# Russia's Mistral class LHDs: updates



## tomahawk6

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090826/155931865.html

ULAN BATOR, August 26 (RIA Novosti) - Russia is planning on signing by the end of 2009 a contractual agreement with France on the purchase of a Mistral class amphibious assault ship, the chief of the Russian General Staff said on Wednesday.

"We are planning to reach an agreement [with France] this year on the production and the purchase of a Mistral class vessel," Gen. Nikolai Makarov told a news conference in the Mongolian capital, Ulan Bator.

"We are negotiating the purchase of one ship at present, and later planning to acquire 3-4 ships [of the same class] to be jointly built in Russia," the general said.

A Mistral class ship is capable of transporting and deploying 16 helicopters, four landing barges, up to 70 vehicles including 13 main battle tanks, and 450 soldiers. The vessel is equipped with a 69-bed hospital and could be used as an amphibious command ship.

Makarov did not disclose the amount of the deal, but a high-ranking Russian source close to negotiations earlier said the ship could be worth between 300 and 400 million euros ($430-580 mln).

The purchase, if successful, would be the first large-scale arms import deal concluded by Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Russia first expressed an interest in bilateral cooperation with France in naval equipment and technology in 2008, when Navy chief Adm. Vladimir Vysotsky visited the Euronaval 2008 arms show in France.

The admiral said at the time that the Russian Navy was interested in "joint research and also direct purchases of French naval equipment."

According to other military sources, the possibility of buying a Mistral class amphibious assault ship was discussed at the naval show in St. Petersburg in June this year.

Russia's current weapons procurement program through 2015 does not envision construction or purchases of large combat ships, so the possible acquisition of a French Mistral class ship is most likely to happen under the new program for the years up to 2020, which is still in the development.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

The Russians have also bought Israeli drones as well.


----------



## CougarKing

Seems someone convinced the French Admiralty to allow the ship to be rerouted for a product demonstration?



> *French ship Russia wants to buy in St Petersburg*
> AP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Mistral French amphibious assault ship/helicopter carrier/hospital ship docks on the Neva River in downtown St. Petersburg, Russia, Monday, Nov. 23, 2009, with one of the city landmarks, St. Isaac's Cathedral, in the background. Russia is planning to buy a Mistral-class ship worth 400-500 million euros (around $600-$750 million) from France. Russian Navy and defense industry experts are expected to inspect the ship during the visit. (AP Photo/Dmitry Lovetsky)_
> 
> By IRINA TITOVA, Associated Press Writer Irina Titova, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 52 mins ago
> 
> ST. PETERSBURG, Russia – A French amphibious assault ship like the one Russia hopes to buy arrived Monday in St. Petersburg, fueling concern in Georgia and other ex-Soviet nations that Russia is upgrading its navy to intimidate its neighbors.
> 
> The Mistral military ship, which can carry more than a dozen helicopters along with dozens of tanks and other armored vehicles, would certainly be a modern way to project Russian power.
> 
> It docked Monday on the Neva River, about 1 kilometer (.6 miles) from the Hermitage museum. Russian officials are *considering buying a Mistral ship and a license to build several others — their first such purchase from a NATO country.*
> 
> Media reports have said it *would cost Russia up to euro500 million ($750 million) to buy a Mistral-class ship.*
> 
> NATO officials in Brussels would not comment Monday on the possible French navy sale.
> 
> The Kremlin increasingly has sought in recent years to reaffirm Russia's global reach and prestige in world affairs. It has sent its warships to patrol pirate-infested waters off Somalia and dispatched a navy squadron to the Caribbean where it took part in joint maneuvers with the Venezuelan navy and made several port calls in 2008.
> 
> The Caribbean mission, aimed at flexing military muscles near the U.S. in the tense months after the war between Russia and Georgia in August 2008, was the most visible Russian navy deployment since Soviet times.
> 
> But despite the Kremlin's ambitions, the post-Soviet economic meltdown has left the Russian navy with only a handful of big ships in seaworthy condition and badly crippled the nation's shipbuilding industries.
> 
> Russia has only one Soviet-built aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, which is much smaller than the U.S. aircraft carriers and has been plagued by mechanical problems and accidents.
> 
> Russian shipbuilders have opposed the Mistral deal, saying the government should invest in domestic production instead. Navy officials have argued *that license production of Mistral-class ships would help modernize Russia's aging industries.*
> 
> The navy chief, Adm. Vladimir Vysotsky, has said a ship like Mistral would have allowed the Russian navy to mount a much more efficient operation in the Black Sea during the Russia-Georgia war. He said *the French ship would take just 40 minutes to do the job that the Russian Black Sea Fleet vessels did in 26 hours, apparently referring to amphibious landing operations.*
> 
> Georgia was clearly worried about the possible deal.
> 
> "We strongly oppose the sale of such ship to Russia," Nika Laliashvili of the Georgian parliament's defense affairs committee told The Associated Press. "It poses a serious danger to Georgia."
> 
> Since the 2008 war, Russia has declared the Georgian territory of Abkhazia an independent nation and sent thousands of troops there. Abkhazia has a coastline along the Black Sea that is next to Russia's coast.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091123/ap_on_...rance_navy_ship


----------



## MarkOttawa

A post at _The Torch_:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/02/russians-want-big-honking-french-ships.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Danjanou

Topics merged

D/S


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Stirng the pot  :nod:, we could always buy into the order as well, just think of the money we will save on not having to translate all of the documents to French... ;D


----------



## VinceW

The deal is set Russia is going to buy 4 Mistrals,2 will be built in France the other 2 in Russia,France will get more natural gas from Russia because of this deal.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c18316c8-2599-11df-9bd3-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1


----------



## CougarKing

*Russia to receive Mistral with French technologies*



> Last Updated: Jul 06, 2010
> 
> MOSCOW (BNS): Russia is all geared up to procure the Mistral-class assault ships from France with all technology and equipment on it, except the weaponry and helicopters.
> 
> According to a news report by RIA Novosti, Russia will equip the ships with its own weaponry and helicopters.
> 
> *The guns, missiles, torpedoes and helicopters will be made in Russia. Russian shipbuilders will also reinforce the hull for withstanding Arctic ice.*
> 
> Russia is negotiating the purchase of at least one French-built Mistral class amphibious assault ship and are also planning to build two or three more vessels of the same class in partnership with the French naval shipbuilder DCNS, the report added.
> 
> "We are buying the Mistral warship with all proper navigational and technological equipment, including the fire control systems," a defence industry source was quoted as saying in the news report.
> 
> The *21,300 tonne Mistral-class ships operate as helicopter carriers and amphibious assault transports, with secondary capabilities as command ships, and an on-board hospital.* Propulsion comes from 2 electric-powered manoeuvrable thruster pods, similar to those used on cruise ships, with 2 more bow thrusters for added manoeuvrability in tight situations.
> 
> *The 650-foot Mistral is capable of transporting and deploying 16 helicopters, four landing barges, up to 70 armoured vehicles including 13 battle tanks, and 450 personnel.
> 
> The Russian Mistral to be deployed by the Northern and Pacific Fleets will be armed with combat helicopters Ka-52.*
> 
> The Mistral deal is expected to be completed by the end of the year 2010.



source

Mistral LHD





Ka-52


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

One of the beauty of the Mistrals, is that they only require a crew of 160. The rest of the space is then dedicated to the troop, air group and HQ staff as may be embarked. The flexibility is incredible:  You load the air group you need for the task at hand: A group of Griffons if you want to carry out air assault, a group of ASW helos for escort purposes, a group of "attack" helos for anti-piracy ops, etc. Any  landing force can be similarly tailored to the operation.

With ice reinforced hulls, they would be your perfect base of operation for the Arctic, greatly simplifying logistics. And they could be used for disaster relief anywhere fairly easily, and be a lot better at it that n AOR's and DDH/FFH.

Just dreaming - but IMO (I've said it in other threads) scrap the JSS: buy separate AOR's and some LHA's (Mistral style) as Hellyer's "Big Honking Ships".


----------



## MarkOttawa

Oldgateboatdriver: Agree on general idea, but Hillier _vice_ Hellyer I think.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

OOOOUPS!!!

After all these years, still traumatized by what "HELLYER" did to the Navy. 

Sorry!


----------



## MarkOttawa

Deal done (via J.M. Heinrichs):

Russia And France Make The Deal
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htamph/articles/20100928.aspx



> September 28, 2010: After over a year of negotiations with France, Russia has agreed to buy four Mistral amphibious ships. Two will be built in France, and licensed production of two more will take place in Russia. This licensing aspect of the deal is most important to Russia, as they are demanding the transfer of shipbuilding technology to Russian yards. France was willing to do this, it was mainly a matter of arriving at a mutually acceptable price. Currently, the deal is expected to cost Russia over a billion dollars. Before World War I, Russia often bought French naval technology, and much other military technology. Russia is currently looking beyond its own failing defense industries for new equipment, and ideas.
> 
> The French navy received the first of the 21,500 ton Mistrals in 2006, with the second one arriving in 2007. Both were ordered in 2001. These two ships replaced two older amphibious landing ships. This gave France a force of four amphibious ships. The two Mistrals are also equipped to serve as command vessels for amphibious operations. The French have been very happy with how the Mistrals have performed.
> 
> The Mistrals are similar in design to the U.S. LPD 17 (San Antonio) class. Both classes are about 200 meters/620 feet long, but the LPD 17s displace 25,000 tons. The French ships are more highly automated, requiring a crew of only 180, versus 396 on the LPD 17. On long voyages on the open ocean, the Mistrals require as few as nine sailors and officers on duty ("standing watch") to keep the ship going.
> 
> The Mistrals carry 450 marines, compared to 700 on the LPD 17s. Both have about the same room for helicopters, landing craft and vehicles (2,650 square meters for the Mistrals, room for nearly a hundred trucks, or 60 armored vehicles). Both have hospitals on board, with the Mistrals being larger (69 beds). The American ships, however have more sensors installed, and larger engines (and thus higher speed.) The LPD 17 can also handle vertical takeoff jets like the Harrier or F-35. The French believe that the smaller complement of marines, who are very capable troops, are sufficient for most missions. And the smaller number of people on the ship makes it possible to provide better living and working conditions. This is good for morale and readiness...
> 
> The third and fourth Mistrals for the French Navy are being built using more commercial techniques, and are *expected to cost closer to $500 million each* [emphasis added, cheap compared to our planned JSS]. Russia says it plans to base some of its Mistrals in the Far East, where there is an ongoing dispute with Japan over Japanese islands Russia occupied after World War II, and never gave back.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> One of the beauty of the Mistrals, is that they only require a crew of 160. The rest of the space is then dedicated to the troop, air group and HQ staff as may be embarked. The flexibility is incredible:  You load the air group you need for the task at hand: A group of Griffons if you want to carry out air assault, a group of ASW helos for escort purposes, a group of "attack" helos for anti-piracy ops, etc. Any  landing force can be similarly tailored to the operation.
> 
> With ice reinforced hulls, they would be your perfect base of operation for the Arctic, greatly simplifying logistics. And they could be used for disaster relief anywhere fairly easily, and be a lot better at it that n AOR's and DDH/FFH.
> 
> Just dreaming - but IMO (I've said it in other threads) scrap the JSS: buy separate AOR's and some LHA's (Mistral style) as Hellyer's "Big Honking Ships".




My heart warmth over on this, Build the hull and main systems there, bring it over here and let the yards finish off the smaller stuff.


----------



## Oh No a Canadian

Colin P said:
			
		

> My heart warmth over on this, Build the hull and main systems there, bring it over here and let the yards finish off the smaller stuff.


Not with Harper in power...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

That's right because Iggy and friends really do care about the military. The CPC may have mucked up the bidding process but we also have Chinooks, C17's and Leopard 2's because of them. I will take the CPC on a bad day over Libs on a good day. Now in my fantasy world the 3 main parties sit down and hash out a defense policy they can all live with or at least the 2 main parties do and agree on what needs to be bought and when. So when government change, the policy and purchasing does not.


----------



## Oh No a Canadian

True, but Harper only seems to be buying those things for the economic benefits, or he just wants people to think that.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Every politician who approves a large defense purchase want to make it seem like a great economic deal for the country. It’s a lot of money being spent and they try to find ways to sweeten the pot. There was no real economic benefit to buying the Leo2’s, the Chinooks and the C17’s may have spinoff benefits from subcontractors getting support contracts. 
Economic politics demand that ships be built here, operational, needs, experience, shipyard capacity, costs may indicate that better value is achieved by buying overseas. But the politics may win out if the better decision is going to cost the politicians votes. Welcome to democracy.


----------



## MarkOttawa

This government is logically shameless--or challenged:

Canadian shipyards can’t competitively build large civilian vessels–but the government insists they build naval ones
http://unambig.com/canadian-shipyards-cant-competitively-build-large-civilian-vessels-but-the-government-insists-they-build-naval-ones/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> This government is logically shameless--or challenged:
> 
> Canadian shipyards can’t competitively build large civilian vessels–but the government insists they build naval ones
> http://unambig.com/canadian-shipyards-cant-competitively-build-large-civilian-vessels-but-the-government-insists-they-build-naval-ones/
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa




This is very simple, very, very old fashioned pork barrelling and vote buying. They used to set up beer stalls by the voting booths, now they are a wee tiny bit more subtle, albeit a lot more expensive.

Canadians yards *can* build first rate, modern, sophisticated ships, including warships - they just cannot do it without buying a whole boat load of technology and expertise, at enormous cost. But, hey, a job's a job, right? Gotta keep those Canadian workers on the job and shopping at WalMart. Wouldn't do to let the market decide; this is Canada!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

This is why I opposed buying ferries from overseas for BC Ferries. It is the new builds that finance the purchase of new capital equipment and infrastructure. Our yards out here have a good rep for fast and good quality ship repairs. In order to maintain that edge we need a certain number of new build so the industry can renew itself periodically.


----------



## RC

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This is very simple, very, very old fashioned pork barrelling and vote buying. They used to set up beer stalls by the voting booths, now they are a wee tiny bit more subtle, albeit a lot more expensive.
> 
> Canadians yards *can* build first rate, modern, sophisticated ships, including warships - they just cannot do it without buying a whole boat load of technology and expertise, at enormous cost. But, hey, a job's a job, right? Gotta keep those Canadian workers on the job and shopping at WalMart. Wouldn't do to let the market decide; this is Canada!



Let's test your theory against one of the core policies of the world champion of free market economics.  Have you ever asked yourself why, in this day and age of the United States sending any and every job off to foreign shores in the name of free enterprise, the Jones Act continues to exist?  The free market, if it had been allowed to run amock on US shipbuilding, would have killed all but one or two of the smaller, lean and mean US yards, and with good reason.   US yards are completely incapable of competitively building large vessels.

I know I've said this before in other threads, but it bears repeating:  a national shipbuilding strategy, while it is good politics, is not about politics.  It's about strategic national security and sovereignty.  What chance does a nation with well over three quarters of its border made up of coastline have if it is incapable of independently defending it?  The US government knows that.  The Canadian government seems to have recently realized it after forgetting for a few decades.

Our shipyards have fallen into decay and disuse in the new build market.  There is no denying it.  It will cost a lot to get them back up to speed.  But it is simply not an option to be incapable of doing this ourselves.  They should never have have been allowed to get to this condition in the first place.

I was working with a Commander recently who spelled it out for me in very simple terms.  He said something along the lines of "The modern, full scale naval battle will last six minutes.  After that, you limp along with whatever you have left floating and you hope that you can build the next fleet quicker than your enemy."  The speech was a bit longer and there were some references to the days of Nelson thrown in for colour, but that was the gist of it.  If you happen to have bought your first fleet from that enemy or a good friend of his... well, you may as well not have bothered; a war time is no time to start from scratch.

I find this attitude of buying overseas simply because it's cheaper disheartening and shortsighted, particularly given that it's being expressed by conservative minded people in a military forum, who of anyone, should understand issues of national security.  Even nations like Bangladesh and Indonesia keep GOCO naval yards operating to mitigate this threat.  It's particularly disheartening because we all know that we _can_ do it.  Canada has architects and engineers that design naval ships for other country's navies.  We have shipyards that have built naval vessels in the past, build small vessels and repair vessels in the present, and could build naval vessels again in the future.  We have a supply chain that's rusty, but serviceable.  All we need to do is knock the rust off, sweep out the hangars, and scare up the talent to get the machinery clanking again.  Actually, we don't even need to do that; it's already done.  All we need to do is say "Tag, you're it.  Start cutting steel."


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I agree that it is critically important for a maritime nation, such as Canada, to be able to build its own ships especially in time of heightened tension and war. So to that extent, I must disagree with the view of ERC and MarkOttawa that we should always seek the cheapest solution even if it means building abroad (The Type 45 destroyers are built in England and cost twice as much as an Arleigh Burke for half the fighting power: You go tell the Brits they should close their yards and buy in the USA and see what happens).

On the other hand, while I agree with RC, I must seriously question the knowledge of the Commander he refers too. I hope it is an engineering officer, because if it is a MARS officer of that rank, he should seriously be sent back down for requal.

First of all, there will not be a "modern full scale naval battle" in any foreseeable future. These are not WW1 days we do not have two sides with large fleets of battleships waiting for the other to come out for a single all deciding engagement. We do not fight naval wars that way anymore and the possibility of a nation's whole fleet coming out to fight another one's in single battle is nil. Even at the end of the cold war, when building up to Reagan's 600 ships Navy with 15 Carrier Battle Groups and SecNAv saying that he could see no war scenario with the USSR that would not involve putting at least two CBG's in harms way in the North sea, there would have been no such single all determining engagement. There would have been a series of smaller localized ones, each of a single nature or at most single nature (either air or submarine or surface) with small coordinated adjuncts. The least likely of those engagements would have been (still is) surface ship on surface ship engagement (which is why anti-ship missiles are the ones we carry the least of and we can get by with smaller calibre guns nowadays).

On the other hand, modern warhips are now so much more than a hull with engines and some guns that this portion of the job now has much less overall importance. The two most important aspects of warships are the C4SI systems - including highly complex and sophisticated software and computers and the high end technological weapons (torpedoes, missiles). Unless you can also build those yourself, you cannot be said to be capable of building warships "at home".

At this point, I would say Canada is capable of the first two. We have shipyards, and yes they can competently build warships once they get back up to speed. As for electronic systems, we have some electronics companies left in country that can do this level of sophisticated work if switched back to war production and Montreal, for instance, is one the world's three top center for video game production and thus, is awash with coders and software engineers that can produce the most sophisticated software. The rub is we do not have the third aspect: we do not build or even have a basic knowledge base for the construction of  missiles and such modern weapons: we buy them whole from other countries. This should militate in favour of stockpiling large "war stocks" of missiles even if we end up not using them in their usefull lifetime. Unfortunately its an expensive proposition that is difficult to explain to Canadians and therefore politically unpalatable.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This is very simple, very, very old fashioned pork barrelling and vote buying. They used to set up beer stalls by the voting booths, now they are a wee tiny bit more subtle, albeit a lot more expensive.
> 
> Canadians yards *can* build first rate, modern, sophisticated ships, including warships - they just cannot do it without buying a whole boat load of technology and expertise, at enormous cost. But, hey, a job's a job, right? Gotta keep those Canadian workers on the job and shopping at WalMart. Wouldn't do to let the market decide; this is Canada!



Define "market"?  I hope you're not contending that the primary players now all got to where they are in free market/unsubsidized manner.

How much money have the Finns, South Koreans and Americans spent subsidizing their companies to now be able to produce ships at lower costs?

Tens of Billions for the Finns & South Koreans and Hundreds of Billions by the Americans.

Also, don't doubt for one second that each of these countries is smart enough enough to do the 'net cost calculation for domestic production' which at times some here choose to overlook (they're rather look at sticker price vs sticker price).

Net Cost = Gross Cost (Sticker Price) - Direct Personal Income Taxes Collected - Direct Corporate Taxes Collected - EI Savings - Direct VAT Collected - Indirect Personal Income Taxes Collected - Indirect VAT Collected, etc., etc., etc.

The key issue being our govenment appears reticent to publicly discuss such a calculation as its existence undermines the world objective of "Global Free Trade".

Specific to the argument of whether Canada should have a subsidized shipbuilding industry, I would say yes, with a but.  

If Canada is to invest in these shipyards, than it should not be grants.  It should be common equity infusions so that the taxpayers are buying part of these companies rather than just handing them a cheque.  And if they're not interested in such an investment, than we pick a shipyard that is.  Build that condition into the Terms so it's non-negotiable.

The final component to this process is that our government has to stop listening to lobbyists who are trying to obtain what's best for the private corporations and instead be smart enough to do what is best for our country, and lobbyists be damned.  If it were me, I'd look at targeting a retired CEO to spearhead this who knows how to get things done.  Either the Nigel Wright (formerly of Onex) or Gywn Morgan (formerly of Encana) seem ideally suited to the task.  Both are both individually wealthy and have made both statements and actions that they'd like to do some public service in the best interests of Canada which makes them less likely to be corrupted (which I believe should be the overriding concern given the amount of money we're talking about and how important the initial design of this program is).


----------



## Edward Campbell

I am happy to stipulate that shipbuilding is, or *can be*, more than just uneconomic pork barrel politics. It _might_ be a strategic industry – even a *required strategic* industry for an aspiring leading middle power. If that's the case then it deserves ongoing public support by, say, a national ship building strategy and programme. Since successive Conservative and Liberal governments, ever since 1961, have renounced such programmes I can only conclude that we, Canada, have rejected the idea that ship building is or needs to be any thing more than ineffective job creation.

Prime Minister St Laurent's government conceived and implemented a national ship building strategy. It ended in 1960 and 61 with the laying of the keels for the _Annapolis_ class of destroyers. The St Laurent programme involved building 20 destroyers and 20 more minesweepers in a coherent building programme scheduled to last for 10+ years. We have attempted 12 ship programmes in the 1980s/90s (_Halifax_ class frigates) and 1990s (_Kingston_ class maritime coastal defence vessels) but both programmes had *major* pork barrel components in them – greater, by far, than in the 1950s.

In other words, I think actions speak louder than words and I think we, as a nation, have decided that shipbuilding is not a strategic industry, it is, rather, a political industry that gets fed, as necessary, to generate votes, not ships.


----------



## MarkOttawa

It's also worth noting that the government has given up on protecting a major segment of the civilian shipbuilding industry, so why not for Navy and CCG vessels--other than pure por(c)k?

Canadian shipyards can’t competitively build large civilian vessels–but the government insists they build naval ones
http://unambig.com/canadian-shipyards-cant-competitively-build-large-civilian-vessels-but-the-government-insists-they-build-naval-ones/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## RC

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> On the other hand, while I agree with RC, I must seriously question the knowledge of the Commander he refers too. I hope it is an engineering officer, because if it is a MARS officer of that rank, he should seriously be sent back down for requal.



Lol!  He was in fact an engineering officer, but I suspect the problem was more in the question that I asked.  I know how naval ships are put together, but I know very little about how they are used tactically and strategically.  I likely messed up the paraphrasing as well.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I am happy to stipulate that shipbuilding is, or *can be*, more than just uneconomic pork barrel politics. It _might_ be a strategic industry – even a *required strategic* industry for an aspiring leading middle power. If that's the case then it deserves ongoing public support by, say, a national ship building strategy and programme. Since successive Conservative and Liberal governments, ever since 1961, have renounced such programmes I can only conclude that we, Canada, have rejected the idea that ship building is or needs to be any thing more than ineffective job creation.



I participated in two industry input sessions for the national ship building strategy programme in 2009.  There were four Cabinet ministers at the meeting in Ottawa, which should give an indication of how serious they are about it.  I expect they will be releasing the results early in 2011.  The plan is for 30 years and has bilateral support (at least in principle) from the Liberals.  I think the idea fell by the wayside for several decades, but it most certainly has not been rejected.

There's a thread about it in the Navy News section if you'd like to learn more.

_Edit: Nevermind.  I just had another read through it while planning to collect the link for you and realized that: a) it's not very good and b) you've already posted in it several times, which makes me a little confused about your comments in here._



			
				MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> It's also worth noting that the government has given up on protecting a major segment of the civilian shipbuilding industry, so why not for Navy and CCG vessels--other than pure por(c)k?



I believe this was a result of lobbying by ship owners and that if the NSPS proves that Canadian shipbuilders can build competitvely, it will be short lived.  But we'll see.  At any rate, it is a substantially different strategic and economic argument between commercial and government ships.  Commercial ship owners do not benefit from the net cost benefits posted by Cdn Blackshirt, nor is it a strategic advantage to build the ship types covered under the tariff break in Canada.  The government can give ship owners a hand up with one hand and ship builders with the other without it being hypocritical or conflicting.  Your argument doesn't add up in real or logical terms.  I'll admit that it does make a nice sound byte for the uninformed though.


----------



## Edward Campbell

RC said:
			
		

> ...
> I participated in two industry input sessions for the national ship building strategy programme in 2009.  There were four Cabinet ministers at the meeting in Ottawa, which should give an indication of how serious they are about it.  I expect they will be releasing the results early in 2011.  The plan is for 30 years and has bilateral support (at least in principle) from the Liberals.  I think the idea fell by the wayside for several decades, but it most certainly has not been rejected.
> ...




I sincerely hope you are right ... but I've been around for a long time, so you'll excuse me if I'm skeptical.


----------



## NavyShooter

A strategy is fine...

Action would be better.


----------



## RC

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I sincerely hope you are right ... but I've been around for a long time, so you'll excuse me if I'm skeptical.



