russia’s law enforcement have been apprehended for brutally assaulting two men and killing one of them. |
24.11.2009, 21:08
Girl aged 9 falls victim of ketamine attackers in SlovakiaA string of attacks with medical syringes filled with the strong psychotropic medicine ketamine has rocked the Slovakian capital of Bratislava. The latest victim was a 9-year-old girl. |
Of course Russia can design a helicopter carrier like this, but the point is that it would take a decade to design and build several new ship designs from scratch right now and test them and decide upon a winning design to move forward with. The cost of the design and development would make it more expensive than buying an existing design off the shelf (ie Mistral). The Mistral design is a proven modern design that is ready to be built. The ship they will get from the french will be basically a shell with Russia needing to adapt the design to their sensors, weapons, aircraft, vehicles and systems. The 3-4 further vessels that the Russian shipyards will be building will create work in the naval yards and the redesign will create work for their ship designers. There will be much less risk because it is a known modern proven design. The technology transfer will be minimal because they wont be getting the latest French radars and NATO communications and electronic support measures. What they will be getting is mobility for their rather large body of forces called Marines who are a very professional force currently largely tied to Russia through lack of naval transport vessels. They have armour but have little means to move their forces very far at all. The Mistral would also allow the Russians to deploy around the world in the event of a natural disaster. An example of where that might have been useful was in the natural disaster that occured in Myanmar a while back. Equally if there is a problem elsewhere where the west is not so welcome but the Russians have good relations such vessels would be most useful as well. Russia and the Soviets actually have a long history of licence production of foreign weapons that end up in production in Russia/Soviet Union. From the DC-3 through various trucks and car designs before the start of the cold war in 1945 not to mention the purchase of British jet engines at the end of WWII..
Very simply put if Russia is serious about being a world power then it needs a decent Navy. Without a navy Russia can be strong but it can't be a global power. The US wouldn't have been the superpower it became without one, and before them the UK would never have had the global influence without their navy. The point is that you don't dominate the world and then build a navy to control it, you build a navy and you get the global power from that global reach. It is not about taking over the world. It is about being able to have a presence globally so that you can have a say in what happens. Right now if the Russians want to trade in central and south America if the US wanted to stop them then a naval blockade would be their best option. Russia simply doesn't have that option if the roles were reversed. If Russia wants to trade with anyone and everyone then they will need a naval force to make sure they can. I am not suggesting recreating the Soviet Fleet, it will be much smaller than that, but if you want useful naval groups you need aircraft. It was clear from the results of WWII that the aircraft carrier has replaced the battleship as the main capital ship. No ship can match the sight or the reach of an aircraft. Aircraft must be part of the solution.
Agree with Bob, do as the Chinese have been doing, let another country invest billions in R&D costs and then copy the design. The money would be better spent on orbital laser weapons platforms or unmanned stealth bombers.