I'll admit to being young and optimistic, but I generally have a feel for these types of things and I left those meetings with a positive impression.  They are working slowly, but I think they are working and I'd rather they take it slow and get it right than jump into a 30 year program without enough fore thought.  It has momentum.



			
				NavyShooter said:
			
		

> A strategy is fine...
> 
> Action would be better.



I really hoped they would fast track the AOPS program and avoid having it mired in the NSPS discussions, but it was not to be.  Oh well, maybe this way I'll get to see the first one being built by the time I make it back to Canada in a year and a half.


----------



## MarkOttawa

And we couldn't get three Canadian-built JSSs for $2.9 billion:
http://unambig.com/joint-support-ship-effectively-sunk-take-2/

Russia to pay over 700 million euros  for first Mistral helicopter carrier - source
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20101230/161991515.html



> Russia will pay France approximately 720 million euros for its first Mistral-class helicopter carrier for its Navy, a source close to the negotiations process told RIA Novosti on Thursday.
> 
> At the initial stage, two Mistral-class helicopter carriers will be built jointly by France and Russia at the STX shipyard in Saint-Nazaire, France. Another two will be constructed later at the Admiralty Shipyards in St. Petersburg.
> 
> "The cost of the first ship will be 720 million euros [$940 million], the second will cost 650 million euros," the source said.
> 
> Russian President Dmitry Medvedev told his French counterpart Nicolas Sarkozy last week over the phone that France had won the tender to build amphibious assault ships for Russia. The winner is a consortium comprised of French DCNS and Russia's United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC), the Kremlin press service said.
> 
> The first Mistral-class ship is expected to be built within 36 months after Russia makes an advance payment scheduled for January 2011...



And in 2014 our Navy still won't have anything to replace the  Protecteur class.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## RC

The Mistrals are not prototype and they are commercial standard.  DCNS involvement adds about a 20% mark up for hanging out and putting their pants on in the morning.  Seems about right.

I wonder if that includes the cost of the ToT package.  I think most of that cost is sunk into the third and fourth ships built in Russia.  I notice they don't give a price for those.


----------



## CougarKing

Just 2 years from contract signing to launch for a ship that size...isn't that fast?



> *France Floats Out First Russian Mistral Warship*
> 15/10/2013
> 
> The ship, named Vladivostok, being built at the DCNS shipyard in Saint-Nazaire, is expected to start sea trials in March next year. . . .
> 
> Russia and France signed the 1.2 billion euro ($1.6 billion) contract for two French-built Mistral-class helicopter carriers in June 2011.
> 
> A second Mistral-class warship, the Sevastopol, is due to be floated out in October 2014.
> 
> According to the Russian Defense Ministry, both warships will be based in the Far East ports of Vladivostok and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky when they enter service.
> 
> RIA Novosti


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Not really. Not when you know what the heck you're doing, which DCNS knows as it is the fourth one they have built.

To make matters even easier, the Mistral's are a derivative from a commercial design and have Hull/propulsion/power plant commonality of 90% of the commercial ship its based on in these areas.

The floated ship probably needs another 6 months of fitting out before it can be turned over to the Russians, but that is all in line with the timelines of the three French ones.


----------



## CougarKing

Russia's 1st _Mistral_ class LHD on sea trials...



> *French debut warship built for Russia*
> 
> (heraldnet.com)
> 
> March 6, 2014
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Vladivostock, designed to strengthen Russia’s ability to deploy troops, tanks and helicopter gunships, leaves Saint Nazaire harbor in France for a test run on Wednesday.
> <snipped>
> 
> The Vladivostok helicopter carrier set sail from the French Atlantic port of Saint-Nazaire, while just a few hundred miles away in Paris, France’s government hosted American, Russian and other leading world diplomats amid mounting tensions over Ukraine.
> 
> The warship is part of a $1.6-billion deal that marked the biggest-ever sale of NATO weaponry to Moscow, a deal that already raised eyebrows both within Russia’s military circles and among France’s Western allies when it was struck in 2011.


----------



## CougarKing

No more LHD for Russia's Pacific fleet?

Source: RIA Novosti



> *France May Scrap Russian Warship Deal over Ukraine Crisis*
> 18/03/2014
> 
> 
> Quote
> 
> In the interview with France’s TF1, Laurent Fabius denied the legitimacy of Sunday’s referendum in Crimea to join Russia and urged Moscow to take urgent measures to avoid “useless and dangerous” escalation in Ukraine.
> <snipped>
> 
> *"If Putin carries on like this, we could consider canceling these sales,” Fabius said Monday adding that the possible loss of the contracts could be negative for the French economy.*
> 
> The French foreign minister said such move would be part of “phase three” of economic sanctions against Moscow. “Now we are at phase two,” he said.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## MarkOttawa

> "If Putin carries on like this..."




Does annexation count as carrying on?


Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CougarKing

Financial compensation? 

Reuters



> *Russia will demand compensation if France scraps warship sale*
> 
> (Reuters) - Moscow will demand compensation if France cancels a deal to sell it Mistral helicopter-carrier ships as punishment for the annexation of Ukraine's Crimea region, Russian news agencies cited a defence official as saying.
> 
> "There is no doubt the Russian side will defend its rights ... and will demand compensation for all losses we might sustain if the Mistral contract is breached," state-run RIA quoted Deputy Defence Minister Yuri Borisov as saying.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

So lets see if I get this straight:

Russia will demand that international contract law be respected by France, which is "breaking" this international law as punishment for Russia breaking international public law.

Did I miss something?


----------



## Lightguns

No problem, build boat, turn over to Canada Steamship Lines to deliver AFTER the sanctions.  We get LHD, Russians get spanked.  We better deploy everyone to the the Arctic right away though.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> So lets see if I get this straight:
> 
> Russia will demand that international contract law be respected by France, which is "breaking" this international law as punishment for Russia breaking international public law.
> 
> Did I miss something?



There is "Russian international law" and then there is "international law" which is a bit of a sham anyways as well. The people who respect it the most, are the ones that you need to worry about the least.


----------



## thehare

Colin P said:
			
		

> There is "Russian international law" and then there is "international law" which is a bit of a sham anyways as well. The people who respect it the most, are the ones that you need to worry about the least.



Exactly, I also find it kind of ironic that the Russians would complain about international law when they broke it themselves with the invasion of Ukraine. Budapest Agreement anyone?  :-X


----------



## CougarKing

One radical suggestion from a Defense News contributor: 



> Defense News
> 
> *Commentary: NATO Should Buy the Mistrals
> 
> Move Would Boost Allies at Critical Juncture*
> 
> Mar. 30, 2014 - 04:18PM   |
> 
> By JEFF LIGHTFOOT
> 
> NATO should buy the two Mistral warships France is building for export to the Russian Federation this year and make them a commonly shared asset.* This bold action would prevent a powerful military capability from falling into the hands of an assertive Russia, bolster NATO’s capabilities, demonstrate political solidarity among NATO allies and offer the alliance a flagship symbol of multinational defense cooperation*.
> 
> 
> Russia’s invasion of Crimea has put many European countries in an awkward position due to the continent’s close trade linkages with Moscow. No one has been more challenged than France. Under former President Nicolas Sarkozy, Paris agreed to manufacture and sell to Russia two of its most sophisticated amphibious warships.
> 
> The sale provoked noisy objections in the US Congress and among allies in Central and Eastern Europe who saw the contract as undermining NATO solidarity.  *But for France, the sale was all about jobs. The nearly $2 billion contract has preserved 1,000 jobs at the St. Nazaire shipyards.*
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## CougarKing

No cancellation in this project seen so far...

Defense News



> *Russia Marks Key Stage in Joint France Warship Project*
> Apr. 30, 2014 - 03:41PM   |   By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
> 
> SAINT PETERSBURG — Russia on Wednesday marked the completion of a key part of a project to build two helicopter carriers with France, which has been eyed with increasing unease in the West amid the escalating Ukraine crisis.
> 
> The Baltiysky shipyard in St. Petersburg held a ceremony *to mark the dispatch of the stern of one of two Mistral-class amphibious helicopter carriers being jointly developed in the €1.2 billion ($1.66 billion) project with France.*
> 
> *It will be towed to St. Nazaire on France’s Atlantic Coast, where it is due to be welded together with a hull being built at the STX France shipyard. The full 22,000-ton vessel is then due for delivery to the Russian navy at the end of next year.*
> 
> The first of the two warships has already been completed and is undergoing sea trials at St Nazaire.
> 
> But rising East-West tensions mean it is no longer clear whether the project will be finalized.
> 
> *The first vessel, called The Vladivostok, is due to be delivered to the Russian navy in October. France’s defense ministry said last month it has yet to decide whether to complete the delivery.*
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## CougarKing

Seems economic priorities are prevailing in France over fears of a Russian threat...

Defense News



> *Hollande Says Sale of Warships To Russia Still On 'For Now'*
> May. 11, 2014 - 11:16AM   |   By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
> 
> STRALSUND, GERMANY — French President Francois Hollande said Saturday the sale of two Mistral warships to Russia would continue “for now” despite the West’s worsening relations with Moscow over the Ukraine crisis.
> 
> *“The contract was signed in 2011, it is being carried out and will be completed by next October,” said Hollande during a press briefing in Germany, where he met with Chancellor Angela Merkel.*
> 
> Their two-day talks had focused on the situation in Ukraine and they called on both Kiev and Moscow to ensure nothing interferes with crucial presidential elections, set for May 25.
> 
> But Moscow’s annexation of Crimea in March and the West’s fears that other regions of east Ukraine could also join Russia has touched off the worst east-west diplomatic row since the end of the Cold War.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## MilEME09

If i was France, I would quietly go find buyers for those ships and then tell Russia to play nice and back of Ukraine or these nice people over here are buying your ships, oh and no refunds


----------



## CougarKing

Hollande and his government finally coming to their senses over this?  



> *France Might Withhold 2nd Mistral Ship From Russia
> *
> PARIS — French defense officials are exploring ideas to avoid delivering a second helicopter carrier to Russia, including looking for an alternative client for the Sevastopol, analysts and an industry executive said.
> 
> A highly discreet review is being held as armed strife rises in eastern Ukraine and top US officials call for NATO allies to boost defense spending and act as a counterweight to Russia.
> 
> “The deal raises a fundamental policy issue not just for France but for the alliance,” said Robbin Laird of consultancy ICSA, based in Washington and here.
> 
> Paris is in a political crossfire between the US and Russia. Washington has publicly called for breaking the contract, while Moscow has threatened a hefty financial punishment while praising France’s “reliability as a partner.”
> 
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> 
> Defense News


----------



## Colin Parkinson

HMCS Vladivostok has a nice ring to it, name will have a connection to the origins of the vessel and Canada's connection to the previous buyer.


----------



## Kirkhill

And this?

Canadian Siberian Expeditionary Force.


----------



## cphansen

Definitely one of the less known feats of the Canadian armed forces. I am fascinated by the adventure of the CAF but also awestruck by the feats of the Czech Legion.


----------



## MarkOttawa

And alongside:



> Doughboys Marching Through Siberia
> http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/siberia.htm



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CougarKing

The idea of NATO purchasing/leasing the Mistral class ships is proving attractive to a number of key US Congressmen:

Atlantic Council blog



> *Congressional Leaders Urge NATO to Purchase French Warships Intended for Russia*
> BY ELIOT L. ENGEL, MICHAEL TURNER, AND WILLIAM R. KEATING
> 
> Text of letter to NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen from US lawmakers.
> 
> Dear Mr. Secretary General:
> 
> We are writing to express our deep concerns regarding France's contract to supply two Mistral warships to the Russian Federation this fall and to propose a solution to this vexing problem. In light of Russia's recent aggression against Ukraine, we believe that the sale would send the wrong signal to President Putin – that it is "business as usual" – and would enhance Russia's military
> 
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> *Therefore, we suggest that NATO collectively purchase or lease the warships as a common naval asset*. As mentioned earlier, the purchase would send a strong signal to President Putin that the NATO allies will not tolerate or in any way enable his reckless moves. In addition, such a purchase would rapidly enhance NATO capabilities at a moment when many Allies have been cutting defense expenditures and greatly reassure Alliance members and partners in Central and Eastern Europe who feel most vulnerable by this force multiplier in the hands of the Russian military. Finally, we would point out that there is ample precedent for NATO to purchase shared assets, including the Alliance's fleet of E-3A AWACS aircraft.
> 
> Mr. Secretary General, we believe that NATO's joint acquisition of the Mistrals truly would be a win-win-win move – for France, for NATO, and for Ukraine and other states in the region under Russian pressure. We ask that you give serious consideration to our proposal and look forward to your response.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Eliot L. Engel
> Ranking Member, Committee on Foreign Affairs
> 
> Michael Turner
> Chairman, U.S. Delegation to NATO Parliamentary Assembly
> 
> William R. Keating
> Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats


----------



## CougarKing

Whether France will listen to Poland is another matter:

Defense News



> *Poland Against France-Russia Warship Sale*
> Jun. 3, 2014 - 03:50PM   |   By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
> 
> (FULL ARTICLE AT LINK ABOVE)


----------



## Kirkhill

It's nice to know that France believes that signatures must be honoured.......


----------



## Kirkhill

Mers-el-Kebir

Perhaps Hollande would prefer a Churchillian solution.


----------



## MarkOttawa

But Cameron is no Churchill.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Fact.


----------



## CougarKing

Apparently the Russian annexation of Crimea isn't enough for cancelling the _Mistral_ sale in Merkel's eyes:


*Germany backs France on Russia warship contract* 

[euobserver]
5.06.14 



> *Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Wednesday (4 June) in Brussels that interruption of delivery might only come if the EU adopts “stage three” sanctions - economic sanctions - against Russia.
> 
> But she said the EU is not launching stage three because Russia did not stop Ukraine’s 25 May presidential elections from going ahead.*
> 
> “The question of exports to Russia falls under stage three. About when to trigger stage three, if there is more destabilisation we have agreed, also myself bilaterally with the US President, that if elections take place we won't trigger stage three. We see elections have taken place successfully, but that there were also negative elements of destabilisation [in east Ukraine],” she noted.
> 
> 
> *“If there is further destabilisation, yes, stage three - we've always said it,” she added.*


----------



## Kirkhill

Found a better solution to the problem than Mers-el-Kebir 1940.  This one is more in keeping with French sensibilities.

Auckland 1985


----------



## MarkOttawa

Does JTF 2 have the capability ?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CougarKing

Defense News



> *Russian Sailors To Begin Mistral Training June 22*
> Jun. 12, 2014 - 08:46PM   |   By PIERRE TRAN
> 
> PARIS — Some 400 Russian sailors are expected on June 22 to start training on the Mistral-class helicopter carrier, marking a slight delay from an induction planned to start earlier in the month, media reports said.
> 
> The personnel had been due to arrive in France June 1 but the Russian training ship, the Smolny, which was transporting them suffered damage at the Kronstadt military naval base and needed repairs, public service broadcaster France Television 3 and Agence France-Presse have reported.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Found a better solution to the problem than Mers-el-Kebir 1940.  This one is more in keeping with French sensibilities.
> 
> Auckland 1985



The irony would be strong in that one, leave a Greenpeace flag as well..... 8)


----------



## MilEME09

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Defense News



Makes me wonder what kind of long term consequences this will have for France given the situation in Ukraine


----------



## CougarKing

> *Controversial France-Russia Warship Step Closer To Completion
> *
> SAINT PETERSBURG, RUSSIA — A controversial French-Russian warship project that has been decried by NATO came a step closer to completion on Thursday when the stern of the helicopter carrier was dispatched to France.
> 
> The Baltiysky shipyard in Russia said it had begun towing the stern of the Mistral-class carrier to the STX shipyard in St. Nazaire on the French Atlantic coast.
> 
> The French shipyard will weld the stern to the hull before delivering the finished warship to the Russian navy at the end of next year. A second carrier has already been completed and is due to be delivered to Russia later this year.
> 
> (...EDITED)
> 
> Defense News


----------



## Jungle

I visited the Mistral a few days ago, nice ship. It's not as big as some of the other amphibs I have been on, but it would be perfect for us, should we decide to give ourselves such a capacity.


----------



## ModlrMike

MISTRAL is currently alongside in the same city I'm in. Certainly qualifies as a BHS*, and something we could, perhaps should have considered.


* BHS = big honkin' ship


----------



## CougarKing

More talk about NATO or the EU acquiring the Mistrals in place of Russia:



> *Interest Rises in EU Acquisition of Mistrals Sold to Russia*
> 
> PARIS — The idea that the European Union — not Russia — would acquire two French Mistral-class helicopter carriers already sold to Moscow is gaining ground as the West adopted a ban against future arms deals to Russia, and the energy and financial sectors, analysts said.
> 
> On Tuesday , the EU adopted a tier 3 batch of sanctions — for the first time aimed at whole sectors rather than selected asset freezes — while excluding the controversial €1.2 billion (US $1.6 billion) contract for the Mistral warships.
> 
> Dual-use, civil-military equipment was included in the punitive measures, which are seen as pushing the Russian economy closer to recession and as a hit to fragile economies in Western Europe.
> 
> Paris has been quietly looking for an acceptable solution, with the EU seen as a possible exit from the contentious arms contract with Russia.
> 
> (...EDITED)
> 
> German officials wonder how the Mistral problem can be resolved, a second analyst said.
> 
> Despite the highly public criticism of France, the EU has accepted that the Mistral deal would go forward.
> 
> *One possibility is the EU taking up the Mistral contract.*
> 
> “It is being discussed in Paris as an option,” Tétreau said. “It is gaining traction in Paris. There are diplomats and politicians in Paris who see that as a possibility.”
> 
> The EU has ample financial means, with the official seven-year budget set at €1 trillion, he said. One of the ships could be based at the docks shared by Belgium and the Netherlands, and the second vessel in the Mediterranean, he said.
> 
> *An alternative would be NATO, which has the infrastructure and mandate, he said.*
> 
> If the EU were to make the move, there is the European Defence Agency (EDA), which has the pooling-and-sharing approach for the member states. That could be a financial system for acquiring military platforms, he said.
> 
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> 
> Source:
> 
> Defense News


----------



## MilEME09

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> More talk about NATO or the EU acquiring the Mistrals in place of Russia:



if the EU or NATO as a whole buy it, they may then sell it to a member state or friendly allies in which can it may open the door to CAnada getting a LHD for cheap


----------



## acen

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29052599

Ukraine crisis: France halts warship delivery to Russia France has said conditions are "not right" for delivery of the first of two Mistral assault navy ships to Russia.

President Francois Hollande's office blamed Moscow's recent actions in Ukraine.

France had until now resisted pressure to halt the delivery.

Correspondents say the EU has struggled to tighten sanctions against Russia, restricting itself to travel bans and asset freezes against individuals.


----------



## GR66

Total pipedream I know, but I wonder if we were to purchase a mix of Gowind OPV's and Combat Corvettes from DCNS (http://en.dcnsgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/180561.pdf) to replace our Kingston and Halifax class ships and reduced the scope of the CSC project to just replace the Iroquois class, they would give us a super-sweet deal on the 2nd Russian Mistral.  Their company would still get nice business out of the deal and it would help get the French out of a sticky political situation.


----------



## CougarKing

No rejoicing quite yet since here's a further clarification as posted by ERC in the Ukraine crisis thread: it's only a halting of one of the vessels. The 2nd one will still be delivered on schedule next year.  

 :facepalm:

According to a report in the _National Post_:



> "France is suspending the delivery of a hulking warship to Russia amid security concerns about Moscow’s actions in neighbouring Ukraine ... The Vladivostok, the first of two Mistral-class helicopter carriers ordered by Russia, was to be delivered next month. *The second — named Sevastopol, ironically, after a port in Russian-annexed Crimea — has been slated for delivery next year."*


----------



## CougarKing

And more clarification: it's technically not even a "halt". It's only been suspended till NOVEMBER.

 :facepalm:

BBC



> *France faces huge Mistral bill for halting Russia deal*
> 
> (...EDITED)
> 
> *A French diplomat earlier said the contract was suspended until November*, and the delay "could cost us 1bn euros".
> 
> The deal is worth 1.2bn euros - and Russia is reported to have paid most of it, so breach of contract would mean France having to reimburse that money.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## CougarKing

The _Vladivostok_ leaves for sea trials.



> *First Mistral-Class Ship Built for Russia Sets Off for Sea Trials: Reports*
> 
> *The Mistral-class helicopter carrier, the Vladivostok, carrying some 200 Russian sailors on Saturday left the French port of Saint-Nazaire to pass a series of tests.*
> 
> The Vladivostok had left docks at 3:30 a.m. local time (1:30 GMT), but was forced to wait until the tide thus eventually sailing out to sea at 7:20 a.m. (5:20 GMT) accompanied by two tugboats, Agence France-Presse reported.
> 
> This is the first time the ship goes to sea since its arrival to Saint-Nazaire in June where two crews of Russian sailors, a total of 400 crew members, have been awaiting sea trials.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> Last week, France threatened to suspend the supply of the helicopter carriers, linking its decision to the crisis in Ukraine, claiming Moscow’s direct involvement. *Later, a French government spokesman told RIA Novosti that the delivery of the ship is not officially suspended and that French President Francois Hollande was simply outlining his political stance. Hollande stated he would not approve of the transfer of the vessel in November should the situation in Ukraine not improve.* Hollande later stated he would make the decision in late October.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> Source: RIA Novosti


----------



## CougarKing

In the event that Hollande won't deliver the ships to Russia in some unforeseen escalation of the Ukraine conflict:



> *Opinion: A Mistral For Canada*
> 
> By: Jim Dorschner
> September 19, 2014 [/font]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Mistral-class ship, 'Sevastopol' configured as a NATO/Canadian Navy ship._ CASR Image
> 
> 
> While France desperately wants to complete the two amphibious warships - and get paid for them - NATO and Canada need the capabilities these ships can provide.
> 
> For Canada, an LPH would help buttress logistic support for the upcoming Canadian Joint Support Ship (JSS). The replacement to Canada's fleet oilers originally required a level of expeditionary capabilities which were ultimately not included in the final ship design.
> 
> The second Russian Mistral - slated for delivery in 2016 - would be operated by the RCN on a renewable five-year lease, based on the East Coast at Halifax. Under terms of the lease, this LPH would share commitments between NATO and Canadian national taskings.
> 
> 
> *The joint and combined multirole capabilities an LPH can provide the RCN include:*
> 
> *** Amphibious and SOF support, including NEO and CSAR operations;
> 
> *** Humanitarian response - transporting and operating equipment, including landing craft, boats, helicopters and vehicles, while offering medical facilities and serving as an afloat base and operational HQ
> 
> *** Arctic operations support - serving as a forward deployed afloat base for multi-agency sovereignty operations and exercises and for combined exercises and operations with US, Danish and Norwegian forces; SAR response to air and maritime disasters; and duty as a platform for regional development and law enforcement activities
> 
> *** Task Force flagship/mothership for anti-piracy, sea control, ASW and other maritime operations
> 
> *** Training and Engagement - serving as the RCN training ship; and as a platform for regional engagement missions, embarking training teams and equipment for cruises tailored to the training needs of friendly forces in areas such as the Caribbean, Central America and West Africa.
> 
> *** Transport of vehicles, aircraft, equipment, containers and personnel in support of global deployments.
> 
> 
> *United States Naval Institute*


----------



## cameron

Looking at the comments on this thread it's apparent that I'm not the only one who's been thinking that Canada should buy at least one of these ships.


----------



## jollyjacktar

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> In the event that Hollande won't deliver the ships to Russia in some unforeseen escalation of the Ukraine conflict:


We could be so lucky.


----------



## GR66

I think a Mistral would be an excellent purchase for Canada.  It would allow us to provide Command and Control capability for various Task Force deployments like the Arabian Gulf, etc.  We could use it to excellent effect for humanitarian relief with both the Role 3 hospital and the vast storage capability for supplies and helicopter/landing craft transport.  It would be an excellent ASW platform for convoy duty in case of our involvement in a major conflict.  And it would allow us to deploy and support our own modest ground forces in lower-intensity conflicts while keeping our in-country footprint smaller by having HQ capabilities off shore.

DCNS is the ship builder of the Mistral and as I've mentioned previously they also have the Gowind family of Corvettes (http://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/les-corvettes-et-opv-de-la-famille-gowind) for which they sell the design for production at local shipyards.  I wonder if they would be willing to make some kind of deal on the 2nd Russian Mistral in return for Irving using a Gowind design for the NSPS program (understanding that a true AAW/Command Frigate design would then have to become a separate project if deemed necessary for the RCN).


----------



## MilEME09

As much of it being a waste of its capabilities, without our AOR's a mistral could atleast resupply dry goods to the rest of the fleet, and hold lots of em


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I think it would be really interesting if France offered to buy 2-3 AOPS as an offset....thus eliminating a bunch of the political hesitation over making a deal.


M.


----------



## Cloud Cover

A lot more information would need to be known about these 2 particular vessels in the Mistral class. After all, these 2 in particular were built for the Russian Navy, not the Canadian Navy or any other NATO maritime force.

Are the crew accommodations able a fit for our multi-gender navy?
Are the electronics, cabling and related hardware NATO standard or Russian Standard.
What type of fuel is used for the main engines [what are the main engines>>> are they standard Mistral fit or something else/
Are the hangar spaces able to accommodate our helicopters or Russian helicopters- ie, have they been modified?
...and the list could go on and on.....

And besides all of that, the RCN is having problems crewing the diminishing fleet that it already has, let alone actually cutting steel for supply ships and the like. 

In my opinion, forget about these cursed Franco-Russian ships, stay focused on the few ships in good working order that are currently being semi-upgraded in the fleet, and maybe let the dream live on in the half assed sort of way that things are currently happening, but settle on lower expectations of no more than 6 or 8 new, fairly useless "combatant" ships + 2 oilers that "may" materialize over the next 20 years.  

Not meaning to be a pessimist, just being realistic and pragmatic>>> this is Canada, unfortunately now rapidly becoming a "pretend" naval power.


----------



## daftandbarmy

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> A lot more information would need to be known about these 2 particular vessels in the Mistral class. After all, these 2 in particular were built for the Russian Navy, not the Canadian Navy or any other NATO maritime force.



Oh come on now, we have an excellent track record when it comes to buying used vessels from Euro Navies.


----------



## McG

Russia has already been training on the ship.  What are the chances that it does not already have electronic snooping devices hidden on board?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> A lot more information would need to be known about these 2 particular vessels in the Mistral class. After all, these 2 in particular were built for the Russian Navy, not the Canadian Navy or any other NATO maritime force.
> 
> Are the crew accommodations able a fit for our multi-gender navy?
> Are the electronics, cabling and related hardware NATO standard or Russian Standard.
> What type of fuel is used for the main engines [what are the main engines>>> are they standard Mistral fit or something else/
> Are the hangar spaces able to accommodate our helicopters or Russian helicopters- ie, have they been modified?
> ...and the list could go on and on.....
> 
> And besides all of that, the RCN is having problems crewing the diminishing fleet that it already has, let alone actually cutting steel for supply ships and the like.
> 
> In my opinion, forget about these cursed Franco-Russian ships, stay focused on the few ships in good working order that are currently being semi-upgraded in the fleet, and maybe let the dream live on in the half assed sort of way that things are currently happening, but settle on lower expectations of no more than 6 or 8 new, fairly useless "combatant" ships + 2 oilers that "may" materialize over the next 20 years.
> 
> Not meaning to be a pessimist, just being realistic and pragmatic>>> this is Canada, unfortunately now rapidly becoming a "pretend" naval power.



The other side of that equation is "What is it worth to deny an increasingly aggressive Russia a pair of ice-hardened LPH's?  That applies directly to Canada's arctic sovereignty and also in a larger NATO context I the Black Sea, Mediterranean, Baltic, etc."

So refit costs or not, I think the question is bigger just looking at if they fit conveniently into our current structure in isolation.


M.


----------



## CougarKing

The ongoing Mistral saga is affecting France's other potential sales:

Defense News



> *Poland Says French-Russian Warship Deal Raises Issues for Missile Shield*
> Sep. 29, 2014 - 02:22PM   |  By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
> 
> WARSAW, POLAND —* Poland on Monday said a possible French deal to supply Russia with warships was making it difficult for Warsaw to choose French suppliers for its planned missile shield.*
> 
> “I can’t hide the fact that the Mistral (warship contract) is not helping us make positive decisions” about French missile shield suppliers, Polish Defence Minister Tomasz Siemoniak said in an interview published in the Rzeczpospolita daily.
> 
> France said earlier this month that it had suspended the delivery of two warships to Russia in a €1.2 billion ($1.6 billion) deal amid widespread criticism by NATO allies worried by Moscow’s role in the Ukraine crisis.
> 
> *French President Francois Hollande then said he would decide in October whether or not to nix the lucrative deal.
> 
> “We are critical of this transaction. Nobody has ever hidden this fact from our French partners,*” Siemoniak said.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Regardless of what one's views are when it comes to France's stance on cancelling or pursuing the _Mistral_ class LHDs' sale to Russia, wouldn't some of you agree that the protester's use of the model in the way pictured below is a waste of a perfectly good model ship? Not sure what scale it is, but I think its maker definitely put a lot of effort to make it look more than a simple "aircraft carrier" that most laymen would see these assault ships.

Picture source: Defense News








> *France Wrestles With Legal Issues Ahead of Mistral Decision*
> Oct. 5, 2014 - 02:17PM   |   By PIERRE TRAN
> 
> PARIS — France is expected to decide within the coming month whether to deliver a Mistral-class helicopter carrier to Russia, and the letter of the law looms large with officials examining the sale contract as they weigh the government’s options, legal and defense specialists said.
> 
> Key to those determinations is whether the force majeure clause allows France to suspend and cancel the controversial contract, which calls for a hand over of the warship at the end of October or early November.
> 
> *But one thing has become clear: President François Hollande’s Sept. 6 statement on the eve of the NATO summit was widely misinterpreted as suspending the contract.
> 
> Hollande carefully avoided saying it was suspended, as that would have “called into question the contract,” *Jean-Pierre Maulny, deputy director of think tank Institut des Relations Internationales et Stratégique. “It was a sensitive statement” aimed at keeping the contract intact and avoiding a claim for financial penalty, he said.
> 
> *“It’s not in suspension,” a legal expert said. “The statement was pure politics.”
> *
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Fresh coat of paint and it will be good as new!


----------



## CougarKing

Russia really wants the 2 Mistrals...that it's even willing to go to court for them.

Moscow Times



> *Russia Threatens to Sue France If Mistral Warship Isn't Delivered*
> The Moscow Times
> 
> Oct. 24 2014 13:32 Last edited 13:33
> 
> Russia will take France to court if Paris cancels the delivery of the first of two Mistral-class warships due to be handed over to the Russian Navy within the next two weeks, a top Kremlin official said Friday.
> France has been under huge pressure from its allies to nix the sale of the ships over Russia's actions in Ukraine, but if Paris reneges on the 1.2 billion euro ($1.5 billion) deal, "there will be a court appeal and a demand for compensation for breach of contract, as is done throughout the civilized world," President Vladimir Putin's chief of staff Sergei Ivanov was quoted as saying by the RIA Novosti news agency.
> The ball is entirely in Paris' court, he added.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Seems we'll have to wait longer for Hollande's final decision:

Defense News



> *Mistral Decision Coming Next Month*
> Oct. 28, 2014 - 08:44PM   |   By PIERRE TRAN
> 
> PARIS — French President François Hollande will decide in November whether France will go ahead with a delivery of the Mistral-class helicopter carrier to Russia, Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Tuesday.
> 
> Sources have said previously that a decision was expected in either late October or early November.
> 
> “In early September, the president said that if the political conditions did not change, he could not imagine authorizing a delivery,” Le Drian told journalists at the Euronaval trade show.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It certainly highlights the difficulties and potential pitfalls of buying foreign.


----------



## CougarKing

The clock is ticking till the deadline; let' see what happens on Nov. 14.

Defense News



> *Russia Says France Due To Hand Over First Warship Nov. 14*
> Oct. 29, 2014 - 02:52PM   |   By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
> 
> MOSCOW — Russia said Wednesday that France is still due to complete the controversial handover of a warship next month, despite pressure for the deal to be scrapped over Moscow’s role in the Ukraine crisis.
> 
> Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said the country’s state-run arms dealer had received an invitation to attend a ceremony on Nov. 14 for the handing over of the first of two Mistral helicopter carriers, Russian news agencies reported.
> 
> “From the point of view of the technical fulfillment of the contract, everything is going to plan,” Rogozin said.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Still no decision yet, even if it's almost the Nov.14 deadline as of this poting...



> *France: Still No Date For Warship Delivery To Russia*
> Nov. 12, 2014
> By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
> 
> (...EDITED)
> 
> *"No delivery date can be fixed at this stage. The president of the Republic has said that a definitive decision will come at the right moment, taking into account all the responsibilities that come with this decision, which is not a simple decision."*
> 
> - Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian
> 
> The first of two mammoth Mistral-class assault ships was supposed to be delivered on Friday according to the original deal signed in 2011.
> 
> France faces a difficult choice. Ditching the contract will cost it billions of dollars and threatens jobs. But going ahead would incur NATO's wrath and heighten fears in Poland and the Baltic states, which are concerned that Russia's recent aggression may soon turn in their direction.
> 
> 
> *Defense News*


----------



## CougarKing

A definite suspension this time?

Defense News



> *France Suspends Mistral Warship Delivery to Russia*
> Nov. 25, 2014 - 09:49AM   |   By PIERRE TRAN
> 
> PARIS — French President François Hollande has placed a hold on the delivery of the first Mistral helicopter carrier to Russia in view of the deadly conflict in east Ukraine, the president’s office said on Tuesday.
> 
> “The president of the republic considers the present situation in east Ukraine still does not allow the delivery of the first [projection and command ship],” the Elysée president’s office said in a statement. “He has decided that it is appropriate to suspend, until further notice, the examination of the request for export authorization for the first [projection and command ship] to the Russian Federation.”
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## MilEME09

I think it would be a clearer signal of what France plans to do if it sends those 600 Russian sailors home. Though if i were them I wouldn't be minding the vacation in southern france right now.


----------



## CougarKing

2 belated updates from last month; apparently this French shipyard's union are on Putin's side.



> *France launches second Mistral-class vessel*
> [naval-technology] - 21 November 2014
> 
> Sevastopol is one of two vessels built as part of a $1.5bn deal signed by France and Russia in June 2011, Sputnik news agency reported.
> The first carrier, Vladivostok, is expected to join the Russian Navy by the end of this year, followed by Sevastopol next year.
> 
> Deliveries were suspended in October, following criticism from the UK and US regarding Moscow's reported involvement in the Ukrainian crisis.
> 
> *‘Outraged’ French union urges Hollande to honor Mistral deal, 2,500 jobs at stake*
> 
> The union expressed “shock and outrage,” Le Figaro reports, after Paris postponed the delivery on the Mistral helicopter carriers to Russia due to pressure from the US and EU, which imposed several waves of sanctions against Moscow after Crimea joined Russia over the Ukraine crisis.
> 
> President Francois Hollande’s decision has put 2,500 workers at risk of redundancy, which is absolutely unacceptable, Workers’ Force representatives told Le Figaro newspaper.
> 
> [rt.com]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An aerial view shows the Mistral-class helicopter carrier Sevastopol at the STX Les Chantiers de l'Atlantique shipyard site in Saint-Nazaire, western France, September 22, 2014. (Reuters/Stephane Mahe)
> -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photo from RIA Novosti
> 
> other source: unian.info


----------



## CougarKing

An ultimatum from Moscow?



> *Russia to France: Give Us the Mistrals or a Refund*
> 
> By: Sam LaGrone
> Published: December 8, 2014
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mistral-class helicopter carrier Vladivostok via Reuters
> 
> Russia has given the French government a choice, either deliver the two promised Mistral-class amphibious warships to the Russian Navy or refund the purchase price of the $1.53 billion program, a Russian foreign policy official told reporters on Monday.
> 
> “Both options will suit us — either the ships or the money. The money spent must be recovered,” Kremlin foreign policy aide Yuri Ushakov told reporters on Monday, following a quickly organized Saturday meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and French President François Hollande in the Moscow airport.
> 
> Delivery of the two custom built variants of the 21,000-ton French Mistral amphibious warships to Russia has been stalled by the Hollande government since September over concerns of the ongoing fighting between Russian backed separatists and the Ukrainian government.
> 
> Hollande said the delivery of the two ships would be tied to the implementation of the so-called Minsk Protocol — a September ceasefire agreement between separatists, Russia and Ukraine.
> 
> 
> *USNI News*


----------



## MilEME09

Well the refund option means they need to sell the ships to someone else


----------



## CougarKing

It's looking more and more like Moscow won't be getting the first _Mistral_...

Defense News



> *Shipbuilder: Russian Mistral Sailors To Leave France*
> Dec. 17, 2014 - 04:31PM   |   By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
> 
> PARIS — About 400 Russian sailors are returning home, French shipbuilder DCNS said Wednesday, as Paris weighs whether to deliver the Mistral-class warship to Russia amid the Ukraine crisis.
> 
> “I can confirm that the Russian sailors will return (to Russia) before the end of year,” said a DCNS spokesman.
> 
> The spokesman did not give a date of departure and could not say whether they would return for more training on the high-tech vessel
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Well the refund option means they need to sell the ships to someone else



 :cdnsalute: HMCS Vladivostok   :cdnsalute:

or HMCS Borden or HMCS General Elmsley's  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Siberian_Expeditionary_Force


----------



## Privateer

Colin P said:
			
		

> :cdnsalute: HMCS Vladivostok   :cdnsalute:
> 
> or HMCS Borden or HMCS General Elmsley's  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Siberian_Expeditionary_Force



Too recent for the current government.  They'd probably prefer HMCS Balaclava, or HMCS Stevastopol, which have the added benefit of having a Crimean context.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

One of the wonderful things with these two babies, is that an important part of the "Russianizing" mods made to the original design was to make the hull ice-strenghtened and add whole-ship extra insulation and heating for Arctic operation. We would only have to "upgrade" the electrical, replace the basic sets of radars (since the actual military comms and radars + other military electronics were to be added once in Russia) and replace all the tags on the equipment to French/English instead of cyrillic.


----------



## Danjanou

Privateer said:
			
		

> Too recent for the current government.  They'd probably prefer HMCS Balaclava, or HMCS Stevastopol, which have the added benefit of having a Crimean context.



HMCS Alexander Roberts Dunn VC  8)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Roberts_Dunn


----------



## ringo

HMCS Vimy Ridge 
HMCS Juno Beach


----------



## Spencer100

HMCS Dieppe 
HMCS Juno Beach

Both in France and both amphibious ops.


----------



## Old Sweat

Donning my cynical hat, I suspect both ships would be named after Canadian cities based on the precedent on the past several decades.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Donning my cynical hat, I suspect both ships would be named after Canadian cities based on the precedent on the past several decades.



I dunno. The "Hero" class patrol boats were a surprise in naming convention. If they purchase these, they are likely to be expensive, useless boondoggles, so how about HMCS Chretien and HMCS McGuinty?


----------



## CougarKing

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> HMCS Dieppe



Wouldn't this name be in bad taste, considering the horrendous losses the Brits and Canadian troops suffered at the 1942 Dieppe landings? So much went wrong with that operation...such as the fact that the Calgary Tank unit's Churchill tanks were not prepared to fight on the the gravel beach and all were knocked out.

Isn't the naming convention for warships, that happened be named for battles, require that these battles be clear victories? (E.g. The British battleship HMS _Ramillies_, named after a British victory during the War of Spanish Succession in the 1700s)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

People often talk of warships "naming convention". To say that such "conventions" exist is actually an exaggeration. There are no fast rules written down anywhere and naming is more often than not just a whim of the current leadership (for example, the Harper government's love affair with anything 1812 that will give us two supply ships bearing battle names from that war even though they have no Naval connection or historical naval usage connected to it).

HMCS BONAVENTURE was named after an Island near Gaspé because it was a bird sanctuary. Obviously, someone thought that was both Canadian and whimsical.

During WWII, the Prince's three (HMCS PRINCE DAVID, HMCS PRINCE HENRY and HMCS PRINCE ROBERT) were so named not after real princes, but after the three sons of the Head of Canadian National Steamship, from whom they were taken over for conversion to AMC's.

The British gave their Flower class corvettes actual flower names on the odd thinking that it would be morally frustrating for the Warlike ego of German officers to know that had been sunk by  Rose, or Tulip or Petunia, etc.

All I know is that, if I were to command a ship  named after the Dieppe raid, I would certainly feel extra pressure to make sure that I never, ever, participate in any future mission that would appear to me to be so doomed.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

or HMS Pansy  ;D

I can imagine the jokes abounding about HMCS Dogwood, HMCS Lady Slipper (Provincial flowers)


----------



## ModlrMike

All kidding aside, there may be some real practical reasons to explore this option.

We might be able to get them at a discount, and further induce the French to support our ship builders by buying vessels from them as an offset. Of course the later may prove problematic given the strong French ship-worker's unions.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

These ships will be 8 years old by the time we even build anything to compete with them.


----------



## Newt

HMCS SEDNA
HMCS SGA'NA

Inuit and Haida dieties of the sea. There might be some cultural sensitivities to negotiate around, but also good opportunities for more FN engagement with the RCN.

Realistically can we afford to operate two LHD's? 

I think that a Mistral would give Canada a level of "middle power" projection that we haven't had since BONAVENTURE was paid off.


----------



## YZT580

And where in the budget or in defense planning is the money to equip the flight deck?  We don't have assault helicopters per se and our current squadrons are already spoken for.  We don't have nor have we ordered enough a/c to equip even one.  Perhaps a ski jump can be affixed to enable F35 operations.  Might as well dream big


----------



## McG

Could the C model fly from one of these?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

YZT580 said:
			
		

> And where in the budget or in defense planning is the money to equip the flight deck?  We don't have assault helicopters per se and our current squadrons are already spoken for.  We don't have nor have we ordered enough a/c to equip even one.  Perhaps a ski jump can be affixed to enable F35 operations.  Might as well dream big



We would support NATO operations and provide a platform for NATO Assets to fly off of. Eventually we might decide to replace the Griffons with a helicopters that can operate in marine environment. As I recall the Chinooks can land on the deck of the Mistrials?


----------



## CougarKing

Colin P said:
			
		

> or HMS Pansy  ;D
> 
> I can imagine the jokes abounding about HMCS Dogwood, HMCS Lady Slipper (Provincial flowers)



Weren't WW2 RCN _Flower_ class corvettes actually named after towns and cities?

e.g.
HMCS _Chilliwack_
HMCS _Kamloops_

Source: Shipcraft Special: Flower Class Corvettes by John Lambert - modelling book that also features a history of the whole class


----------



## MilEME09

Colin P said:
			
		

> We would support NATO operations and provide a platform for NATO Assets to fly off of. Eventually we might decide to replace the Griffons with a helicopters that can operate in marine environment. As I recall the Chinooks can land on the deck of the Mistrials?



Yes they can I've seen pictures of the CAF operating with the french do training and the chinooks were landing on a mistral.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Yes, WWII Canadian corvettes bore towns and cities names. In fact, this is the tradition that the RCN resuscitated with the Halifax's, then the MCDV's, and has now been abandoned by the Harper government with the new AOR's (or whatever they will be classified as). But the Brits actually named them after flowers, hence the class name.

And YZT580, that is the beauty of these ships: You don't need to "equip" the flight deck. The CF already have all sorts of things that could fly from them depending on the actual mission. Exercise in the Arctic? Put a bunch of Griffon's onboard. Little training required. Big ASW ex in the Atlantic: Put half a dozen Sea kings (or their replacement, if ever  ). Civilian EVAC from a civil war zone? Load the Chinooks. etc.

As far as the Navy is concerned, smaller crew than a frigate and lesser operating costs.

And, yes, you could operate F-35 B's from them, but with reduced load as, as is at least, you have to do short run take-offs or vertical ones without ski-jump assistance.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Yes they can I've seen pictures of the CAF operating with the french do training and the chinooks were landing on a mistral.



I wonder if they could carry a couple of Chinooks internally without their blades on and bring them up the lift? In which case it could deliver them to the theater and they could operate off of them as required. Also would the Cyclones fit the hanger/lift? You could see the Griffons replaced with a combination of marine ASW cyclones and non-naval Cyclones/S-92's as troop carriers


----------



## Bearpaw

The stern elevator has a 13 ton lift capacity which could accomodate an empty CH-47.  The area of the elevator is 225 m^2 which I take to be 15mx15m.  If part of the CH-47 were hanging over the stern(about 2 or 3 meters) then the size of the elevator would allow a CH-47(without blades)  to be moved.

Bearpaw


----------



## Cloud Cover

Would a troop carrying version of the Cyclone fit without the blades folded? What would the French be using on this thing as a medium lift? the NH90?


----------



## Happy Guy

Good article as to why Canada should not buy a Mistral class ship: http://www.cdfai.org/idevicepapers/PuttingtheCartbeforetheHorse.htm

- core capabilities of the RCN needs to be rebuilt first: loss of the AORs and the loss of there Iroquois class destroyers has led to a significant degrdation of the RCN's ability to fulfill its responsibilities
- there are no RCN ships that can be devoted to escorting and protecting a Mistral class ship
- cost of fully equiping a Mistral class ship will be extremely high (additional helicopters, trained crew, maintenance and operating costs) and not affordable considering the current budget

The NSPS is under funded, behind schedule with no visible progress.  The DND procurement history by this current government is rather dismal. This brings into question whether even the government is even able to produce a first-class, modern military that is well trained, well equipped and ready to take on the challenges of the 21st century.

The government needs to concentrate on just building the surface combatant ships, AORs and the Arctic patrol ships and when this is done perhaps look at buying a Mistral class ship.

However I grant you that it is nice day dream to have well equiped navy again.


----------



## dapaterson

Who pays the bills for the CDFAI?  Lots of overlap with the CDA - who have vested interested in Defence spending money in Canada, regardless of the cost.  Buying two ships overseas would openly demonstrate the folly of the NSPS and the elevated costs Canada pays for domestic shipbuilding.


----------



## Happy Guy

Do you mean Canada should not have domestic warship building capability?


----------



## YZT580

The Russians have discovered the major disadvantage of buying off-shore.  The Israelis discovered this years ago when dealing with France.  They ended up stealing their own ships.  Having your own industry means no one can say you can't have it.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> Do you mean Canada should not have domestic warship building capability?



Not if it is uncompetitive and grossly expensive.


----------



## dapaterson

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> Do you mean Canada should not have domestic warship building capability?



We don't build tanks.

We don't build fighter or transport aircraft.

We don't build submarines.

Why should we build surface warships?


----------



## tabernac

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> Do you mean Canada should not have domestic warship building capability?



The answer to this question hinges on the success, or failure of NSPS. And right now, things don't look too rosy - despite the rhetoric from FOs.



			
				whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Not if it is uncompetitive and grossly expensive.


^This.


----------



## Cloud Cover

NSPS - No Steel Paper Ships. - this is nothing but a PMO that has as its chief product power point slides. Nothing will materialize and everybody knows that.


----------



## PuckChaser

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> NSPS - No Steel Paper Ships. - this is nothing but a PMO that has as its chief product power point slides. Nothing will materialize and everybody knows that.



As opposed to previous governments who ignored the fact that we should have started designing these ships 20 years ago?


----------



## Cloud Cover

the sort of gross incompetency, inertia and lack of urgency in Canadian ship building does not seem to be specific to any political party that happens to be in power. I was around when the Mulroney Cons added and deleted ship variants and classes at seemingly random whim (remember the AAW version of the CPF, the ASLV support ship, the Canadian Sovereignty Enforcement Vessel, how about those SSN's eh?) , with nary an intention of ever building any of them. That the CPF ever materialized was nothing short of a cock up of the highest order > somehow the ships were built in spite of the inept people supposedly managing and backing the project. I think the Chretien government was unaware the Kingston class was under construction until it was too late. The RCN has spent more money and decommissioned more naval ships under Harper than under Trudeau. Ironically, more ships and submarines (26) were commissioned under Chretien than any Prime Minister since perhaps Diefenbaker or more likely McKenzie King. And all of those were late Trudeau era projects that somehow made it through the grinder.


----------



## YZT580

We don't build tanks.  Could if required.  

We don't build fighter or transport aircraft.  Could if we had to.  The infrastructure is there

We don't build submarines.  Perhaps we should have?

Why should we build surface warships?  Because if we do it right (big IF I know) we should end up with a decent industry infrastructure that will survive.  We spent billions on propping up GM and Oshawa is talking of closing.  Why not spend the same amount on establishing an industry that just may be able to stick around and supply the RCN for the next 50 years?  The inflated part of the cost of the ships is no greater than the money that went into GM in 2008 and those jobs lasted what 6 years.  At least we'll get 15 out of the shipyards.  Vancouver will start cutting steel next year.  They are ready to go so at least some of the promises will come to pass.  The procurement optics are terrible but consider the bright side.  We have 5 c17s and a whole fleet of hercs.  We have Ch47's.  None of these purchases were even thought of 10 years ago.  The army even got new tanks.  True the truck bit got screwed up.  Pardon the rant but I have spent 40 years paying taxes and seeing very little to show for it.  I have seen more new hardware enter service in the past 8 years than in any other identical time frame.


----------



## ringo

IMHO the RCN would get a better bang for it's buck building hulls overseas with final fitting out and refits in Canadian yards, cost savings would be huge.


----------



## Happy Guy

This question is moot.  The government has already decided that it is politically more advantageous at this time to have a national ship building programme.  Of course despite rhetoric to the contrary if and when all the ships have been built, the government at that time will let the industry wither and die much like  what happen after the Halifax classes were built.


----------



## ModlrMike

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> This question is moot.  The government has already decided that it is politically more advantageous at this time to have a national ship building programme.  Of course despite rhetoric to the contrary if and when all the ships have been built, the government at that time will let the industry wither and die much like  what happen after the Halifax classes were built.



But then shouldn't the industry compete on the international stage for business? France can build ships for Russia; can't Canada build ships for someone else? Is it the responsibility of governments to prop up commercial interests (GM et al notwithstanding)?


----------



## blacktriangle

I don't think a military shipbuilding industry is something that the average Canadian supports or wants.


----------



## McG

YZT580 said:
			
		

> We don't build fighter or transport aircraft.  Could if we had to.  The infrastructure is there


Avro Arrow 2?


----------



## GR66

IF we could get a really sweet deal on a Mistral I think it would be an excellent purchase for Canada.

As far as the arguments in the article that we should do other things first THEN get a capability like a Mistral I'd say that it would be more expensive at that time (again...only buy it now if we can get a REALLY sweet deal on it).

I think the other arguments can be countered as well.  We don't need to permanently have Chinooks assigned to the ship.  

- When we need to deploy in a situation that requires Chinooks we embark the ones we have.
- You don't need a Marine Corps to deploy troops off the ship.  We have light troops that can already be deployed by helicopter or by landing craft (we're not envisioning opposed marine landings here)
- As they mentioned we rarely deploy without allies so we don't need to rely only on our own, domestic escorts for the ship.

This ship expands on what should be some of our core maritime capabilities.  It would be an excellent ASW command ship and submarines are really the major military threat to our coastline or Western forces in the case of a major conventional war.  It can be used for humanitarian-type missions which our governments love so much.  It would allow us to minimize our footprint in sensitive areas while maintaining the ability to project power.  It can be used to support allied troops (embarked troops or aircraft, hospital facilities, command facilities, etc).  

With this ship we wouldn't have as much requirement for a JSS-type vessel.  We could instead build simpler, cheaper AORs (even off the shelf) and get them into service faster.  Any new warships we get should have ASW helicopter capability so we can use the Mistral to host and train the crews required for those ships while we wait for their construction to be completed.

Overall AT THE RIGHT PRICE I think a Mistral would be an excellent choice for the RCN.


----------



## Loachman

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Yes they can I've seen pictures of the CAF operating with the french do training and the chinooks were landing on a mistral.



To the best of my knowledge, none of our Chinooks have operated from any ship, yet. 430 Squadron did operate from Mistral for a few days earlier this year, though.


----------



## McG

How do Chinooks hold up against a corrosive maritime environment?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Yes, 430 Squadron was embarked and carried out the support for a landing of forces from the R22R. They re-took the Gaspe airport from "terrorists" as part of Mistral Lion Ex.

See here in our own threads under Navy/ships:

Re: Little Honking Ships...... 

« Reply #182 on: June 24, 2014, 11:06:11 »

here is a little video of some of the possibilities:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-byd6Fp5RW4

Article from here:
http://www.45enord.ca/2014/06/deux-cent-militaires-de-valcartier-debarquent-en-gaspesie-photosvideo/

This actually supports my position: the CF already has the assets it needs to usefully put on board Mistral type ships as required by whatever mission we want to carry out, the whole with little training required of the embarked force  - air or land - which is exactly what the French developed these ships for.  We are not and need not look at this as requiring that we transform into a US style specialized Marines force to carry out forcible entry against large opposition force and with the capability of invading (small) countries by ourselves.

And if they require an escort (doubtful in 99% of scenarios) we have frigates that are quite capable, except may be for long range AAW, but those are the first type of CSC's that will be built anyway.

Meanwhile, can any one tell me that these would not have been useful for the ops in East Timor? For the evacuation of Canadian residents from Lebanon? For support in the Hurricane Katrina ops or in the Haiti Earthquake op? Or that they would not be useful as mobile support base for those larger scale joint ex we are now carrying out in the Arctic from time to time?  None of these would require "escort".
       
MCG: I don't know what the resistance to corrosion is on Chinooks, but the US Marines have some of them embarked all the time. And the elevator for the airplanes are at the stern of the Mistral's, so folding rotors and letting the Chinook's tail hang over the side, they would fit on the elevator. Moreover, the "Russianized" Mistrals have a higher height in the hangar in order to accommodate the taller Russian helicopters.


----------



## George Wallace

MCG said:
			
		

> How do Chinooks hold up against a corrosive maritime environment?



The US has used them in maritime environments for some time.

Not being a sailor, nor maritime aviator, but from what little I know, it will boil down to the "wash down" procedures done as a preventative measure on all aluminium aircraft used at sea.


----------



## Loachman

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I don't know what the resistance to corrosion is on Chinooks, but the US Marines have some of them embarked all the time. And the elevator for the airplanes are at the stern of the Mistral's, so folding rotors and letting the Chinook's tail hang over the side, they would fit on the elevator. Moreover, the "Russianized" Mistrals have a higher height in the hangar in order to accommodate the taller Russian helicopters.



You are thinking of CH46 Sea Knight. We operated the same machine as Voyageur and Labrador in the past. The USMC has never operated Chinooks, whose blades do not fold.

The RAF sent four Chinooks to the Falkland War in 1982, aboard Atlantic Conveyor, a container ship which was sunk by the Argentinians, taking three of the Chinooks with it. All that is really necessary is a big enough patch of deck.

We do daily engine desalination runs whenever we operate anywhere near a coast - including Vancouver Airport during Winter Olympics.


----------



## CougarKing

Moscow still wants the refund...

Defense News



> *Clock Ticking On Mistral Decision, Russia Tells France*
> 
> MOSCOW — Russia will gladly take back the money it paid for French Mistral-class warships whose handover has been delayed by concerns over Moscow's role in the Ukraine crisis, a deputy defense minister said Saturday.
> 
> *Yury Borisov also indicated that Paris should make a decision before the new year.*
> 
> "It doesn't matter if the calendar shows December 31, 2014, or January 1, 2015, but we are waiting for France's decision," Interfax news agency quoted him as saying.
> 
> "We would be content with either development – the Mistrals or the return of all the invested money," he said.
> 
> Given the currency crisis in Russia, which saw the ruble rapidly devalue by 50 percent, taking the money from the euro-denominated deal "may actually be preferable," he added.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## GR66

Pay them back in Rubles.


----------



## jollyjacktar

GR66 said:
			
		

> Pay them back in Rubles.



 :subbies:   That would be a fitting present for Vlad.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You can see our Griffons operating from them in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vSbA4CydQM

A quick look at Wiki shows it's deck can support helo's up to 33 tonnes, the lift can lift 13 tons, so an empty Chinook weight wise would work. The biggest helo stated as landing on one is the Sea Dragon.

If we got them, we could have the landing craft built here


----------



## CougarKing

Colin P said:
			
		

> If we got them, we could have the landing craft built here



Doesn't the Canadian Coast Guard hovercraft _Siyay_ have a forward open deck and a ramp? Thus wouldn't it be similar to the USN's LCACs?

How about a larger version of the _Siyay_ then instead of an off-the-shelf-purchase of LCACs? Her builder, Hike Metal Products, is in Ontario.

Photo source: dive.roko.ca


----------



## MilEME09

but can it support a LAV? or a Leopard? leopard not so much but a LAV would be important to be able to do that kind of work if we had that kind of capability


----------



## ModlrMike

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> but can it support a LAV? or a Leopard? leopard not so much but a LAV would be important to be able to do that kind of work if we had that kind of capability



She lifts just over 26T, and a LAV 3 weighs about 17T.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I think the landing crafts are also part of the overall deal. 

In any events, why would we get our own "air cushion" landing crafts if they can only carry one LAV at a time? The standard landing crafts can carry a lot more. Moreover, air cushion crafts cost a lot more and require a lot more maintenance.

The main reason the US developed the LCAC was to have a capability to strike from farther offshore by having a faster vessel than the standard landing crafts.

Two other solution to the speed/distance problem have been developed that are a lot cheaper:

1) the Norwegian SB90E combat boats if you wish to land troops only; or,

2) the new French designed "catamaran" landing craft. You can see one of them on an opposite tack in the vid attached to Colin's latest post. It is a beautiful concept they developed: the whole central hull of the landing craft, which carries the load, can be raised out of the water leaving the two side 'pontoons" in the water and turning the craft into a deeper draft and mush faster vessel (24 kts IIRC). As you get near shore, the central hull is lowered back in the water, transforming the landing craft back into a shallow draft wide and flat bottomed barge that can get in all the way to the beach and unload.


----------



## Infanteer

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The main reason the US developed the LCAC was to have a capability to strike from farther offshore by having a faster vessel than the standard landing crafts.



Air cushioned landing craft also open up more beach to potential landing.  The amount of accessible beaches worldwide is estimated at about 30% for conventional landing craft and 70% for air cushioned landing craft.  This article provides a synopsis of most of the factors related to amphibious landings.

https://www.tjomo.com/article/52/Over_the_Beach_The_Enduring_Utility_of_Amphibious_Operations/


----------



## jollyjacktar

I just watched Colin's video.  It was very interesting to see her much closer, however, I am horrified to see the French are still using the old style Bunker Gear we were using when I first re-mustered.  Makes me shudder some.


----------



## FSTO

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I just watched Colin's video.  It was very interesting to see her much closer, however, I am horrified to see the French are still using the old style Bunker Gear we were using when I first re-mustered.  Makes me shudder some.



I agree, but it looks fabulous on them. A certain Latin/Romance quality about the material. ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I worked on the SRN6's and moved on just as the AP1-88-400 came online. They are great craft, but require a fair bit of maintenance. for what we do the French landing craft would be better. Where the AP1's would shine is in the Arctic


----------



## McG

Colin P said:
			
		

> I worked on the SRN6's and moved on just as the AP1-88-400 came online. They are great craft, but require a fair bit of maintenance. for what we do the French landing craft would be better. Where the AP1's would shine is in the Arctic


Is the Arctic not what we are supposed to do?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I would summer base them from land, at a cruising speed of 30+(up to 60 empty) knots they can cover a lot of territory in a hurry. You need to do it in pairs. 2 in Western Arctic and 2 in the Eastern Arctic. Supplement with CB-90's at a couple of other locations (Coppermine, Cambridge Bay) and you can respond to most stuff with a local presence. (building a naval reserve up there is a whole other thread)

The reality is that if we bought the Mistrals most of the stuff they end up doing is away from Canadian waters. Perhaps one exercise a year or every 2 in the Arctic. Not worth creating a whole new arm and tech for. Also Hovercraft work is so specialized it's considered a bit of a career killer even in the CCG. although people who go there are generally content with that. but if your goal is to become a big ship captain then best to stay clear of that.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin P said:
			
		

> Also Hovercraft work is so specialized it's considered a bit of a career killer even in the CCG. although people who go there are generally content with that. but if your goal is to become a big ship captain then best to stay clear of that.



Not really relevant to the Navy, as the boats coming out of a Mistral (any type) would not be driven by officers but by  Boatswains Petty Officers and Chief Petty Officers with a charge ticket. They would likely consider this the crowning achievement of their career and would seek it out.


----------



## CougarKing

The "Mistral drama" continues:

Defense News



> *Russia Wants Formal French Statement on Mistral*
> By Pierre Tran 12:05 p.m. EST January 13, 2015
> 
> PARIS — The French procurement office Tuesday declined to comment on a report Russia has asked for a written statement on whether the Mistral class helicopter carrier will be delivered to Moscow.
> 
> *Russia officially sent a written request to France for an explanation of the refusal to deliver the Mistral warship, Russian news agency Ria-Novosti reported,* according to Agence France-Presse.
> 
> A Russian official in the military and technical cooperation service sent the letter to the Direction Générale de l'Armement (DGA) procurement office, "with the aim of receiving an official reply," the report said.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

The other _Mistral_ class LHD slated for Russia begins sea trials.

Agence-France-Presse



> *France's second Russian-bought warship tested at sea*
> 
> The second of two French Mistral warships whose delivery to Russia has been suspended due to violence in east Ukraine began its first open sea outing Monday, AFP journalists observed.
> 
> The Sebastopol was eased from its Saint-Nazaire port in western France by tugboats just after 1:00 pm (1200 GMT) for a scheduled five-day test voyage without Russian navy personnel aboard.
> 
> The nearly completed "projection and command" warship is theoretically slated for delivery to Russia in the autumn of 2015 after undergoing a barrage of technical verification tests at sea.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## ringo

IMHO France should not deliver these ships to Russia, Canada could buy these ships they would complete fitting out in Canadian yards. 
HMCS Vimy Ridge and HMCS Juno Beach would be great names.
To promote ships to Canadian public emphasize ships disaster relief role and large on board hospital.


----------



## CougarKing

Putin wants a refund... 

Canadian Press



> *The Latest: Putin expects refund from France if it doesn't deliver warship*
> 
> By The Associated Press | The Canadian Press – Thu, 16 Apr, 2015
> 
> MOSCOW - 2:56 p.m. (1156 GMT; 7:56 EDT)
> 
> President Vladimir Putin says Russia expects France to return the advance payment if it fails to deliver a warship built for the Russian navy. France has suspended the delivery of the Mistral warship amid Russia-West tensions over the Ukrainian crisis.
> 
> Putin said Thursday during a televised call-in show that Moscow would not demand fines or any other extras. He said France's failure to deliver the warship wouldn't damage the Russian navy capability, adding that Russia had placed the order in a bid to strengthen relations with France.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

The never-ending _Mistral _saga?

Reuters



> *France's Hollande moots cancellation of Mistral deal with Russia*
> 
> PARIS (Reuters) - French President Francois Hollande on Wednesday explicitly evoked the cancellation and reimbursement of a frozen contract to sell Mistral helicopter carriers to Russia two days before meeting with Vladimir Putin.
> 
> Paris suspended the delivery of the warships last year after Europe decided to impose sanctions against Russia over the separatist conflict in neighboring Ukraine.
> 
> "On the Mistrals, all options will be addressed," Hollande told journalists after meeting Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. Hollande and Putin are due to meet on Friday in Armenia.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

A new development:

Military.com



> *France OK to Refund Russia if Warship Not Delivered*
> 
> Associated Press | Apr 23, 2015 | by Sylvie Corbet
> 
> PARIS  — French President Francois Hollande has acknowledged for the first time that France will have to give Russia a refund if it doesn't receive the Mistral-class warship whose delivery has been suspended last year because of the conflict in Ukraine.
> 
> "If you don't deliver, you must refund. So far, the delivery of the Mistral is not possible," Hollande said at a press conference Wednesday with Ukrainian counterpart Petro Poroshenko.
> 
> *A top French diplomatic official told journalists, including an AP reporter, that France has started negotiating refund payments in order to avoid paying financial penalties in case the deal is not fulfilled. He spoke anonymously because he was not authorized to disclose details of the negotiations with Russia.*
> 
> Last week Russian President Vladimir Putin warned France that Russia expects its advance payments to be refunded if the ship isn't delivered.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

and to be fair they should, they knew the risk going into the deal and you can bet Russia will never do a deal with them again.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Colin P said:
			
		

> and to be fair they should, they knew the risk going into the deal and you can bet Russia will never do a deal with them again.



Meah no biggie.  Sounds like a way to isolate them further.  Let them R&D their own kit.  That should eat up their dwindling rescourse even further.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

But, since the French don't need them and are themselves a bit short on cash, that would leave two brand new Mistrals, with higher hangars, ice capable hulls and extra insulation/heating systems fully available …


----------



## blacktriangle

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> But, since the French don't need them and are themselves a bit short on cash, that would leave two brand new Mistrals, with higher hangars, ice capable hulls and extra insulation/heating systems fully available …



For someone other than Canada, maybe. We are losing basic capabilities faster than we can replace them. Truth be told, I don't think we can even maintain a Reg Force of 68k.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> But, since the French don't need them and are themselves a bit short on cash, that would leave two brand new Mistrals, with higher hangars, ice capable hulls and extra insulation/heating systems fully available …



What Spectrum said OGBD....

You would need a decade of hard-chargers, all of a like mind and all supported by and supportive of the policy of the government of the day before anything like those ships would be flying the Canadian Ensign.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Not to mention that these ships have had Russians running all over them like lice for some time now.  Who know's what sort of mischief they could/would get up to if they knew they were being pulled out if the deal goes south.  Plus they would know the ships inside and out as well.  Personally, I'd be looking at it as a Trojan Horse of sorts.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Basically they can monkey with the current electronics, but I suspect we would yank most of that out and install more compatible stuff anyways. I am not sure if they still have access, I thought that was cutoff earlier in the dispute?

I suspect these ships would be like the C17, as soon as they are ready the GOC will have us using them and since we seem to be struggling to find things for 1400 sailors to do, manning them would not be an issue.

I suspect that the French could redo all the signage and manuals in a couple of months, sail them to Canada and revamp all the domestic electrical to run 110/220. Keep one in hot lay up and run the other one.

The biggest issue is their minimal self-defense suite, which could be beefed up at some point. I would also buy some CB-90 patrol/landing boats in addition to the regular landing craft.


----------



## Loachman

And I'm sure that we could find something to fill the space left behind after removal of the vodka tanks.


----------



## ModlrMike

The flight deck would make a good platform for that recently publicized ASW drone...


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Here is a good info graphic slideshow that gives you an idea of the Russian Mistral class capabilities:

http://sputniknews.com/infographics/20150220/1018526586.html


----------



## Rifleman62

> Command & Control Center
> 150 duty stations
> 
> The command center (size – 850 square meters) has a capacity of up to 150 duty stations.



It would have to be tripled at least for a Cdn HQ C2. :nod:


----------



## ringo

IMHO these ships would be ideal for RCN fit Phalanx and SeaRam complete fitting out in Canadian yards, would be biggest improvement to CAF since C17's, Vimy Ridge and Juno Beach would be great names.


----------



## YZT580

cheaper to stay with the current power system and supply personal gear as required.  Things like computers, stereos, razors or whatever can be issued as part of crewing.  Any other gear can be bought in either voltage system from the manufacturer.  Re-wiring a ship of that size to 110 is a monumental and a potential show stopper.  As for names, Verrieres and Veritable would be appropriate.


----------



## blacktriangle

Colin P said:
			
		

> The biggest issue is their minimal self-defense suite, which could be beefed up at some point.



Oh really? That's the biggest issue we'd have with these ships? 

What about PAYING for them?

We don't need these ships. We shouldn't WANT these ships. We definitely CANNOT afford these ships.

Before we start daydreaming about fictional names for Canadian ships that will never be, how about we get our troops some mukluks and working trucks? How about we get new AORs and Frigates online, and some helicopters to put on them? I could go on ALL day about things we actually NEED. 

This whole thread is starting to feel like a CASR article! Talk about the Mistrals all you want, but this is NOT the right platform for Canada. Let's stop kidding ourselves.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Oh really? That's the biggest issue we'd have with these ships?
> 
> What about PAYING for them?
> 
> We don't need these ships. We shouldn't WANT these ships. We definitely CANNOT afford these ships.
> 
> Before we start daydreaming about fictional names for Canadian ships that will never be, how about we get our troops some mukluks and working trucks? How about we get new AORs and Frigates online, and some helicopters to put on them? I could go on ALL day about things we actually NEED.
> 
> This whole thread is starting to feel like a CASR article! Talk about the Mistrals all you want, but this is NOT the right platform for Canada. Let's stop kidding ourselves.



An excellent post.  We don't need this capability and like you said, we certainly can't afford it with our present funding level and ambition.  If we need sealift, we are better off renting it on an as-required basis.


----------



## jollyjacktar

_Need_ this capability?  I suppose "no", is, at this time the correct answer, however, it is something we could use and would be advantageous.  That being said, it is at this time something we cannot afford with the budgets we're given.

Renting sea lift has been problematic in the past and is not necessarily the panacea to cure all ills either.  End story?  There's no easy answer.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> _Need_ this capability?  I suppose "no", is, at this time the correct answer, however, it is something we could use and would be advantageous.  That being said, it is at this time something we cannot afford with the budgets we're given.
> 
> Renting sea lift has been problematic in the past and is not necessarily the panacea to cure all ills either.  End story?  There's no easy answer.



I don't disagree that we wouldn't find uses for them; however, we don't have any sort of  pressing strategic imperative which would require us to get these ships so I see no real need for them.  

Renting sealift can be a pain in the rear but for how often we "really need it" it's probably the DS solution.

I'd love to have an Armoured Division, doesn't mean we actually need one.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Trouble with renting.  Do you remember the GTS Katie?  They held the GoC hostage with our gear on board and ended with it being forcefully boarded by NBP personnel to take over the ship and end the drama.  We don't need that to happen again for this reason is why I'm not comfortable with renting from commercial entities.  

As for having the capability at hand.  Yes, it's hard to know (unless you have a crystal ball) when you might need it.  Humanitarian lifts such as Katrina or Haiti come all of a sudden.  We should have the ability to respond as needed.  We no longer have our AOR lift possibilities such as it was.  And this is why I say we could "use" the ability.  We just can't afford it with the allowance Mum and Dad give us.


----------



## Baz

What we need is to be Joint, and we're not!  This is why Hillier proposed SCTF, which I agreed with.

What we DON'T need is to replace the 280's with a blue water air defence and command ship; what we DON'T need is to replace the frigates with a blue water escort frigate, and what we DON'T need is to then build an AOR to fuel and supply the resulting Task Group.  We're the only "real" Navy busy building a blue water task group of escorts, that have nothing to escort!

In the meantime we are using those blue water escorts, up until lately, in a constabulary role.  What we are really doing is showing the flag...

So the question isn't about power, or self defence, or even money... its what role should the RCN really have.  I think it should truly be more multirole (not just play lip service); there, I would do this:
- engage with the AOPS, and turn them into a truly joint, littoral, arctic capable (but not icebreaking) multirole patrol and littoral maneuver ship
- get the two Mistrals, or even better two Canberra class, and make them multirole, and as well the Flagship with staff; one on each coast.  They would be the center of the Task Group... see roles of the task group later on
- add 12 Cyclones, fitted for but not with the mission kit... gives us up to 28 combat MH or up to 40 littoral maneuver aircraft
- 10 LCPs
- don't replace the 280's, the LHDs would be the flag
- get the two Berlin AORs (the are AORs, not JSS) to keep the Task Group supplied (not be the heart of it)
- lower the amount of Frigates to 8-10, make them closer to the Type 26 with a littoral mission bay and ramp, 64 cell VLS with Standard, ASROC, Tomahawk (would we still need Fixed Expeditionary Strike?), and ESSM, Harpoon X 8, 5" Gun, preferably two hangars (but in the TG the helos would be held on the LHD); if required Command Staff could be accommodated in the mission bay
- make the four Windsor's work
- have three configurable light battalions; one on each coast as "Marines," one in Trenton/Petawawa as air lift able.  Marine ones would include armour embarked.
- Make the Griffon's and Chinook's embarkable.
- Some type of persistent surveillance UAV embarked.

This would give us a quasi blue water capability and a littoral maneuver capability when we arrived.  The Task Group would have a robust C2 capability, good Air Defence as each of two Frigates could do it, pretty good ASW with the tails and concentrated ASW aircraft, some surface warfare ability.
- For ASW escort load up with around 10 ASW Cyclones, put one Frigate forward with the tail and one back with the LHD as an escort.  You could then keep two Cyclones airborne 24/7 and 1-2 on reactionary alert
- Antipiracy one Frigate can do itself
- We could show the flag on ops and exercises quite well.

My 2cents... but it won't happen as the services care more about being a "world class" whatever, rather than being joint... ironic as World Class everywhere else means doing what I just described.

Edited to add the Berlins.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Jeez Baz, what did the RCN do to you this morning?


----------



## Baz

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Jeez Baz, what did the RCN do to you this morning?



Sometimes I blur the line between my internal thoughts and external ones... nothing in particular.

I've been wondering a lot lately if things have always been screwed up and I'm getting enough experience across the board to understand the extent of it, or if things are getting worse???


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Baz said:
			
		

> What we need is to be Joint, and we're not!  This is why Hillier proposed SCTF, which I agreed with.
> 
> What we DON'T need is to replace the 280's with a blue water air defence and command ship; what we DON'T need is to replace the frigates with a blue water escort frigate, and what we DON'T need is to then build an AOR to fuel and supply the resulting Task Group.  We're the only "real" Navy busy building a blue water task group of escorts, that have nothing to escort!
> 
> In the meantime we are using those blue water escorts, up until lately, in a constabulary role.  What we are really doing is showing the flag...
> 
> So the question isn't about power, or self defence, or even money... its what role should the RCN really have.  I think it should truly be more multirole (not just play lip service); there, I would do this:
> - engage with the AOPS, and turn them into a truly joint, littoral, arctic capable (but not icebreaking) multirole patrol and littoral maneuver ship
> - get the two Mistrals, or even better two Canberra class, and make them multirole, and as well the Flagship with staff; one on each coast.  They would be the center of the Task Group... see roles of the task group later on
> - add 12 Cyclones, fitted for but not with the mission kit... gives us up to 28 combat MH or up to 40 littoral maneuver aircraft
> - 10 LCPs
> - don't replace the 280's, the LHDs would be the flag
> - lower the amount of Frigates to 8-10, make them closer to the Type 26 with a littoral mission bay and ramp, 64 cell VLS with Standard, ASROC, Tomahawk (would we still need Fixed Expeditionary Strike?), and ESSM, Harpoon X 8, 5" Gun, preferably two hangars (but in the TG the helos would be held on the LHD); if required Command Staff could be accommodated in the mission bay
> - make the four Windsor's work
> - have three configurable light battalions; one on each coast as "Marines," one in Trenton/Petawawa as air lift able.  Marine ones would include armour embarked.
> - Make the Griffon's and Chinook's embarkable.
> - Some type of persistent surveillance UAV embarked.
> 
> This would give us a quasi blue water capability and a littoral maneuver capability when we arrived.  The Task Group would have a robust C2 capability, good Air Defence as each of two Frigates could do it, pretty good ASW with the tails and concentrated ASW aircraft, some surface warfare ability.
> - For ASW escort load up with around 10 ASW Cyclones, put one Frigate forward with the tail and one back with the LHD as an escort.  You could then keep two Cyclones airborne 24/7 and 1-2 on reactionary alert
> - Antipiracy one Frigate can do itself
> - We could show the flag on ops and exercises quite well.
> 
> My 2cents... but it won't happen as the services care more about being a "world class" whatever, rather than being joint... ironic as World Class everywhere else means doing what I just described.



Baz, 

The capabilities you just described would give us a true rapid reaction capability that is usually the justification I hear from people when they talk about needing these capabilities; however, does rapid reaction play to our fairly unique Canadian strengths?  Namely, TIME and SPACE and the considerable economic power we also wield.

I would argue it doesn't.  Firstly, we are surrounded by three oceans and our only land border just happens to be with our best drinking buddy to the South who happens to be 6'4 250lbs and wields a top of the line Louisville Slugger.  This means we have considerable SPACE between ourselves and our real enemies, none of which possess the sufficient combat power to strike us, short of a Nuclear Attack, in which case the attack would be a zero-sum game.  This means that we also have TIME on our side.  If we can take the time to plot a deliberate attack on someone, why would we opt for a hasty attack?

There is also an economic aspect to all of this which compliments our considerable advantage in TIME and SPACE.  We are one of the wealthiest countries in the world and we have shown numerous times in our history that when threatened we will poney up the necessary money and build up the necessary combat power to achieve decisive overmatch against our enemies.

We managed to sustain a reasonably sized combat force for more than a decade in a country 10,000km away (Afghanistan) at very little, if any cost to the country.  We have a large industrial base, a wealth of natural resources and money to burn.  If we wanted to, we could very quickly mobilize a massive combat force to fight who ever decides to get under our skin enough.

Arguably, the biggest threats facing us are from non-state actors and asymmetrical threats from other States in which case we have world class special operations forces and niche capabilities such as the Communications Security Establishment which we can use to retaliate.  

Canada does not need a rapid reaction capability, we are better off using diplomacy and intrigue to achieve our aims and if we actually need to use combat power, well then we can leverage our considerable economic power to either pay to make the problem go away or take all the time in the world to build the force we need to crush whoever threatens us because we are far away and so are they and actually getting to us would inevitably take a lot of time and effort, something our enemies don't really have a lot of.

Better for us to continue investing in niche capabilities such as SOF, Cyber and Space and developing our ability to generate combat power when required through initiatives such as NSPS and support to the manufacturing sector who can be then be leveraged when we actually do go to war.


----------



## GR66

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> An excellent post.  We don't need this capability and like you said, we certainly can't afford it with our present funding level and ambition.  If we need sealift, we are better off renting it on an as-required basis.



While we may not "need" this capability I'd argue that it might perhaps be a more worthwhile capability than some that we currently have.  Realistically speaking two of the most important roles that the CF can fulfill (in my opinion anyway) are providing coalition political support for our key allies (i.e. the US) by being able to deploy forces anywhere in the world, and b) providing effective military capabilities that allow the US to bring it's full expeditionary capabilities to bear against an enemy.

I'd argue that a Mistral-type ship directly enhances both of these key defence priorities.  It would allow the CF to fly the flag and show support to our allies virtually anywhere in the world.  The scope of this support could run a wide range of operations from disaster relief/hospital facilities/civilian evacuation up to command of a naval task force or even projection of forces by air or sea where there is not fixed basing available.

A Mistral-type ship would also make for an excellent ASW platform.  If we (the West) ever do go to full-scale war against a near-peer enemy then (again in my opinion) the key to victory will be ensuring that the enemy is not able to prevent the US from deploying and supplying its military forces.  It was true in WWI, it was true in WWII and it will likely be true in the next major conflict.  Despite it's weaknesses the US military is still the dominant military force on the planet.  If forced to fight the US then a country like Russia or China's best hope would be to prevent American forces from reaching the conflict in the first place.  A Mistral-type ship to coordinate ASW defence of deploying US forces (supported by a larger, ASW corvette/frigate fleet) would likely have more true military value than a mechanized bridade group/division or a few dozen stealth fighter-bombers.

That's not the way our military is set up though.  So you're correct that we cannot afford to add these to the things we already have.  However, perhaps an intelligent defence policy would recognize the value of this capability and find the money to supply it.

 :2c:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

YZT580 said:
			
		

> cheaper to stay with the current power system and supply personal gear as required.  Things like computers, stereos, razors or whatever can be issued as part of crewing.  Any other gear can be bought in either voltage system from the manufacturer.  Re-wiring a ship of that size to 110 is a monumental and a potential show stopper.  As for names, Verrieres and Veritable would be appropriate.



Since it would be wired for a 220 I suspect you can leave most of the wiring intact and changing plugs and circuit breakers instead, going from 110 to 220 would be a deal breaker for sure. Seems Russia uses European electrical standards so adapting should not be to hard, but your idea is good as well

Others have done a better job responding to the need, it's my personal opinion that that we can use them and just how many experts predicted Canada would spend a decade in a COIN combat mission taking causalities in Afghanistan? The Mistrals and the C17 would give us the ability to support many types of missions which would help Canada on the geopolitical stage. 
http://www.adaptelec.com/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=187


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

GR66 said:
			
		

> While we may not "need" this capability I'd argue that it might perhaps be a more worthwhile capability than some that we currently have.  Realistically speaking two of the most important roles that the CF can fulfill (in my opinion anyway) are providing coalition political support for our key allies (i.e. the US) by being able to deploy forces anywhere in the world, and b) providing effective military capabilities that allow the US to bring it's full expeditionary capabilities to bear against an enemy.
> 
> I'd argue that a Mistral-type ship directly enhances both of these key defence priorities.  It would allow the CF to fly the flag and show support to our allies virtually anywhere in the world.  The scope of this support could run a wide range of operations from disaster relief/hospital facilities/civilian evacuation up to command of a naval task force or even projection of forces by air or sea where there is not fixed basing available.
> 
> A Mistral-type ship would also make for an excellent ASW platform.  If we (the West) ever do go to full-scale war against a near-peer enemy then (again in my opinion) the key to victory will be ensuring that the enemy is not able to prevent the US from deploying and supplying its military forces.  It was true in WWI, it was true in WWII and it will likely be true in the next major conflict.  Despite it's weaknesses the US military is still the dominant military force on the planet.  If forced to fight the US then a country like Russia or China's best hope would be to prevent American forces from reaching the conflict in the first place.  A Mistral-type ship to coordinate ASW defence of deploying US forces (supported by a larger, ASW corvette/frigate fleet) would likely have more true military value than a mechanized bridade group/division or a few dozen stealth fighter-bombers.
> 
> That's not the way our military is set up though.  So you're correct that we cannot afford to add these to the things we already have.  However, perhaps an intelligent defence policy would recognize the value of this capability and find the money to supply it.
> 
> :2c:



How do you define an intelligent defence policy though?  Military folks will inevitably say bigger is better; however, military power is but one instrument of national power.  

You've also got:

*National: * 
Geography
Resources
Population

*Social: * 
Economic
Political
Military
Psychological
Informational

Is our military our most important element of national power?  I would argue it isn't which is why we don't take it particularly seriously.  This is why military folk don't make policy decisions because we will by default think our sector of national power is more important than all the rest.  It's as if we have heard of Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, Jomini, etc... but haven't actually bothered to read any of their work.  This is probably true in the Canadian context as our Officer PD is really that bad.

As French statesman Georges Clemenceau said, _"War is too important a business to be left to soldiers."_


----------



## George Wallace

Colin P said:
			
		

> Since it would be wired for a 220 I suspect you can leave most of the wiring intact and changing plugs and circuit breakers instead, going from 110 to 220 would be a deal breaker for sure. Seems Russia uses European electrical standards so adapting should not be to hard, but your idea is good as well



That would be the simple solution for the volts and probably the most economical.  My question, having had to have electrical items converted from European to North American electrical standards, especially items with a clock, is the difference of "Cycles"?  Not technically savvy in electrical standards, would the difference in cycles be a simple fix as well?


----------



## Baz

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Baz,
> 
> The capabilities you just described would give us a true rapid reaction capability that is usually the justification I hear from people when they talk about needing these capabilities; however, does rapid reaction play to our fairly unique Canadian strengths?  Namely, TIME and SPACE and the considerable economic power we also wield.
> 
> I would argue it doesn't.  Firstly, we are surrounded by three oceans and our only land border just happens to be with our best drinking buddy to the South who happens to be 6'4 250lbs and wields a top of the line Louisville Slugger.  This means we have considerable SPACE between ourselves and our real enemies, none of which possess the sufficient combat power to strike us, short of a Nuclear Attack, in which case the attack would be a zero-sum game.  This means that we also have TIME on our side.  If we can take the time to plot a deliberate attack on someone, why would we opt for a hasty attack?
> 
> There is also an economic aspect to all of this which compliments our considerable advantage in TIME and SPACE.  We are one of the wealthiest countries in the world and we have shown numerous times in our history that when threatened we will poney up the necessary money and build up the necessary combat power to achieve decisive overmatch against our enemies.
> 
> We managed to sustain a reasonably sized combat force for more than a decade in a country 10,000km away (Afghanistan) at very little, if any cost to the country.  We have a large industrial base, a wealth of natural resources and money to burn.  If we wanted to, we could very quickly mobilize a massive combat force to fight who ever decides to get under our skin enough.
> 
> Arguably, the biggest threats facing us are from non-state actors and asymmetrical threats from other States in which case we have world class special operations forces and niche capabilities such as the Communications Security Establishment which we can use to retaliate.
> 
> Canada does not need a rapid reaction capability, we are better off using diplomacy and intrigue to achieve our aims and if we actually need to use combat power, well then we can leverage our considerable economic power to either pay to make the problem go away or take all the time in the world to build the force we need to crush whoever threatens us because we are far away and so are they and actually getting to us would inevitably take a lot of time and effort, something our enemies don't really have a lot of.
> 
> Better for us to continue investing in niche capabilities such as SOF, Cyber and Space and developing our ability to generate combat power when required through initiatives such as NSPS and support to the manufacturing sector who can be then be leveraged when we actually do go to war.



I can live with that, although I don't agree with it... that doesn't say an LHD is the most useful thing to build our Navy around.  It certainly doesn't make sense to build it around a Destroyer as a command ship and an AOR to make a Canadian Task Group.  That means we are creating a Naval rapid reaction capability that has no real role when they get there (other than show the flag).

So: either have something like a Mistral or a Canberra (as a power projection Carrier is not logical), with a Task Group around it, that can be tasked configured, or have more AOPS (for Canadian Territorial Waters), around 8 Frigates roughly equivalent to the Halifax Class for the approaches, and two small tankers to fuel those Frigates and our Allies in our approaches.  The Frigates can handle the overseas commitments like anti-piracy.

We don't need to build up a blue water Task Group with nothing at its heart; so without something to build it around the first thing that goes is the Command Ship replacement, the second is the number of Frigates we have, and the third is a large AOR.  Keep all 28 Cyclones so some are available to support the AOPS, even if they have to base them at moving bases ashore to do so.

Edited to add: the current Canadian Task Group concept derives from escorting merchant convoy's across the Atlantic to reinforce Germany in the event of Russia coming west: is the best construct to continue to plan to fight the Cold War?  My own community is still struggling with its employment in its primary roles: ASW and ASuW, which we still do largely like we did in the Cold War; all the other MH communities I know have moved on.  Although we've been joking that we've come full circle and Canada will lead NATO back into Cold War capability...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Baz said:
			
		

> Edited to add: the current Canadian Task Group concept derives from escorting merchant convoy's across the Atlantic to reinforce Germany in the event of Russia coming west: is the best construct to continue to plan to fight the Cold War?  My own community is still struggling with its employment in its primary roles: ASW and ASuW, which we still do largely like we did in the Cold War; all the other MH communities I know have moved on.  Although we've been joking that we've come full circle and Canada will lead NATO back into Cold War capability...



I hear yah man.  I played the whole Light Infantry game for years knowing full well that we we're chasing the dogs tail telling ourselves we were "Airborne" and practicing parachuting.  The Army loves to talk about light forces and rapid-reaction as long as someone else i.e. the Air Force is paying for it.

Lends some credibility to your call for "Jointness"


----------



## Kirkhill

Baz, GR66 -

Excellent.    We may not be agree to the "t" but certainly we are in harmony.

Drew - I have heard you make this argument before.

I still prefer Baz's rapier to your sledgehammer.

A rapid reaction force can be in AND out in a timely fashion while the other side is still trying to get their socks on.

The sledge hammer (Armoured Division) will arrive after the fact and will be trapped in place, hostage to other nations' political circumstances.  This will be even more true if you want to get the Division out in a hurry and don't have your own dedicated lift available.  Try chartering vessels for Dunkirk II.  How much does Katie cost then?

In terms of the "public relations" "bang for the buck" "punching above our weight" side of the coin - being there at the beginning is going to get you more headlines than being part of the "coalition of the willing" drinking beer at the local Gasthaus.

I understand all of our soft power attributes - and they are exactly as you describe them - but they do not obviate the need for supplying the government with good, serviceable, useable, hard tools.

With respect to the Armoured Div - I don't know if you really believe in the merits of the Medium-Heavy force or are just adjusted to the fact that the Army is vested in it and can't seem to find its way onto an alternate path.

For me, rather than money spent on armour plate I'd sooner money were spent on a full suite of Spike missiles (SR to NLOS and everything in between) and  a package of Mirabel assembled AH-1Zs and UH-1Ys.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I find it dumbfounding that Air Force and Army officers constantly want to redraw the Navy without having a clue. 

What is this constant attempt at reducing the number of frigates (as if it was a useless ship - when it is this time's single most useful and versatile warship class in current use in ALL the world's Navies) and then turning them into coastal defence patrol boats !!!

I said it before and I will say it again: Coastal defence for countries like Canada and the USA starts thousands of nautical miles away from the coasts. Basically, the front lines of the naval defence of canada are in the Caribbean (go fasts- drug trade), in the Mediterranean sea (Arab spring - human trafficking), in the Gulf of Oman and the Indian Ocean (piracy). And the frigates and destroyers are the quintessential warriors of this defence. (besides, I dare anyone to take a look at the map of Canada and tell me where the ocean "approaches" are. It's everywhere around the country except the Prairies.) Moreover, you have to get over the Army (and to an extent Air Force) mindset that the job consists of defending a border. The role of the NAVY is to defend Canada and canadian interests on the world's oceans just as much if not more than merely preventing illegal landings on our coasts. The Navy is not primarily there to prevent armed landings, though it is one of the secondary missions.

The CTG concept was NOT born of the cold war convoy escort. It was born of the combination of the end of the cold war and the Falkland war, which showed the power of the pairing of destroyers and frigates (most famously the 22/42 and 21/42 combos of the Falkland war), and the need to provide an integrated group as the smallest "deployed" unit in order to maintain Canadian input in the command/decisions relevant to their employment. The validity of this concept (which has nothing to do with "escort work) was proven when during Gulf War I, Canada was given the command of the naval Support Area (including command over more than 40 warships from various coalition nations including the USA), the only nation other the the US to hold a Theatre level command.

And, no, task groups (or whole navies) are NOT and don't have to be built around a "heart" that they defend. A CTG is a useful and suitable group as is right now and it does let us punch above our weight, as demonstrated. A destroyer as command ship is ample enough. Admiral's staffs at sea are not sprawling affairs like shore based HQ's. Staffs of about twenty to twenty-five, which let the Admiral call upon eight to ten staffer on watch at all time are more than sufficient to command and control quite large naval formations. 

Mistrals would be useful ships, and yes, they would be excellent national assets that would provide a greater capacity for combined operations (I use combined instead of joint for a very specific reason: IMO "joint" in Canada as been distorted to mean "operational support of the Army by the Air Force and Navy, under the command of the Army and for its land purpose only" or "Geographical command by a single commander over everything in the specified area [an Army approach], instead of a functional approach [Air Force's preference] or a mixed Functional/Geographic approach [the Navy's preference]).

Now, as far as the Mistral's are concerned, I see little problems with the conversion that would be necessary for their employment by Canada. As already indicated going to 110v from 220v is relatively easy: no need to make any changes for fitted equipment. As for general service, the wiring is probably sufficient, and it is just a matter of locally inserting step down transformers and frequency rectifiers, together with new fuse panels and plugs. The "electronics", that is comms and radars, were to be installed in Russia after arrival from France, as were the weapons and weapons systems. So they only carry Merchant navy minimal electronics at this stage and we can do the installation of whatever we may want upon arrival in canada. As for their defensive weapons, we have six CIWS on hand and countless .50 cal. from the decommissioned destroyers and AORS. That is sufficient.


----------



## Baz

OldGateBoatDriver,

I don't consider myself an Air Force Officer, I consider myself Naval Air... always have.  I think the RCN has a much better understanding of their role in the world than the RCAF (who DON'T understand joint, nor do most other Air Forces).  However, the RCN has less understanding of Joint, and Naval Air, than most other countries navies.

In a lot of ways the Canadian Task Group was designed around Cold War convoy escort, and then justified after the fact as a was to "punch above our weight."  To be fair, we no longer consider ourselves an ASW escort force, as everyone has put so much emphasis in AAW in training and Operations Other Than War (OOTW) in the real world, and ASW readiness has dropped as a result.  However, the construct remains.

I'll concede the point about Canada being given Command of an afloat group in the first Gulf War; ironically, it was to defend the support ships and Amphibs.  I'm not sure how grouping the CTG around a larger ship would have distracted from that.  Arguably it would have been better; the task group and Allied escorts are group around a mother multirole ship, and the AOR runs back and forth to keep it supplied (in that case, with suitable escort).  Edit to add: make sure that multirole ship has the ability to do RAS on one side, so it can keep the Task Group going while the AOR goes and gets more; it also as a significant VERTREP capability so that the rest of the task force doesn't have to RAS for some type of resupply.

Doesn't apply to the second Gulf excursion; the task group was broken up a large part of the time into its constituent pieces.  Not an argument against the concept, just an observation.

In Somalia, having a secure base we operated from (and people went home to) may have saved us some headaches.  Different scenario, but this is exactly what the Abraham Lincoln battlegroup did in Indonesia.  Disembarked the fixed air wing, loaded up on helicopters, kept the troops embarked at night, moved them ashore during the day, provided water and stores, replenished at night from the support ships; in short used a CVN as an excellent multipurpose ship to meet the need.  Can't do that with a destroyer or a Berlin.

Nobody cared about the Frigates, Destroyers, or Sea Kings for Katrina; they did care about the coast guard ship we sent, and they did care about the amphibs.  I know, I was a Maritime Battle Staff Watch Officer at US NORTHCOM at the time (well, more particularly I was the Battle Staff Officer of the CanadaCOM liaison admiral to NORTHCOM, but the watch was largely Naval centric; the other two watch officer were both MARS, and the only reason I was allowed to do it was I was Maritime Air).

I don't want to get rid of the Canadian Task Group, I want to make it more flexible.  My response was to RoyalDrew stating we don't need a reaction force; I was pointing out we already have one, but it is no where near as flexible as most other country's ones.  My opinion is that we'd be better off building it around a joint multirole vessel, which negates the need for the destroyers.  However, without the destroyers, we need proper air defense capable frigates; to round them out give them a flex deck as well.  Make the AOPS capable of doing small scale littoral effects.  Use the Berlins for what they are good at; keeping that task group supplied.

The reason I lowered the Frigates to 8-10 is to pay for it.  Truth be told, I'd rather other parts of the Air Force (read the fighters) be cut to do so; but that's probably not going to happen.  I know the Frigates are the work horses, and I understand the impact the bring in the international role they play, but something has to give.

I also don't want the Navy to be supporting the Army and Air Force; I'm a believer in from the sea and believe a proper command element embarked means you have less footprint ashore, making everything easier.  It also gives you a secure place to come back to.  The chances of the next thing looking like Afghanistan are slim; Western countries aren't going to want to get involved in that quagmire again.

I'll also admit my bias up front; when planning at SHAPE nobody cared where a 6 pack of fighters were, or a frigate/destroyer.  They did care about:
- where the shooters (ie Tomahawk) ships were
- where the carriers were
- where the amphibs were
Those three ships can influence events.

Another bias: I believe a robust Naval Air Group can deliver significant effects at all levels of conflict, especially when backed up by a smallish ground maneuver element.  Canada can't do that, and I'd argue there is very few people in Canada that understand that.  Unfortunately, there is very few people in the RCN that understand Naval Air at all, and even less in the RCAF.


Editted to add: yes the 21/42 and 22/42 combo did work well against the air threat; however, the reason they needed them was to protect the heart of the Task Groups: one being the carriers to provide air support, and one being the amphibs to actually deliver the effect.

Editted again to add: PS, my preferred Naval force structure is 4 LHD, 4 AOR, 4 Destroyers, 12 Frigates, 4 Submarines, 40-60 Cyclones (all fitted for the mission system but only 28 required) and 8 AOPS.  This would allow us to have 2 balanced task groups on each coast, alternating between high and low readiness, each consisting of 1 LHD, 1 AOR, 1 DDGH, 2-3 FFGH (with one available for independent ops if required), 1 SSK, 10 MH (held on the LHD but can det out as required), 1 AOPS, with 1 AOPS for National work.  However, this is unaffordable and ain't goin' to happen...

... and notice I included the MH as a pure Naval asset.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually Baz, two things:

First, I am happy to have found another MH man who thinks of himself as a Naval Aviator. I've only encountered another one in my career, about thirty years ago, and he had started in the RCN before unification. So BZ on that one.

Second, the real problem with the naval force structure you prefer is not that it is unaffordable, it is rather that it is affordable if you accept that it could only occur at the detriment of regional development (as the Aussie's have concluded), but no one in authority (and I think that includes the upper echelons of the Navy itself) understands how much of a force projection multiplier such a combination a naval assets could provide in ALL facets of the defence of Canada, and as a result is wiling to push for such structure. My sole difference with your proposed structure is that I would include six submarines vice four, that way, one could be deployed on each coast at all time (submarines spend a lot of time in long maintenance and refits).

p.s.: I think the lack of understanding of naval aviation in the Canadian Navy is simply the result of passing off of the the old naval officers that had known the Bonnie. The new ones coming up after have only known the embarked helicopters to be "air force" assets with ASW as function, manned by  personnel that did not seem too preoccupied with learning naval stuff. As a result, I think they merely see the helicopter as another ASW weapon to be employed when the Air Det commander tells the Captain its OK to use them. This could be remedied if (as you seem to suggest) the MH world truly was naval (i.e. served and remained in the Navy, possibly wearing nice black instead of light blue) and the officers worked their way up in that world, including getting their watch keeping tickets and ultimately ship's command (as used to be the case before we lost naval air altogether.)


----------



## Baz

OldGateBoatDriver

My differences of opinion to what you said are so small as to not be worth talking about.

There's more of us around then you think.  Unfortunately, we are so busy trying to just get the Cyclone in service given the stresses we are under, that we don't have much capacity to preach the message.

When asked (in a "poll") what I wanted for a new RCAF mess kit I replied the same one the RCN wears...

Something that doesn't help is the relative youth of the dets at sea... we need to get the Det Cdrs to have the checks in the box so early they haven't formulated a good grasp of Naval Warfare yet.  There's not enough dets for people like me to have one.

Maybe once we get the Cyclone in robust service, and when (if?) the number of dets starts to build back up, it will get better?


----------



## NavyShooter

As someone on the coal-face in the fleet right now, I'll simply ask.

"Where do you propose to get the crew?"

We are so short of the correctly trained/qualified people (particularly Cert 3/4 Stokers) that they're pier-head jumping at a rate I've not seen before.

NS


----------



## CougarKing

This ongoing lack of a decision must be annoying to Russia as well as the French shipbuilder who made the 2 LHDs.

Reuters



> *No decision yet on Mistral, France's Hollande says*
> 
> (Reuters) - No decision has yet been taken on the future of France's suspended contract to deliver Mistral helicopter carriers to Russia, French President Francois Hollande said on Friday after meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin.
> 
> "As far as the Mistral is concerned I have set the terms. *Either the Mistral is delivered, which is not our decision as of today, or a repayment will be made in the form we have discussed," Hollande said at a news conference after the meeting in Yerevan, Armenia.*
> 
> Separately, Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron told Reuters in Paris the French government would make sure the companies and workers involved were not affected.
> 
> *"Technically we are ready so that this decision, if it is taken, will not damage the companies and workers involved,"* he said.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Baz said:
			
		

> OldGateBoatDriver
> 
> My differences of opinion to what you said are so small as to not be worth talking about.
> 
> There's more of us around then you think.  Unfortunately, we are so busy trying to just get the Cyclone in service given the stresses we are under, that we don't have much capacity to preach the message.
> 
> When asked (in a "poll") what I wanted for a new RCAF mess kit I replied the same one the RCN wears...
> 
> Something that doesn't help is the relative youth of the dets at sea... we need to get the Det Cdrs to have the checks in the box so early they haven't formulated a good grasp of Naval Warfare yet.  There's not enough dets for people like me to have one.
> 
> Maybe once we get the Cyclone in robust service, and when (if?) the number of dets starts to build back up, it will get better?



I count myself as a naval aviator. Sadly, that makes me pariah in the RCAF and not particularly well loved by the RCN, either. I find myself surrounded by young officers in both services too busy "getting ahead" to actually learn how to warfight. It is maddening.

But this has nothing much to do with with Mistrals...


----------



## tomahawk6

Buy the Japanese Izumo class helicopter destroyer.It can fly the Osprey and the F-35.Talk about versatile.

http://news.usni.org/2013/08/12/japanese-helicopter-destroyer-stir-regional-tensions


----------



## Baz

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> As someone on the coal-face in the fleet right now, I'll simply ask.
> 
> "Where do you propose to get the crew?"
> 
> We are so short of the correctly trained/qualified people (particularly Cert 3/4 Stokers) that they're pier-head jumping at a rate I've not seen before.
> 
> NS



To reiterate, I am quite certain we won't get a LHD, so for me this is a theoretical discussion.

That's why I said not replace the detroyers and lower the number of Frigates; ie make a choice due to lack of resources (which isn't just money, but enough money can solve a lot of them). 

There are lots of RCN and MH trades that if we don't solve the manning, retention and training issues, we have a bigger problem... but that's the subject of a different thread.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Great dicussion.  Just adding a post so I can keep notified on new posts.


----------



## George Wallace

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> As someone on the coal-face in the fleet right now, I'll simply ask.
> 
> "Where do you propose to get the crew?"
> 
> We are so short of the correctly trained/qualified people (particularly Cert 3/4 Stokers) that they're pier-head jumping at a rate I've not seen before.
> 
> NS



What is the real reason that they are "pier-head jumping"?   Could it be that it is an aging and shrinking fleet that is the cause?  Would new ships not attract more to the Service than drive them away?


----------



## jollyjacktar

There are many fellows who are releasing, some in droves.  Lot's of things to irritate people as of late and which have been pointed out in other threads.  Stokers, until recently, have had the Spec pay mucked about for the past several years.  That was a major bone of contention.  There are many others as well.  For example, having two groups of Stokers working on the same Cert package at the same time, some were promoted to PO2 as was previous custom and the others remaining as MS because the custom was stopped.  They are also having trouble recruiting fresh blood into that trade and have been seeing shortfalls.  Add that to the releases and you have trouble.

For many of us, the "fun police" have made major inroads (for various reasons, and viewed as reasonable by some, not reasonable by others) in sucking the enjoyment out of being in the fleet and at sea.  There have been some here who have mentioned " death by a thousand cuts", and I know some members here are of the opinion "TFB" at those of us who are unhappy in the RCN.  Maybe so, maybe so, but nevertheless it does have an effect on the group as a whole and people leave.


----------



## George Wallace

AH!  The "Fun Police".  They hit the Army in the Mid '80's.  They successively cut and cut into every way of life in the Army and started turning a 'Dirty Job' that we could work hard and play hard in, into nothing more than a "Dirty Job".


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I find it dumbfounding that Air Force and Army officers constantly want to redraw the Navy without having a clue.
> 
> What is this constant attempt at reducing the number of frigates (as if it was a useless ship - when it is this time's single most useful and versatile warship class in current use in ALL the world's Navies) and then turning them into coastal defence patrol boats !!!
> 
> I said it before and I will say it again: Coastal defence for countries like Canada and the USA starts thousands of nautical miles away from the coasts. Basically, the front lines of the naval defence of canada are in the Caribbean (go fasts- drug trade), in the Mediterranean sea (Arab spring - human trafficking), in the Gulf of Oman and the Indian Ocean (piracy). And the frigates and destroyers are the quintessential warriors of this defence. (besides, I dare anyone to take a look at the map of Canada and tell me where the ocean "approaches" are. It's everywhere around the country except the Prairies.) Moreover, you have to get over the Army (and to an extent Air Force) mindset that the job consists of defending a border. The role of the NAVY is to defend Canada and canadian interests on the world's oceans just as much if not more than merely preventing illegal landings on our coasts. The Navy is not primarily there to prevent armed landings, though it is one of the secondary missions.
> 
> The CTG concept was NOT born of the cold war convoy escort. It was born of the combination of the end of the cold war and the Falkland war, which showed the power of the pairing of destroyers and frigates (most famously the 22/42 and 21/42 combos of the Falkland war), and the need to provide an integrated group as the smallest "deployed" unit in order to maintain Canadian input in the command/decisions relevant to their employment. The validity of this concept (which has nothing to do with "escort work) was proven when during Gulf War I, Canada was given the command of the naval Support Area (including command over more than 40 warships from various coalition nations including the USA), the only nation other the the US to hold a Theatre level command.
> 
> And, no, task groups (or whole navies) are NOT and don't have to be built around a "heart" that they defend. A CTG is a useful and suitable group as is right now and it does let us punch above our weight, as demonstrated. A destroyer as command ship is ample enough. Admiral's staffs at sea are not sprawling affairs like shore based HQ's. Staffs of about twenty to twenty-five, which let the Admiral call upon eight to ten staffer on watch at all time are more than sufficient to command and control quite large naval formations.
> 
> Mistrals would be useful ships, and yes, they would be excellent national assets that would provide a greater capacity for combined operations (I use combined instead of joint for a very specific reason: IMO "joint" in Canada as been distorted to mean "operational support of the Army by the Air Force and Navy, under the command of the Army and for its land purpose only" or "Geographical command by a single commander over everything in the specified area [an Army approach], instead of a functional approach [Air Force's preference] or a mixed Functional/Geographic approach [the Navy's preference]).
> 
> Now, as far as the Mistral's are concerned, I see little problems with the conversion that would be necessary for their employment by Canada. As already indicated going to 110v from 220v is relatively easy: no need to make any changes for fitted equipment. As for general service, the wiring is probably sufficient, and it is just a matter of locally inserting step down transformers and frequency rectifiers, together with new fuse panels and plugs. The "electronics", that is comms and radars, were to be installed in Russia after arrival from France, as were the weapons and weapons systems. So they only carry Merchant navy minimal electronics at this stage and we can do the installation of whatever we may want upon arrival in canada. As for their defensive weapons, we have six CIWS on hand and countless .50 cal. from the decommissioned destroyers and AORS. That is sufficient.



OGBD,

You'll get no argument from me.  I don't profess to be an expert on Naval Affairs, I am merely interested in the political aspects of this discussion as I believe that is where our real money is made.  You'll notice I didn't really talk about kit specific stuff, doctrine or TTPs in any of my posts.  

Quite honestly I don't really care about that stuff, granted as a soldier the capabilities themselves interest me from a professional standpoint.  taking off my soldier hat for a second and putting on my politik hat I find myself asking the question:  Is this a capability we need to invest in or am I better off investing in my other levers of national power?

As military professionals we are easily able to describe what these capabilities (which from a purely military standpoint are excellent to have) can do for us.  That's not the issue though as we don't need to convince ourselves.  Our issue is convincing the government and ordinary Canadians that these capabilities would be worth having over say more funding to DFATD for instance?

Military power is but one facet of national power, it's up to us to make a business case to the government on why we should develop and maintain an ability to quickly invade a reasonably sized country over simply paying said country to shut its mouth and do what we tell it to do.


----------



## CougarKing

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> As for having the capability at hand.  Yes, it's hard to know (unless you have a crystal ball) when you might need it.  Humanitarian lifts such as Katrina or Haiti come all of a sudden.  We should have the ability to respond as needed.  We no longer have our AOR lift possibilities such as it was.  And this is why I say we could "use" the ability.  We just can't afford it with the allowance Mum and Dad give us.



Meanwhile, someone else is developing this capability on their own:

*China unveils LHD design*

If the _Mistrals_ aren't delivered, perhaps Russia might buy from China in the future.


----------



## George Wallace

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Military power is but one facet of national power, it's up to us to make a business case to the government on why we should develop and maintain an ability to quickly invade a reasonably sized country over simply paying said country to shut its mouth and do what we tell it to do.



On the other hand, strategically thinking we need a strong and capable Navy, Army and Airforce, though not necessarily large land, sea and air forces, to maintain our nation status in world and current affairs.  If we do not, we become too "Isolationist" and easy prey to outside forces.   By maintaining only the 'minimal' capabilities we will be unable to defend our borders effectively.  We need to do better so that we can defend our borders/air space/territorial waters with enough resources in reserve to supplement those tasks, and still provide a capability to extend resources to supplement our allies on foreign missions.  There is no requirement, as pointed out by previous Canadian statesmen, for Canada to become a "Super Power".  There is a fear, though, that we will soon lose our position as a "Middle Power" through our successive tendency to let our various fleets to rust out and degrade.  Strategically, the Navy has just as important a role as any other element of the CAF and needs more attention paid to it than has been paid over the past several decades.


----------



## Stoker

If the Minstral's were offered to us at a sale price I would definitely support getting them. The power requirements, could be mitigated quite easily. Its a capability that we could utilize quite effectively as a command and control platform and form the nucleus of a all Canadian task force. They could be used in disaster relief and, drug interdiction that we often go on and more importantly they could be used a refueling platform for the ship's we send to the Arctic, where getting fuel is problematic.

Remember when we could put a task force to sea?


----------



## Navy_Pete

I'd be more excited about the prospect of getting LHDs if we had enough resources to support our current fleet.

Currently we don't have the resources to properly support our existing fleet, and that won't change.  Money aside, if you take a look at the crit manning messages, every time any ship goes to sea there seem to be the same positions they always need to fill to get out the door.  That's not something you can fix over night, and getting yet another class of ship would make it harder.  From what I remember from a presentation on the Mistrals years ago from someone in the French Navy is that the min rank on the crew is the equivalent to a MS; their crewing philosophy is different from ours in that you show up fully trained.  Not sure how we would adapt to that one.

The other issue is simple jetty space; it's getting pretty crowded right now in Halifax and Esq; they don't really have room right now for the AOPs until they get rid of the 280s and tankers.  Going to be really tight once JSS comes in, so not even sure where you would put LHDs if we somehow got everything else sorted.


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I'd be more excited about the prospect of getting LHDs if we had enough resources to support our current fleet.
> 
> Currently we don't have the resources to properly support our existing fleet, and that won't change.  Money aside, if you take a look at the crit manning messages, every time any ship goes to sea there seem to be the same positions they always need to fill to get out the door.  That's not something you can fix over night, and getting yet another class of ship would make it harder.  From what I remember from a presentation on the Mistrals years ago from someone in the French Navy is that the min rank on the crew is the equivalent to a MS; their crewing philosophy is different from ours in that you show up fully trained.  Not sure how we would adapt to that one.
> 
> The other issue is simple jetty space; it's getting pretty crowded right now in Halifax and Esq; they don't really have room right now for the AOPs until they get rid of the 280s and tankers.  Going to be really tight once JSS comes in, so not even sure where you would put LHDs if we somehow got everything else sorted.



Pete its funny that all those extra sailors they say they have with the 280's and the tankers going down, where exactly are they? I know on the Kingston Class their home units are are constantly looking for their guys back.

If they did get the LHD's, I would imagine money would have to be spent rebuilding the jetty down by MARLANT where the Bonnie used to tie up.

End state its wishful thinking we would get them, perhaps if Rick Hillier was still CDS, not under the current leadership that's for sure.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

There is Allso the carrier jetty in Shearwater.

Hmmm.... I wonder why they named it that?


----------



## Stoker

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> There is Allso the carrier jetty in Shearwater.
> 
> Hmmm.... I wonder why they named it that?



Yes but who wants to go alongside in Shearwater ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> If they did get the LHD's, I would imagine money would have to be spent rebuilding the jetty down by MARLANT where the Bonnie used to tie up.



That Jetty will be rebuilt and is where the AOPS will go.  The brief time (sadly) we flirted with going Amphib, the embryo unit was stood up at Shearwater and were they would have berthed.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Yes but who wants to go alongside in Shearwater ;D



Having spent time on both sides, I always thought Shearwater was the better of the 2.  Especially when you live in the Passage.  5 min drive to work, no bridge, ample parking!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I'd be more excited about the prospect of getting LHDs if we had enough resources to support our current fleet.
> 
> Currently we don't have the resources to properly support our existing fleet, and that won't change.  Money aside, if you take a look at the crit manning messages, every time any ship goes to sea there seem to be the same positions they always need to fill to get out the door.  That's not something you can fix over night, and getting yet another class of ship would make it harder.  From what I remember from a presentation on the Mistrals years ago from someone in the French Navy is that the min rank on the crew is the equivalent to a MS; their crewing philosophy is different from ours in that you show up fully trained.  Not sure how we would adapt to that one.
> 
> The other issue is simple jetty space; it's getting pretty crowded right now in Halifax and Esq; they don't really have room right now for the AOPs until they get rid of the 280s and tankers.  Going to be really tight once JSS comes in, so not even sure where you would put LHDs if we somehow got everything else sorted.



On the other hand, it is possible a new class of ship might attract folks to the Navy, like new tanks might have attracted people to the army.


----------



## midget-boyd91

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> On the other hand, it is possible a new class of ship might attract folks to the Navy, like new tanks might have attracted people to the army.



Or you know, daily rum rations. Traditions are making a comeback afterall...


----------



## Navy_Pete

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Pete its funny that all those extra sailors they say they have with the 280's and the tankers going down, where exactly are they? I know on the Kingston Class their home units are are constantly looking for their guys back.
> 
> If they did get the LHD's, I would imagine money would have to be spent rebuilding the jetty down by MARLANT where the Bonnie used to tie up.
> 
> End state its wishful thinking we would get them, perhaps if Rick Hillier was still CDS, not under the current leadership that's for sure.



I think a lot of them already swapped over to the frigates, and then there is a holding crew for normal maintenance and disposal activities, even after they get paid off.  Until the ships are actually turned over to the winning breaker yard in a few years, there will still be a skeleton crew of some sort (maybe a pool for the ships on each coast?)  No idea where the operators etc go, but they were already down to effectively two crews and a bit for three 280s when I got posted to the NCR four years ago.  A lot of the PO1s and PO2s I sailed with retired though.

Funny thing, with the AOPs and JSS, none of them are direct crew transfers.  They don't have enough techs to spread out among six AOPs from the three 280s, and there are a number of trades that don't exist at all on the non combatants.  They may end up fat on some of the ops room types but scrambling for roundskeepers; going to be interesting.  So even though there are more billets on the five old ships being paid off then in the new AOPS and JSSs, you can't just take the crews and spread them into the new ships.

Fortunately that's the problem of a whole team of people figuring it out somewhere in the pers world!  With the hundreds of thousands of individual parts that make up a ship, the engineering world will be busy enough making sure all the demil/CG stuff goes well.


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I think a lot of them already swapped over to the frigates, and then there is a holding crew for normal maintenance and disposal activities, even after they get paid off.  Until the ships are actually turned over to the winning breaker yard in a few years, there will still be a skeleton crew of some sort (maybe a pool for the ships on each coast?)  No idea where the operators etc go, but they were already down to effectively two crews and a bit for three 280s when I got posted to the NCR four years ago.  A lot of the PO1s and PO2s I sailed with retired though.
> 
> Funny thing, with the AOPs and JSS, none of them are direct crew transfers.  They don't have enough techs to spread out among six AOPs from the three 280s, and there are a number of trades that don't exist at all on the non combatants.  They may end up fat on some of the ops room types but scrambling for roundskeepers; going to be interesting.  So even though there are more billets on the five old ships being paid off then in the new AOPS and JSSs, you can't just take the crews and spread them into the new ships.
> 
> Fortunately that's the problem of a whole team of people figuring it out somewhere in the pers world!  With the hundreds of thousands of individual parts that make up a ship, the engineering world will be busy enough making sure all the demil/CG stuff goes well.



There are definitely going to be caretaker crews, especially on ships still in use such as the tanker. A lot of these billets are going to PCC and be sent as out required. 60 positions or so going to the Kingston Class. We are training bodies as quick as we can, however it takes time. In the Mar Eng world, I'm training as fast as I can, and speeding up the training to the young guys. makes for interesting times.


----------



## blacktriangle

Are the beer machines still on the ships? 

That's far more important than us getting LHD's.


----------



## Pelorus

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Are the beer machines still on the ships?
> 
> That's far more important than us getting LHD's.



They were removed as part of the new RCN Conduct Policy.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A & B Jetty are scheduled to be rebuilt in Esquimalt and that project is grinding through the process as we speak.


----------



## Jungle

Some new news on the Mistrals:



> France considering scuttling Mistral aircraft carriers rather than agree to sell the vessels to Russia because of sanctions brought in over Ukraine



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3070579/France-considering-scuttling-Mistral-aircraft-carriers-agree-sell-vessels-Russia-sanctions-brought-Ukraine.html#ixzz3ZSd5hFfV


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Someone, please give Ottawa warning orders !!!

BTW, re: The jetties:

In Esquimalt: easy enough to extend the Colwood jetty a bit and accommodate, taking the ship over to A jetty when need be.
In Halifax: there are two jetty spots for reconstruction - The (very) old jetty four and five (whatever their Navy letter desig was - I never got used to that). Old jetty four - under the bridge, used to be the Bonnie's jetty. And The "Carrier jetty" in Shearwater was only used when there was a need to load or unload aircrafts by crane and get them back to the base. Otherwise, it was an inconvenient one for the other ship support functions that would be required while in harbour.


----------



## jacob_of_canada

Back in 2011, Canada shows "strong interest" in purchasing two Mistral class ships.


http://fr.reuters.com/article/frEuroRpt/idFRLDE70602X20110107


----------



## CougarKing

Future _Mistrals_ in Chinese PLA-N service for assaulting Taiwan, Japan's Senkakus or the Spratlys in the South China Sea?

Business Insider



> *France could sell those Russian Mistral warships to China*
> 
> The ongoing saga over France's potential sale of two Mistral-class helicopter carriers to *Russia took a new turn Monday with Chinese media reporting that representatives from the French in Shanghai could propose a deal to sell the warships to China.*
> 
> In recent weeks Moscow has taken a firm, if conciliatory, stance on the Mistral deal. Last month President Vladimir Putin announced that his officials did not intend to seek any penalties or fines from France over the postponed sale but instead would seek only repayment of the costs incurred on the Russian side if the sale were to fall through.
> 
> *The problem with a China deal is that the ships have been built to Russian specifications. *The first of the two, the Vladivostok, has already been taken on sea trials by Russian naval personnel, while the second ship, the Sevastopol, now also appears to be ready for sea trials.
> 
> But for now, they have nowhere to go.
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The US should pay us to take them and run them, after all they pay billions to Pakistan, Iraq and Egypt and then get shafted.


----------



## quadrapiper

Colin P said:
			
		

> The US should pay us to take them and run them, after all they pay billions to Pakistan, Iraq and Egypt and then get shafted.


Does that include paying for the Cyrillic-to-English translation of _everything_, and a spot of debugging?


----------



## Tibbson

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Future _Mistrals_ in Chinese PLA-N service for assaulting Taiwan, Japan's Senkakus or the Spratlys in the South China Sea?
> 
> Business Insider



So what would stop China from buying them and then selling them to the Russians?  Isn't this essentially how China got its carrier?  Bought it through a "private sale" to be used as a floating casino but those plans changed quick enough.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Does that include paying for the Cyrillic-to-English translation of _everything_, and a spot of debugging?



Still cheaper than supplying Iraq with M1 tanks and paying Pakistan to stab the US in the back.


----------



## CougarKing

A partial refund?

Show them the Euros...err..Rubles...

Agence-France Presse



> *France offers Russia 785 million euros to ditch warship deal*
> 
> Moscow (AFP) - France has offered Russia its terms to scrap a contentious contract to supply two warships that was suspended due to the Ukraine crisis, but Moscow judged the sum as unacceptable, a report said Friday.
> 
> Russian defence sources told Kommersant newspaper that the French side is willing to pay 785 million euros ($890 million), and the documents are now "being studied" by the Russian government, defence ministry and other relevant parties which participated in the 2011 deal.
> 
> *But the daily reported that Moscow was not happy with the French offer,* with the defence ministry claiming that Russian firms have now incurred 1.16 billion euros of costs associated with the ships.
> 
> While Kommersant reported France is proposing to return only the cash that was paid so far on the deal, Russia would like to have other expenses reimbursed, such as training costs of 400 sailors for the crews and building port infrastructure in Vladivostok, where the first of the two ships was to be based.
> 
> *"It is necessary to demand 1.5 billion euro compensation from France, not just for breaking the contract but for all the costs, for preparing the 400-strong crew, for all transportation, including the fact that we had to send a ship to collect the crew" *from the Saint Nazaire shipyard, he told RIA-Novosti agency.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Spencer100

So they can offer them to a third party.......... >


----------



## MilEME09

really once you convert it it's probably more Rubles now with the Russian economy >


----------



## tomahawk6

Two Mistral LHD's for $1.33b each pretty cheap.Then buy F-35B's for force projection.The last alternative would be to destroy the ships which would be a real waste.

http://news.yahoo.com/sink-sell-russia-spat-leaves-france-warships-spare-141951864.html


----------



## geo

After our last submarine purchase fiasco, don't see Canada biting for this....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

No we will wait 7 years and then agree to buy them. The Upholders were in good shape when initially offered, it was our politicians that dithered for so long.


----------



## jollyjacktar

There's a good reason the RN got rid of them.  They were junk.  Of course, our dithering so long didn't make them any better.


----------



## Baz

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Two Mistral LHD's for $1.33b each pretty cheap.Then buy F-35B's for force projection.The last alternative would be to destroy the ships which would be a real waste.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/sink-sell-russia-spat-leaves-france-warships-spare-141951864.html



So a few of us had a thought bubble.

Buy both Mistrals, one on each coast.
Canadianize them as little as possible.
Ensure they have a single RAS point starboard side (so we can use them as "interim tankers").
Put all the trainees on them.
Convert extra spaces to classrooms.
Embark the two operations MH squadrons.
Sail them every week from Mon to Fri to regenerate people...

After a few years, as the new ships start to come on line, we can think about either getting rid of them or using them to start developing a "makes sense" littoral maneuver capability.

If a disaster response mission came up (like Haiti or Katrina), pull of the trainees, load up with helos (including Chinooks and Griffins) and boats (including the left over tanker and coast guard "landing craft"), fill 'er up with supplies, and off you go.

Imagine how many subbies you could cram into one of those


----------



## Kirkhill

Baz said:
			
		

> So a few of us had a thought bubble.
> 
> Buy both Mistrals, one on each coast.
> Canadianize them as little as possible.
> Ensure they have a single RAS point starboard side (so we can use them as "interim tankers").
> Put all the trainees on them.
> Convert extra spaces to classrooms.
> Embark the two operations MH squadrons.
> Sail them every week from Mon to Fri to regenerate people...
> 
> After a few years, as the new ships start to come on line, we can think about either getting rid of them or using them to start developing a "makes sense" littoral maneuver capability.
> 
> If a disaster response mission came up (like Haiti or Katrina), pull of the trainees, load up with helos (including Chinooks and Griffins) and boats (including the left over tanker and coast guard "landing craft"), fill 'er up with supplies, and off you go.
> 
> Imagine how many subbies you could cram into one of those



Baz - you have pretty much described this ship 







RFA Argus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFA_Argus_%28A135%29

IIRC she was not originally considered sea-worthy (I believe her flight deck cracked) and she was relegated to dock-queen status and used for flight training for helos.

She was then rebuilt and put into service as a Hospital Ship in which role she currently serves in Sierra Leone support the Ebola operation.

Forces TV video on RFA Argus


----------



## Baz

Kirkhill,

Yep.  Knew that.

Except not just for air generation; use it to regen all of the sea trades.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Baz said:
			
		

> So a few of us had a thought bubble.
> 
> Buy both Mistrals, one on each coast.
> Canadianize them as little as possible.
> Ensure they have a single RAS point starboard side (so we can use them as "interim tankers").
> Put all the trainees on them.
> Convert extra spaces to classrooms.
> Embark the two operations MH squadrons.
> Sail them every week from Mon to Fri to regenerate people...
> 
> After a few years, as the new ships start to come on line, we can think about either getting rid of them or using them to start developing a "makes sense" littoral maneuver capability.
> 
> If a disaster response mission came up (like Haiti or Katrina), pull of the trainees, load up with helos (including Chinooks and Griffins) and boats (including the left over tanker and coast guard "landing craft"), fill 'er up with supplies, and off you go.
> 
> Imagine how many subbies you could cram into one of those



Actually Baz, that is exactly what the French Navy does. Their officer training system has them going on two extended training cruises in their training years: Once as "midshipmen" to learn all the basic of the shipboard trades, then as fresh young ensigns, to consolidate their learning for the officer of the watch/day/deck job. 

The "cruises" are carried out on board one of the Navy's larger vessels. It used to be the Jeanne D'Arc helicopter carrier, but since she retired in 2010, they have been using one of the Mistrals (FNS Dixmude actually, if memory serves) each year for that function. PS: Very little to do to set up classrooms as the joint operations centre are actually just large open compartments with the wiring run below "false" deck panel and in the deck head sot here compartments can be configured quickly into whatever set up is required for the type of operation you are going out to perform.


----------



## Baz

OGBD: geez, maybe someone should write a service paper :nod:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Unfortunately, for some unexplained reason, higher HQ don't like getting service papers from retired members. Go figure  ;D


----------



## George Wallace

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, for some unexplained reason, higher HQ don't like getting service papers from retired members. Go figure  ;D



Nothing stopping you from submitting a paper to one of the Journals.


----------



## Baz

I wasn't just saying you should, but since you seem to want to volunteer:
- write an unsolicited proposal
- form a company to support the Mistrals (it doesn't really need to actually be able to DO anything)
- subcontract MIL Davie AND Irving
- ensure you have suppliers from every corner and representative group of Canada (even if all they do is supply empty boxes)
- IMPORTANT: crystal ball the next election and ensure you get the right balance of ridings covered (hint: focus on ministerial ones)
- hire some grey beards that are well connected to host dinner parties for you
- hire some more grey beards to come up with good names; and make connections to the RCN of 50 years ago.  Just to cover your bases, get some more grey beards for the Army and RCAF (heck, its supposed to be a JOINT ship anyway)
- get France, the UK, and the US to all say what a great idea it is; if you can swing Germany, Australia, Italy, Japan even better (why aren't you at the G7 already)
- and watch the $$$ flow in... oh wait a sec; could you please ensure the original reason we were doing this is met, even though I can't remember it now; wasn't it something about making the RCN the best navy in the world or something... it'll come to me I'm sure

There, now everybody wins; its BETTER when you're retired!  :blotto:


----------



## Edward Campbell

The _International Business Times_ reports that "Russia and France have finally agreed on the refund amount of the ill-fated Mistral helicopter landing ship deal that was canceled after Russia annexed Crimea in March 2014, according to a Kremlin aide cited by the Pro-Russian news website Sputnik. The fate of the two fully built ships has been uncertain over the last 16 months, with French President Francois Hollande reluctant to complete the $1.2 billion sale while Russian-backed rebels in Ukraine refused to abide by February’s Minsk II ceasefire agreement ... "The talks have been completed, everything is settled,” Vladimir Kozhin, President Vladimir Putin's aide on military-technical cooperation, said Thursday. “The schedule and the amount, which Paris will repay to Moscow [is decided]. I hope that an agreement on the termination of the contract will be signed very soon, and we will be able to announce the sum that France will pay us.”"


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect if we showed an interest in these ships we could offer up some very interesting fiscal arrangements, including a lease to buy, training arrangements, equipment purchases, etc


----------



## McG

But, France denies that a compensation deal has been reached with Russia.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33730700


----------



## McG

A few days later and now France is saying there is a deal.

Mistral warships: Russia and France agree compensation deal
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33798102


----------



## Edward Campbell

This article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Financial Times_, doesn't even mention Canada when it discusses how France might dispose of the the two _Mistral_ class ships. India and Turkey are mentioned as possible markets:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1cace11e-3c37-11e5-bbd1-b37bc06f590c.html#axzz3i7v48Axk


> For sale: two French warships with a negotiable price
> 
> Michael Stothard in Paris
> 
> August 6, 2015
> 
> For sale: two Mistral-class helicopter carriers worth €1.2bn. Good condition. Price negotiable.
> 
> France has extricated itself from one of its trickier diplomatic binds after it finally agreed to break a contract with Russia over the sale of two 21,000 tonne warships. Now it is facing a new dilemma: what to do with them?
> 
> The two vessels, which can each hold 600 troops and 16 attack helicopters but cost millions of euros a month to keep at port, had been sold to Russia, which even sent sailors to western France to train on them.
> 
> But tensions over the Ukraine crisis prompted France to halt delivery late last year under pressure from EU allies and Washington.
> 
> On Wednesday evening the two countries finally cancelled the contract, meaning the cash-strapped French government will have to take ownership of the ships and reimburse all of the money paid.
> 
> Jean-Yves Le Drian, the French defence minister, on Thursday said there was no cause for worry. There were “a number of countries” that had expressed an interest in buying the ships, he said.
> 
> But according to analysts, that may not be so simple. The government needs a buyer who will want two foreign-built warships at short notice and at a price not too far below the Russian one.
> 
> The problem is that of the 13 countries in the world that have stated a need for this grade of ship over the next decade, only India and Turkey want delivery in the next few years, according to an analysis by IHS Jane’s.
> 
> And in both countries there is a political lobby demanding that the ships be built locally, not imported. India, the world’s biggest importer of military ships, for example, this year said that all military ships would now be assembled locally.
> 
> Ben Moores, senior defence analyst at IHS Jane’s, said that the main challenge for France was not finding interested parties – as there are always countries willing to talk or negotiate – but price.
> 
> There is “not a chance”, he argued, that France would recoup the €1.2bn that Russia paid. “The problem they are going to face is they are going to have to reduce the price significantly,” he said.
> 
> Given its own budget pressures, France may come under pressure to sell relatively fast, since the cost of keeping each ship runs into the millions of euros each month. The French state had considered just sinking the vessels, according to newspaper reports last year.
> 
> The French government, which undertook the sale in 2011 under former president Nicolas Sarkozy when relations with Moscow were warmer, is already facing a minor political backlash over the cost of cancelling the contract.
> 
> Thierry Mariani, a deputy in parliament for the centre-right Republicans party, criticised the government’s decision, adding that the cost to the taxpayer could run as high as €1.6bn.
> 
> This takes into account the €1.2bn returned to Russia and what Mr Mariani says is €200 to €300m for what he called the “derussification” of the ship, meaning the removal of customised equipment that had been installed on board.
> 
> The removal job is set to be carried out by a Russian team in September, according to a Russian news agency. The French government said that it would inform parliament in due course about the exact cost.
> 
> Marine Le Pen, the head of the far-right National Front party, on Thursday said that the cancellation “seriously discredited France” in international business dealing and that “the taxpayer bleeds” as a result of the decision.
> 
> The Mistral-class ships, which are for the moment called Sevastopol and Vladivostok, may be a bitter pill to swallow. But the French government has otherwise been on a roll selling defence equipment this year.
> 
> It has signed €10bn worth of contracts with Egypt and Qatar for its Rafale fighter jet along with a €4bn agreement with India. Before that the 27-year-old jet had not won a single export order.




As the article notes, the _*jobs! Jobs!! JOBS!!!*_ notion is strong in Turkey and India, too.


----------



## tomahawk6

I bet the PRC ends up buying them.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Interesting although I wonder if it's just the French whispering into peoples ears

http://www.france24.com/en/20150807-france-mistral-warship-egypt-saudi-arabia-repurchase


----------



## CougarKing

Most of the article from above: the Saudis looking at amphibious operations in Yemen or the Persian Gulf?

France 24



> *Egypt, Saudi Arabia ‘desperate’ to purchase Mistral warships*
> 
> Text by FRANCE 24
> Latest update : 2015-08-07
> Egypt and Saudi Arabia are interested in buying two French Mistral warships that had been sold to Russia before Paris scrapped the deal, French media reported Friday, citing an official French source.
> 
> "Egypt and Saudi Arabia are desperate to buy two Mistrals," an unnamed official French source told France’s leading daily, Le Monde. “King Salman of Saudi Arabia wants to build a fleet in Egypt which could project regional power in the Red Sea and Mediterranean," said the source. "Some countries in the region have displayed a marked interest in the Mistrals with the aim of establishing a [regional] maritime force.”
> 
> The report of Egyptian and Saudi interest in acquiring the two French-made warships came a day after French President François Hollande attended a ceremony marking the inauguration of a major Suez Canal extension in the Egyptian port city of Ismailia Thursday.
> 
> Speaking to reporters in Ismailia, Hollande said France would have “no difficulty” finding buyers for the Mistrals originally bound for Russia.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Malaysia and India as potential Mistral LHD buyers?

Reuters



> *France to discuss Mistral sale to Malaysia - source*
> 
> Aug 25, 2015
> 
> France's defence minister will discuss the sale to Malaysia of one of the Mistral helicopter carriers originally destined for Russia during a visit to the country, a source familiar with the talks said, confirming a report on news website latribune.fr...
> 
> French President Francois Hollande confirmed on Tuesday that there were several potential buyers for the two Mistral. France cancelled the planned sale of the warships to Russia because of the Ukraine crisis.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)



Defense News



> *Rafale, Mistral on Agenda for Le Drian in Malaysia, India*
> By Pierre Tran 2:16 p.m. EDT August 26, 2015
> 
> PARIS — French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian is due to visit Malaysia on Sunday, with talks expected to cover the Rafale fighter jet and Mistral helicopter carrier, website La Tribune reported.
> 
> “During a visit of the defense minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, to Kuala Lumpur, where he will land this Sunday, the Malaysian air force could privately tell the minister a preference for the Rafale in the tender for 18 aircraft,” the website reported on Aug. 25.
> 
> France has made good progress on negotiations on the Rafale with Malaysia, particularly on the industrial offset, the report said. Le Drian is to go on to India after the Malaysia visit.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

More like trying to sell them to anyone


----------



## CougarKing

Moderators, perhaps it's about time we changed the title of the thread since they're not going to see service in Russia anymore? Perhaps "Two undelivered ex-Russian Mistrals for sale" might be a better title?

Defense News



> *UAE Confirms Interest in Mistral Ship*
> 
> By Awad Mustafa 9:48 a.m. EDT September 4, 2015
> 
> DUBAI — A United Arab Emirates government official has confirmed to Defense News the government's interest in acquiring one of two French Mistral-class amphibious assault ships originally ordered by Russia in 2011.
> 
> France and Russia last month reached a political agreement to cancel the Mistral deal and Paris is paying back Moscow's advance payments on the two warships. France paid Russia more  than US $1 billion in compensation for the non-delivery.
> 
> "Our interest in purchasing the ship is real, it fulfils the capability requirements for our forces," the government source said. "The Mistral ships are in line with our equipment and capabilities."
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

hmmm more like a nice yacht


----------



## CougarKing

Seems this opportunity for Canada has sailed away...

Defence-Aerospace



> *Russia Approves Mistral Carrier Sale to Egypt, UAE*
> (Source: Egypt Independent; published Sept 03, 2015)
> 
> Russia has given France the green light to sell two Mistral helicopter carriers to Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. France was supposed to deliver the carriers to Russia before both countries terminated the contract last month.
> 
> According to a report by Russian-language newspaper Moskovsky Komsomolets, quoted by Russia Today’s Arabic service, France paid Russia more than one billion euros in compensation for the non-delivery. The deal was terminated after Russia halted payments for the ships following the European sanctions imposed on the country for its alleged involvement in the political crisis in Ukraine.
> 
> Moskovsky Komsomolets quoted military sources as saying that Egypt had shown interest in purchasing the first carrier with the help of a Russian loan, while the UAE was interested in the second one.
> 
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Seems this opportunity for Canada has sailed away...
> 
> Defence-Aerospace



We were never going to purchase the Mistrals, way too much risk to the NSPS if we did.


----------



## The Bread Guy

And the "reports" continue still, if Google Translate is correct ....


> .... Canada, India, Singapore and especially Egypt have expressed "serious" interest in buying the Mistral warships, including the sale by France to Russia was canceled, according to this account, reports today's news agencies.
> 
> (....)
> 
> As for the interest that Ottawa would have shown, it was confirmed the French side that Canada, even before the conclusion of the agreement of 5 August, took good contacts with France and was closely following the case of Mistral.
> 
> The answer to Canada's interest in the campaign for the legislative period from October to Ottawa where the spokesmen are discreet unfortunately was particularly terse, Ashley Dupire, spokesman for the Canadian Department of Defence, contententant to declare that "The Canadian Forces are not intended acquisition of these vessels at the moment" ....


----------



## George Wallace

The boats that just won't go away.   >


----------



## CougarKing

How do we know those remaining Russian systems aren't bugged?   :blotto:

Defense News



> *French Offical: Russian Systems May Stay Aboard Mistrals if Egypt Buys*
> By Pierre Tran 5:13 p.m. EDT September 12, 2015
> Coface Covers DCNS Payments; €57M Falls on France
> 
> PARIS — Moscow has signaled that Russian equipment fitted on the two Mistrals that were built for Russia could stay on board if Egypt, the leading prospective buyer, bought the helicopter carriers, a French official said.
> 
> “Russia could accept India and Egypt receiving the equipment,” with Cairo the prime candidate for buying the warships, the official said Sept. 7. Russian authorities “let it be known” in negotiations with French officials about the cancellation of the 2011 sale contract.
> 
> Paris and Moscow agreed Aug. 5 that France will repay €949.7 million (US $1.1 billion) to cancel the controversial naval deal. Some €56.7 million of that amount covered Russian telecommunications and missile control systems, and crew training.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## dimsum

Election forces Ottawa to drop back room bid for French warships 



> Canada was actively pursuing – at the political level – the possible acquisition of the controversial French-built Mistral-class helicopter carriers, several defence, diplomatic and military industry sources have told The Canadian Press.
> 
> The effort has ground to halt, however, largely because of the federal election campaign – and it may slip away entirely because the French are now in a position to entertain bids from other countries for the 22,000-tonne ships, originally built for Russia.



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/election-forces-ottawa-to-drop-back-room-bid-for-french-built-helicopter-ships/article26447129/?click=sf_globefb


----------



## Underway

Very interesting article.  So we shouldn't be surprised if one of these ships shows up in Davies in a year or two?  It would be amazing to see, but it will only happen if we get a majority Conservative gov't


----------



## jmt18325

Underway said:
			
		

> Very interesting article.  So we shouldn't be surprised if one of these ships shows up in Davies in a year or two?  It would be amazing to see, but it will only happen if we get a majority Conservative gov't



Most if the actual purchasing by the Conservatives happened while in a minority.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect agreements might be in place pending the outcome, in fact the Liberals could also buy them to show hoe much they "care" about the military. The NDP might buy them if all armaments are stripped off and large red crosses are painted on the sides.


----------



## ModlrMike

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Wasn't it the Liberals that campaigned against this same class of ship when the Torries introduced the idea in 2008?


----------



## MarkOttawa

ModlrMike: Actually "hybrid" aircraft carriers were 2004 election issue:
http://boldcolors.net/liberals_mocked_conservatives_during_election_for_aircraft_carriers_promise/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## ModlrMike

Still, doesn't concede them the high ground.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Whoa, whoa, whoa. Wasn't it the Liberals that campaigned against this same class of ship when the Torries introduced the idea in 2008?



They were also the ones that got the ball rolling on the F-35, politics is all about the moment.


----------



## Staff Weenie

Yes, but if we bought them......where would we get the helos to put on them? That would be another multi-billion dollar mess that would take so long to figure out that the ships would be paid-off before the first helo arrived from the factory.


----------



## George Wallace

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> Yes, but if we bought them......where would we get the helos to put on them? That would be another multi-billion dollar mess that would take so long to figure out that the ships would be paid-off before the first helo arrived from the factory.



???

If we got them, we would have the helos in all our existing Sqns.  They would be capable of accepting the Griffons and the Chinooks.  We would not need to await the arrival of SAR helios.


----------



## Kirkhill

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> If we got them, we would have the helos in all our existing Sqns.  They would be capable of accepting the Griffons and the Chinooks.  We would not need to await the arrival of SAR helios.



 :goodpost:


----------



## jollyjacktar

The real question is, where would we get the money to crew and support them or crew for that matter?   :dunno:


----------



## Kirkhill

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The real question is, where would we get the money to crew and support them or crew for that matter?   :dunno:



Here`s a thought.  Plan on reducing the size of the crews on the CSCs to Danish and Dutch levels and buy more electric motors.

And maybe have Davie supply the In Service Support plan - they have docks big enough, they are available and they are eager.


----------



## Staff Weenie

George, can our current Griffons and Chinooks operate from a ship without modifications? In a pinch, probably yes, but for any extended use, would there be problems? As an example, the Seahawk does have a variety of modifications from the base Blackhawk frame to allow it to operate off ships.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Here`s a thought.  Plan on reducing the size of the crews on the CSCs to Danish and Dutch levels and buy more electric motors.
> 
> And maybe have Davie supply the In Service Support plan - they have docks big enough, they are available and they are eager.



Ah there's the rub.  As has been pointed out elsewhere, we're not necessarily like our Merchant counterparts with crew requirements.  We have more folks on watch then they do as per our operational doctrine and where we go and what we could get ourselves into.  I don't know where the sweet spot is between the human/computer/machine interface where we can balance between numbers and capability.  I don't honestly believe we're there as yet.  Maybe with the idea of Deadnought 2050 like ships in that time frame of the next thing we might be there.


----------



## dapaterson

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The real question is, where would we get the money to crew and support them or crew for that matter?   :dunno:



With the Navy taking a cue from the Army's support vehicle plan and seeing platforms self-divesting, there should be people and funds available.  AOPS will come with additional O&M funding, so it's not until JSS and CSC come online that there may be some additional pressures.


----------



## Kirkhill

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Ah there's the rub.  As has been pointed out elsewhere, we're not necessarily like our Merchant counterparts with crew requirements.  *We have more folks on watch then they do as per our operational doctrine* and where we go and what we could get ourselves into.  I don't know where the sweet spot is between the human/computer/machine interface where we can balance between numbers and capability.  I don't honestly believe we're there as yet.  Maybe with the idea of Deadnought 2050 like ships in that time frame of the next thing we might be there.



JJT - Doctrine should not lead.  Doctrine must follow.

Otherwise you would be crewing ships as per HMS Victory, with its 25 sailors, 25 artisans, 150 marines and 600 gunners (numbers approximate as per memory).

The gunners, only being occasionally employed firing their guns in anger, in order to slow the rate of mutiny, were kept busy on drills, holy-stoning decks and hauling on lines on deck to help the top-men manage the sails.  How many top-men do you currently employ.

Or compare Jackie Fisher`s blackgangs to your engineering department.

Or compare all the old Coaling Stations, like the Falklands, to the need for AORs.

If you don`t have the bodies figure out how to get the job done without the bodies.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Yes, I see your point.  But advances in technology enabled manpower requirements and doctrine to evolve.  I don't know with present technology if there's enough of a increase on capability to allow for radical changes in manpower that would make a difference.


----------



## Good2Golf

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The real question is, where would we get the money to crew and support them or crew for that matter?   :dunno:



Temporary re-allocation of some of the DDH and AOR folks who no longer have ships to sail?  ???


----------



## Loachman

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> George, can our current Griffons and Chinooks operate from a ship without modifications? In a pinch, probably yes, but for any extended use, would there be problems? As an example, the Seahawk does have a variety of modifications from the base Blackhawk frame to allow it to operate off ships.



430 Squadron had four Griffons embarked on Mistral (the name of the specific ship, and also one of that class) for several days a year or so ago.

There would be some awkwardness due to the inability to fold rotor blades. Currently, we tow Griffons using wheel sets that have to be attached to the skids. The skids then have to be raised up off of the ground/deck using a hand-pumped hydraulic system that is part of each wheel set.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Temporary re-allocation of some of the DDH and AOR folks who no longer have ships to sail?  ???




They were already sailing short in some trades, MAR ENG for example, and had been robbing Peter to pay Paul.  My trade too at times.  Some of the trades were losing guys at a frantic clip.  Maybe with the patch thundering in for the time being this might be one bit of quick clot onto the wound.  There has been bleeding with both the young guys and at my end with the pensionable guys.  Not that it was all going to the patch, as was when the CPFs were coming out, we've lost senior guys to industry with the various yards and defence contractors building/refitting ships.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Here we go again Kirkhill  

First of all, by its very definition, doctrine must lead, not follow (the reverse of what you propose). Why? Simply because doctrine is a set of accepted principles created specifically to guide everything we do. It exists independently from the type of equipment we have at any given moment. It provides guidance on our deportment that governs how we go about doing it. 

For instance, the U.S. Monroe Doctrine: "if we catch a European finger in the Americas, we will cut it at the shoulder" guides the U.S. foreign policy since it was stated. Another example is the U.S. Army doctrine of Overwhelming Force, adopted after the Vietnam war, which led to the successful conclusion of  the Cold War and campaign against Saddam Hussein in Koweit.

The U.S. Navy has a doctrine, which we follow also in Canada, which is the Never Again Doctrine adopted after Pearl Harbour: basically, it states that warships have to be manned as if at war and operated accordingly at all times.

This leads to the second point: Doctrine has nothing to do with manning, at least not as far as determination of trades and operator's qualification go, but rather only in so far as manning levels are concerned.

Thus, we don't need Nelson era gunners, or craftsman, nor Fisher's era coal stokers.

Heck! You don't even need to go further than the arrival of the HALs. We went from boiler room artificers to diesel/GT propulsion. Did that require a change in doctrine? No. it may have changed the qualifications of the members of the Engineering department, but the doctrine remained the same and it dictated the calculation of the manning levels for the new ship's as it had for the old: "With this equipment to operate, what would be my wartime patrol watch requirement".


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Here we go again Kirkhill
> 
> First of all, by its very definition, doctrine must lead, not follow (the reverse of what you propose). Why? Simply because doctrine is a set of accepted principles created specifically to guide everything we do. It exists independently from the type of equipment we have at any given moment. It provides guidance on our deportment that governs how we go about doing it.
> 
> For instance, the U.S. Monroe Doctrine: "if we catch a European finger in the Americas, we will cut it at the shoulder" guides the U.S. foreign policy since it was stated. Another example is the U.S. Army doctrine of Overwhelming Force, adopted after the Vietnam war, which led to the successful conclusion of  the Cold War and campaign against Saddam Hussein in Koweit.
> 
> The U.S. Navy has a doctrine, which we follow also in Canada, which is the Never Again Doctrine adopted after Pearl Harbour: basically, it states that warships have to be manned as if at war and operated accordingly at all times.
> 
> This leads to the second point: Doctrine has nothing to do with manning, at least not as far as determination of trades and operator's qualification go, but rather only in so far as manning levels are concerned.
> 
> Thus, we don't need Nelson era gunners, or craftsman, nor Fisher's era coal stokers.
> 
> Heck! You don't even need to go further than the arrival of the HALs. We went from boiler room artificers to diesel/GT propulsion. Did that require a change in doctrine? No. it may have changed the qualifications of the members of the Engineering department, but the doctrine remained the same and it dictated the calculation of the manning levels for the new ship's as it had for the old: "With this equipment to operate, what would be my wartime patrol watch requirement".



But I am going to chase the circle - Pugh and Boyd rule....  :nod:

Doctrine sets the desired capabilities - but if the desired capabilities do not exist  then what happens to doctrine?

Often desired capabilities are found to be unavailable due to lack of technology, lack of manpower and/or lack of budget.

The CAF generally and the RCN seem to be suffering on all three fronts.

The RCN chooses to align itself with the Doctrine of the USN and the RN.  Great.  Can you afford to do that?

For that matter can the USN and the RN afford their Doctrines?  On the evidence I would suggest not.

How is the 600 ship USN coming along?  How are the 13, 12, 11, 10.....Carrier Groups coming?  How about the 12 Darings?  Will all 7 Astutes get built?  Will RN Trident be modernized?  How many carriers will remain at sea with what aircraft complement?  How many Type 26s and what ratios of C1,C2, C3?

Or going backwards.  Did doctrine drive corvettes or did corvettes drive doctrine?

Time to go round the circle again and keep the focus on the center of rotation.....an affordable, functional, useful fleet that fits withing the budgetted dollars and PYs available.

 :cheers:

Slainte....

PS - Your current enemies doctrines can be summed up simply.  "Confusion to the enemy".  "Slaughter the infidel".  I leave it to you to decide which enemies might apply to which doctrine.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Alright, some of my comments in yellow:



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> But I am going to chase the circle - Pugh and Boyd rule....  :nod:
> 
> Doctrine sets the desired capabilities No it doesn't. Doctrine has nothing to do with setting capability. I think you may be confusing doctrine with policy or strategy, which set the final aim. Doctrine provides guidance, at every type of levels, on how to go about achieving your aim, in the daily execution of it. - but if the desired capabilities do not exist  then what happens to doctrine?
> 
> Often desired capabilities are found to be unavailable due to lack of technology, lack of manpower and/or lack of budget.
> 
> The CAF generally and the RCN seem to be suffering on all three fronts.
> 
> The RCN chooses to align itself with the Doctrine of the USN and the RN.  Great.  Can you afford to do that?
> 
> For that matter can the USN and the RN afford their Doctrines?  On the evidence I would suggest not.
> 
> How is the 600 ship USN coming along?  How are the 13, 12, 11, 10.....Carrier Groups coming?  How about the 12 Darings?  Will all 7 Astutes get built?  Will RN Trident be modernized?  How many carriers will remain at sea with what aircraft complement?  How many Type 26s and what ratios of C1,C2, C3? All this is irrelevant to doctrine. You talk of the 600 ship Navy, for instance. This was driven by policy: The US had stated at that point of the cold war that "It could not envisage a scenario that would not entail deployment of at least two aircraft Carrier Battle Group in the North Sea". That policy set the requirement for a 600 ship Navy (which, BTW, it almost achieved, had it not been for the end of the Cold War). One of the doctrines of the US Navy at the time was still "Never Again" and that drove HOW the ship's captains were operating their ships, with combat watch set at all time at sea, as much as the senior commander's actions, such as always making sure they sailed their Carriers with a proper ASW screen set and AAW picket ship deployed- weapons ready.
> 
> Or going backwards.  Did doctrine drive corvettes or did corvettes drive doctrine? Neither. The corvettes were adopted because the UK needed large number of escorts in a hurry and they were the easiest and fastest ships to build in  numbers. They, in turn, drove the ASW tactics used around the convoys (such as Raspberry and Half-Raspberry, etc.). However, there was a doctrinal fight between the RCN and the RN on ASW in the North-Atlantic. which had nothing to do with tactics/corvettes or anything else: Right from the get go, the RN's doctrine was "safe and timely arrival of convoys", which merely required the escorts to drive away attacking submarines, while the RCN (who did not need the supplies on the convoy anyway) would have preferred (and often followed regardless of the RN's wish) the American doctrine of "full persecution and destruction of the ennemy", which required the escorts to prosecute any contact till satisfied that the enemy is destroyed or no further prosecution is possible regardless of delays or extra sinking in the convoy. Just re-read this (the doctrinal fight) carefully and you will see the difference form policy, strategy and tactics: We got corvettes because that's what you could get in a hurry (policy), you established convoys because that is an effective means to defeat unrestricted submarine warfare sea denial campaign (strategy), you created group method for fighting, like Raspberry , Half-Raspberry, etc. (tactics), but what guided you in how or why you used the various tactics, pushing subs aside or prosecuting fully, was doctrine.
> 
> Time to go round the circle again and keep the focus on the center of rotation.....an affordable, functional, useful fleet that fits withing the budgetted dollars and PYs available.
> 
> :cheers:
> 
> Slainte....



 :cheers:

Santé.


----------



## Kirkhill

Fair enough 



> The U.S. Navy has a doctrine, which we follow also in Canada, which is the Never Again Doctrine adopted after Pearl Harbour: basically, it states that warships have to be manned as if at war and operated accordingly at all times.



So the USN's doctrine, and by inference Canada's doctrine, is: Whatever the hell we're doing we will never screw up again?  No sleeping on watch?


----------



## Loachman

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> First of all, by its very definition, doctrine must lead, not follow (the reverse of what you propose). Why? Simply because doctrine is a set of accepted principles created specifically to guide everything we do. It exists independently from the type of equipment we have at any given moment. It provides guidance on our deportment that governs how we go about doing it.
> 
> For instance, the U.S. Monroe Doctrine: "if we catch a European finger in the Americas, we will cut it at the shoulder" guides the U.S. foreign policy since it was stated.



But isn't that "Doctrine" really policy?

Anyway, we often have doctrine/reality gaps and buy equipment that forces a re-write of doctrine.

Griffon was/is a prime example.

We had excellent doctrine up until we were saddled with the LSVW of the helicopter world - really a copy of the US Army "Air Land Battle 2000" with some terminology changes.

Our doctrine stated, then, that there was continual requirement at brigade level for light helicopters for reconnaissance and fire direction (the brigade Loach Squadron of sixteen machines) and occasional requirement for Utility and Attack. Those both became continual requirements at Div level, with an occasional requirement for Medium Transport (Chinook) added. That became a continual requirement at Corps level. An independent brigade would see four utility helicopters added to its Loach Squadron as air ambulances.

That got tossed out, and each brigade got, for a while, a twenty-four Griffon Squadron.

Reconnaissance and fire direction completely vanished. There was a very robust air ambulance capability in its place, though. The continual requirement could no longer be met at all, and the occasional requirement was met six-fold and more.

And now, we've added another nice machine - but how many corps do we have? It was bought for "the" war, not "a" war.

"Ooohh! Shiney!" should neither drive doctrine nor shopping. Unfortunately, reality, too often, differs.


----------



## Old Sweat

And more often than we think, the introduction of new equipment or a  tactical innovation leads to creation of doctrine after the event. The introduction of the Kangaroo Armoured Personnel Carrier in Operation Totalize on the night of 7/8 August is a case in point. The six battalions mounted in the vehicles more or less motored in blobs behind tanks up to the dismount points just short of the objectives. Nobody really had any idea of the potential of the vehicles and their effect on the battlefield.

Six months later when the Royal Winnipeg Rifles assaulted Louisendorf in daylight with all four companies and the tac HQ mounted in Kangaroos, they moved with two companies up behind a British armoured regiment. During the assault the "battle group" detected a new enemy position. The CO issued radio orders to one of the depth companies and their troop of Kangaroos drove them onto the new objective, where they dismounted and cleared it. This just didn't happen out of the blue and the troops had adapted to a new "force enabler."  

It's not naval, but it is as good an example of adaption to a new thing as any.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I thought that good'ol CFJP-01 Canadian Military Doctrine had done a good job of describing exactly what it is that doctrine does:

_The concept and purpose of doctrine

0103. Doctrine is a body of knowledge and thought that provides direction and aids understanding. The CF definition of doctrine is “fundamental principles by which military forces guide their actions in support of objectives. It is authoritative but requires judgment in application.”1 It embraces established wisdom in the areas of problem solving, decision making and planning, and is sometimes defined as simply “what is taught.”

0104. Military doctrine provides the framework within which military operations are planned and executed. It represents the distilled insights and wisdom gained from experience. Doctrine is developed in the context of contemporary and emerging factors that influence the way that Canada intends to use military force. By building on lessons learned with an understanding of the future, military doctrine provides the rationale behind the organization and the employment of military forces and assists in the determination of appropriate roles and missions. A sound doctrinal framework provides the basis for operations and training, guides commanders and helps individuals to think more clearly in the fog of war.

0105. Military doctrine provides a common approach to the conduct of military arts and science based upon methodical thinking that is not bound by prescriptive rules. When combined with effective training, doctrine does not constrain individual initiative; rather it leads to consistent behaviour, mutual confidence and effective collective action. Well-developed military doctrine is inherently flexible, allowing commanders to seize the initiative and adopt unorthodox or imaginative courses of action as opportunities arise in the “battlespace.”_

This said, I believe (and I blame myself for getting into this discussion) that we are straying very far from the actual topic of the thread.

So back on topic: We would have had the helicopters to employ the Mistral's in a useful manner, be they Chinooks or Griffons. However, their maintenance while onboard would have had to be modified to take into consideration exposure to salty air and humidity.

And Kirkhill: the USN doctrine we follow does not prevent all screw ups: see USS Cole and USS Vincennes incidents. But it does make you ready to deal with situations that develop quickly, unlike continental European nations navies outside of "normal" working hours. 

As for sleeping on watch: I hope you were joking, because it is one of the most serious charge you can make against a seaman. We don't punish it by death anymore, but almost.


----------



## Loachman

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> We would have had the helicopters to employ the Mistral's in a useful manner, be they Chinooks or Griffons. However, their maintenance while onboard would have had to be modified to take into consideration exposure to salty air and humidity.



Daily engine washes, same as we do when near a coast.

Lack of blade folding would be the biggest problem - I'll have to ask 430 Squadron how much of an issue that was for them - and the skid landing gear on the Griffon would be the major difficulties/annoyances.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> As for sleeping on watch: I hope you were joking, because it is one of the most serious charge you can make against a seaman. We don't punish it by death anymore, but almost.



I thought the cure for the punishment was a pint inside and a pint on the back  >

See what happens when you allow progress?  No corporal punishment so now you either have to hang the poor bugger or ignore the transgression.  Can't even keel haul him.

As to the point on policy, doctrine, strategy, intent, vision....insert institutional buzzword of the day..... the fact remains, as Loachman and Old Sweat demonstrate that nothing is static and everything has to be constantly re-evaluated based on current circumstances.

They shall not pass.  That is a goal, an intent.  
All convoys will get through.
No subs in the Gulf of St Lawrence.

Doctrine would define, in general terms, how those goals would be accomplished with the tools available. It would set the broad parameters so that the guys on the field would know they are playing rugby and not badminton.


As an aside:
Never again....if that is indeed the case... then that clearly explains the difference between Blue Suiters and Green Suiters as observed in this Harvard Business Review article that I have previously cited.



> To generalize, Navy and Air Force CMEs take a process-driven approach to management; personnel are expected to follow standard procedures without any deviation. This allows the CMEs to excel in highly regulated industries and, perhaps surprisingly, in innovative sectors. Army and Marine Corps CMEs embrace flexibility and empower people to act on their vision. They excel in small firms, where they are better able to communicate a clear direction and identify capable subordinates to execute accordingly. (Although the Marine Corps is part of the Department of the Navy, we treat it as a separate entity because of its distinctive organizational identity.)



And Loachman, wouldn't the issue of blade folding depend on the size of the hangars, their accessibility and the frequency with which the helos are utilized? 

If they need to be used daily then folding blades.  If they only need to be installed once prior to self-deployment to a shore base then non-folding blades (almost said fixed blades but I am sure somebody would seize on that).


----------



## Loachman

Hangar space is tight enough in a regular hangar, and worse in the confined space on a ship. In this case, elevators would be the first constraint.

How long is the voyage? What's the weather going to be like? Blades and bits can be removed - we do this to move machines on C17s - but it's not very convenient, takes time, requires a test flight afterwards, and may be a little more "interesting" on a rolling ship. Mistral was reported to be very stable, but weather during 430 Squadron's short embarkation was ideal.


----------



## George Wallace

Another way of looking at it may be that the helos don't have to actually be transported by the Mistral, but airlifted or flown to an airhead that would act as a land base for them to offload whatever the Mistrals may transport by sea.  The Mistrals would only act as the 'floating' platform for the helos to load/offload troops and cargo.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Loachman said:
			
		

> Daily engine washes, same as we do when near a coast.
> 
> Lack of blade folding would be the biggest problem - I'll have to ask 430 Squadron how much of an issue that was for them - and the skid landing gear on the Griffon would be the major difficulties/annoyances.





			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> Hangar space is tight enough in a regular hangar, and worse in the confined space on a ship. In this case, elevators would be the first constraint.
> 
> How long is the voyage? What's the weather going to be like? Blades and bits can be removed - we do this to move machines on C17s - but it's not very convenient, takes time, requires a test flight afterwards, and may be a little more "interesting" on a rolling ship. Mistral was reported to be very stable, but weather during 430 Squadron's short embarkation was ideal.



Actually Loachman, it is a little more than just engine daily wash. It is more like an everything and its dog wash, then generously oil and grease. But I doubt a Canadian Mistral would ever sail without one or two MH helicopter and their personnel will be glad to guide the Army air crew through the processes.

As for Hangar facility: they are excellent, capable of harbouring 16 medium size helos. The main hangar is 19,000 square feet, and you access it mostly from the rear elevator, which can handle 13 tonnes (I think that covers the Griffons all-right. That rear elevator is 2,400 square feet and the arrangement permits medium size helicopters, such as Pumas, to be transferred to or from the hangar with their four blades in normal operating configuration. To make matters even better, the "Russian" Mistrals have that hangar deck with their height increased to accommodate the lovely Russian Karmov helicopters with their double-stacked rotors system  . P.s.: The hangar also have overhead cranes to help with the work on any helicopter, a nice perk for a "field" deployment.

As for handling the "skidded" helicopters, remember that you would not do the handling by hand on the deck. The ship carries aviation tractors for that purpose.

Finally, the only helo that could pose a problem is the Chinook. The Mistrals only have one spot (number 6) that can handle the heavier helicopters (up to 33 tonnes), so depending on numbers you want to carry, you may have to park the Chinooks on the flight deck, either at the rear on the port side behind spot 5 (would not be my choice except for very short duration, or starboard side, forward of the superstructure, an area already designated for parking.

Oh! The Mistrals have a roll motion damper system.


----------



## CougarKing

Going, going... Gone?!!!

Defense News



> *France Says Egypt to Buy Mistral Warships*
> 
> Egypt has agreed to buy two Mistral warships which France built for Russia before scrapping the sale over the Ukraine crisis, the French presidency said in a statement Wednesday.
> President Francois Hollande and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi "have agreed on the principle and terms and conditions of Egypt's acquisition of the two Mistral-class vessels," the statement said.
> The deal comes a little over six weeks after France and Russia reached an agreement to fully reimburse Moscow for the scrapped 1.2-billion-euro ($1.3-billion) deal.
> The first Mistral had been due for delivery in 2014, while the second was to be delivered this year.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

More confirmation that they're getting both ships with this announcement on the homepage of the French President: 

Elysee.fr



> Le Président de la République s’est entretenu avec le Président Sissi. *Ils se
> sont accordés sur le principe et les modalités de l’acquisition par l’Egypte des
> deux bâtiments de projection* et de commandement de classe Mistra


----------



## MarkOttawa

Very useful capability for Egyptians should they decide to intervene in a Libya or Yemen-type situation.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MilEME09

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Very useful capability for Egyptians should they decide to intervene in a Libya or Yemen-type situation.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Or I wonder if this might be a work around and Egypt goes and "sells" them to Russia


----------



## Retired AF Guy

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Or I wonder if this might be a work around and Egypt goes and "sells" them to Russia



You could be onto something. Who knows??


----------



## CougarKing

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Very useful capability for Egyptians should they decide to intervene in a Libya or Yemen-type situation.



Many of the news sources I've come across online say that the Saudis made a loan to allow the Egyptians to finance these 2 ships.

Other sources such as another article I posted about earlier in this thread say that Egypt was able to afford it with a Russian loan.

Yes, and there is also speculation on other defence forums that Egypt may just be acting as the middleman for selling them back to Russia.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------  

Still, if the Saudis were indeed behind it, this gives them a big say in where, when and how they are used regardless of the fact they'll be flying the Egyptian naval ensign.

This would include contingencies such as a Yemen-type amphibious operation? Iran and the Houthis should probably beware of the Sunni Muslim coalition's new assault carriers.   

Anyways, here's info on the air group that Egypt will put on the 2 _Mistrals_:



> WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 (UPI) --*Russia has reportedly agreed to sell 50 helicopters to Egypt for the Mistral ships France initially intended to sell Russia.*
> 
> Russian news agency Tass reports Russia will be supplying Egypt with *Ka-52 Alligator family helicopters.* Authorities in Moscow say they are not ruling out the delivery of the deck-based version of the helicopters, according to unnamed sources.



Source: UPI


----------



## CougarKing

Even with the impending sale to Egypt, France may have to swallow hard on this deal:

Janes



> *Cost of Mistral re-sale to French taxpayer revealed*
> 
> France's Senate released a report on 29 September outlining the cost to the French government and industry of the failed sale of the Mistral-class amphibious assault vessels to Russia.
> 
> *Should the sale of the vessels to Egypt proceed, the French government is expected to see a shortfall of between EUR200 million (USD200 million) and EUR250 million as a result of the refund to Russia over the cancelled delivery.*
> 
> French industry will also face some losses under the cancellation, with uninsured expenses such as berthing and maintenance fees, removal of Russian equipment, as well as lost profits, being in the region of EUR90-146 million.
> 
> It is expected that the sale of the vessels will go ahead, with delivery of the former vessels Vladivostok and Sevastopol taking place in 2016.
> 
> The sale of the vessels to Egypt was announced on 23 September, following the cancellation of the contract between Russia and France for the vessels in August. France agreed to return EUR950 million to Russia on 3 September and took ownership of the vessels as a result of the contract termination.


----------



## CougarKing

And here we have the _Mistralski/__Lavina _class LHD:

It seems that the Russians are following the Chinese into the copycat market.

Navy Recognition



> *Russia to Go Ahead With Lavina Amphibious Assault Ship Project, Preliminary Design Completed*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Krylov State Research Center completed the preliminary design of the versatile amphibious assault ship for the Russian Navy, the center’s executive director, Mikhail Zagorodnikov, told TASS on Thursday. He also said there is "no doubt" the ship will be developped.
> 
> The Krylov State Research Center completed the preliminary design of the versatile amphibious assault ship for the Russian Navy, the center’s executive director, Mikhail Zagorodnikov, told TASS on Thursday. He also said there is "no doubt" the ship will be developped. The Lavina (Avalanche) project was first unveiled during the ARMY-2015 defense exhibiton.
> 
> "Krylov Central Scientific Research Institute is developing an alternative to the two Mistral LHDs. Avalanche will have a displacement of 24,000 tons, even more than the French ship" - a spokesman said at the time.
> 
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

More on the Egyptian _Mistrals_' planned air groups:

Defense News



> *Egyptian Navy to Receive 46 Ka-52K Naval Helicopters From Russia*
> By Oscar Nkala 3:40 p.m. EST January 1, 2016
> 
> 
> BULAWAYO, Zimbabwe — JSC Russian Helicopters says it will supply the Egyptian Navy with 46 Ka-52K (Kamov-52 "Katran") naval attack helicopters to equip the two Mistraal-class helicopter carrier amphibious assaults ships acquired from France last year.
> 
> In a statement marking the end of the 2015 trading year, JSC Russian Helicopters Director-General Alexander Mikheyev said that despite the difficult business circumstances created by sanctions against Russian since March, the company managed to clinch multi-million dollar deals: "In this knotty [global business] situation, we have managed to keep up the financial parameters reached previously and to broaden the presence of Russian helicopter technologies in the world market. In the outgoing year, new contracts were signed between Russia and foreign helicopter users.
> 
> "For instance, a large agreement for delivery of 46 Ka-52 Alligator helicopters has been signed with Egypt through state-owned weapons trading company Rosoboronexport," Mikheyev said in a statement published on the company's corporate magazine.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## dapaterson

Interesting peek behind the curtain, were the Deputy Minister and CDS provided differing positions on the potential to acquire the Mistrals.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/navy-defence-ships-purchase-france-mistral-1.3435803


----------



## Colin Parkinson

funny I can't see anything on the hand over to Egypt other than one article that says it's unlikely they be able to operate them effectively. Wonder if they are having buyers remorse?


----------



## PPCLI Guy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Interesting peek behind the curtain, were the Deputy Minister and CDS provided differing positions on the potential to acquire the Mistrals.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/navy-defence-ships-purchase-france-mistral-1.3435803



It is almost as if one of them is responsible for providing "best military advice", and the other for balancing the federal budget......


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin P said:
			
		

> funny I can't see anything on the hand over to Egypt other than one article that says it's unlikely they be able to operate them effectively. Wonder if they are having buyers remorse?




...only until they feel "seller's relief"...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

There would be a fair bit of egg on faces if the the Egyptians suddenly turned around and sold them to Russia, although I suspect getting parts afterwards would be a problem.


----------



## CougarKing

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Interesting peek behind the curtain, were the Deputy Minister and CDS provided differing positions on the potential to acquire the Mistrals.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/navy-defence-ships-purchase-france-mistral-1.3435803



More from the source article: and isn't it about time we changed the thread title to "Ex-Russian Mistral class LHDs bought by Egypt"?

It seems former top Canadian officer General Lawson actually wanted Ottawa to acquire the ex-Russian _Mistrals_ before they were bought by Egypt:

CBC



> Exclusive
> *Top general and defence bureaucrat were at odds over whether to buy French warships
> Top bureaucrat warned resources were 'stretched' and purchase would affect shipbuilding plan*
> 
> By Kristen Everson, CBC News Posted: Feb 08, 2016 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Feb 08, 2016 5:00 AM ET
> 
> Canada's defence department advised the former minister of defence not to buy two French Mistral-class amphibious vessels because of how their cost might affect the multibillion-dollar national shipbuilding strategy — even though the ships would have provided a new and needed capability for the Canadian Navy.
> 
> Despite this advice from the top defence bureaucrat, the defence minister was told the exact opposite six weeks later by Canada's top general, documents obtained through the Access to Information Act reveal.
> *
> In a 2015 briefing note, deputy defence minister John Forster advised then Conservative defence minister Jason Kenney and then chief of defence staff Gen. Tom Lawson to avoid buying the ships because of "stretched resources."*
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Bearpaw

Actually, it was General Vance that recommended the purchase of the Mistrals---General Lawson's position on the issue is unclear.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/navy-defence-ships-purchase-france-mistral-1.3435803

Bearpaw


----------



## CougarKing

180 of one of the ships' Egyptian crews are already in France:

Defense News



> *Egyptian Navy To Receive Mistral Warships by September*
> By Oscar Nkala, Defense News 4:13 p.m. EST February 25, 2016
> 
> GABORONE, Botswana — The Egyptian Navy will this year take delivery of both Mistral-class Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) warships acquired from France last year, according to an Agence France-Presse report.
> 
> Further, the report quoted officials from the manufacturer DCNS shipyard saying at least 180 Egyptian Navy officers will be sent to France at the end of March to attend training on how to operate and maintain the vessels.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## FSTO

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> 180 of one of the ships' Egyptian crews are already in France:
> 
> Defense News



I have a hard time believing that Egypt has the capability or finances to run these two ships effectively.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The only reason they would want them is to threaten their neighbours Sudan and Libya with a seaborne assault. frankly I can think of a lot more things Egypt could fix or do then this. Likely they will parade them around for a few years, then they sit for 10 and then they will try to sell them and they will be in terrible shape.


----------



## dapaterson

#RogersAndHammerstein wrote a song about Canada's feelings on this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOCBl-ojss


----------



## CougarKing

Why do I have a feeling Russia will get them eventually through Egypt? 

Navy Recognition



> *Russia, Egypt discuss contract to deliver equipment for Mistral amphibious assault ships*
> 
> Russia and Egypt are discussing the details of a contract on the delivery of Russian-made communications and control systems for the Mistral-class amphibious assault ships to Cairo, a spokesman for the United Instrument-Manufacturing Corporation told TASS on Monday. A final decision has not been made yet, the spokesman said. The United Instrument-Manufacturing Corporation, part of Russia’s state hi-tech corporation Rostec, is the producer of the equipment of this type.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Defense News



> *Russian Firm: Progress Made To Equip Radio Systems for Egyptian Carriers*
> Oscar Nkala, Defense News 2:50 p.m. EDT March 16, 2016
> 
> 
> GABORONE, Botswana — The Russian company United Instrument Manufacturing Corporation reported 'great progress' in negotiations for the sale of radio-electronic communication systems to equip the Egyptian Navy's two new Mistral-class helicopter carriers.
> 
> The Egyptian Navy ordered the two amphibious assault carriers from France late in 2015 after cancellation of the initial order from Russia, which provided its own radio and electronic systems for installation in the vessels.
> 
> Along with several armament, command-and-control and navigation systems, the Russian radio and electronic equipment was stripped off the vessels in line with the terms of the cancellation of the sale.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Danjanou

Colin P said:
			
		

> Likely they will parade them around for a few years, then they sit for 10 and then they will try to sell them and they will be in terrible shape.



And then we'll buy them 8)


----------



## CougarKing

Entering Egyptian service next week:

Ahram



> *Egypt to receive first Mistral helicopter carrier from France on Thursday*
> Ahram Online , Tuesday 31 May 2016
> 
> Egypt is set to receive its first Mistral-class Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) warship from France on Thursday, Al-Ahram newspaper reported.
> 
> The paper reported Tuesday that the inauguration of the Mistral, which will raise the Egyptian flag and sail from France's Toulouse to Egypt, will be attended by Egyptian defense minister Sedki Sobhi and his French counterpart Jean-Yves Le Drian.
> 
> 
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

sigh...... [


----------



## CougarKing

To think certain posters at the "Best Frigate for Canada" Facebook group keep on complaining "those could have been ours" every time this topic is brought up there, without regard to how they will be manned, maintained or supplied (especially when we don't have our AOR and currently have to rely on the Spaniards/Chileans for that capability.)

Navy Recognition



> *DCNS delivers the 2nd Mistral-class LHD to the Egyptian Navy, the Anwar El Sadat*
> *
> On 16 September 2016, DCNS delivered the second of two helicopter carriers acquired by the Arab Republic of Egypt in October 2015, the LHD (Landing Helicopter Dock) Anwar El Sadat. *The flag transfer ceremony took place in the presence of the two Chiefs of Staff of the Egyptian and French navies, Admiral Rabie and Admiral Prazuck, the chairman and CEO of DCNS, Hervé Guillou, and the president of STX France, Laurent Castaing, together with senior French and Egyptian officials. By 2020, DCNS will have supplied seven combat vessels to Egypt, thus contributing to the modernisation of the Arab Republic of Egypt's defence system.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## jollyjacktar

We would have trouble manning it, no question.   We're in trouble.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> We would have trouble manning it, no question.   We're in trouble.



Actually the base crew size is less than the Tribal Class. I suspect a new ship with lot's of room to run around in would make crewing a bit easier.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Seriously, Colin, we're in deep shit manning wise right now.  As much as I would love to see a couple Amphibs in the fleet, we can't man what we have now nevermind what is coming down the pipe.


----------



## jmt18325

And that's why we probably won't get 15 surface combatants.


----------



## Kirkhill

Or maybe it is why you will have to make do with fewer sailors in each hull....


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Or maybe it is why you will have to make do with fewer sailors in each hull....



Or just maybe, it's a good reason for the government to abandon the stupid idea it has that they can attract recruits by hiding six seconds of "navy" advertisement in bits and pieces in every recruiting ad.

Maybe, just maybe it's time for the CF to start having targeted advertisement of recruiting so that people know we have a Navy and you can join it because it's hiring, instead of those stupid general purpose ones where no specific task or element gets enough exposure to get any one's attention.

And maybe, just maybe it's time for the Navy to get people from off the street all the way to trained seamen without any interference from the firkin' recruiting system and basic training system.

Look at the goddamned unemployment figures for youth in canada: We should have no problem filing our ranks.

 :threat: :threat: :threat: :threat: :threat:


----------



## jollyjacktar

Technological advances will of course enable future fleets to be manned with less personnel for normal day to day things.  It doesn't satisfactorily answer in my mind what they'll be able to do in an emergency or during action stations to fight the ship and keep her alive once seriously damaged.  What Zumwalt is able to accomplish is fantastic, but too expensive for our wallets and it would appear the USN to make it common place in their fleets.

The shake up that is presently about to commence with the Marine System Engineering trades is going to correct some deficiencies and create others.  Will it correct shortages in the long term???  I am not hopeful, but do honestly wish I am wrong.


----------



## jmt18325

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Or maybe it is why you will have to make do with fewer sailors in each hull....



If I were a betting man - both, as has happened in every other navy.


----------



## quadrapiper

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Seriously, Colin, we're in deep shit manning wise right now.  As much as I would love to see a couple Amphibs in the fleet, we can't man what we have now nevermind what is coming down the pipe.


Tying that and the recruiting comments together - might _X_ shiny new ships be something worth anchoring a recruiting campaign around?

As to current manning issues - is it a recruiting problem, or a training/retention issue that's affecting seagoing manning?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It would seem we created a system that is not funded to operate as designed and is incapable of achieving the required demand, mainly as there is a zero risk approach, going by what I have read here.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> We would have trouble manning it, no question.   We're in trouble.



Not only that, and correct me if I'm wrong, but if Canada had bought these ships wouldn't that require the whole replacement of their electrical network, because I'm pretty sure the the Russian's don't use the 110v system we use here in North America?


----------



## jollyjacktar

Yes, to "Canadianize" these vessels it would be very costly as well.


----------



## jollyjacktar

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> As to current manning issues - is it a recruiting problem, or a training/retention issue that's affecting seagoing manning?



Yes and yes.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Not only that, and correct me if I'm wrong, but if Canada had bought these ships wouldn't that require the whole replacement of their electrical network, because I'm pretty sure the the Russian's don't use the 110v system we use here in North America?



Depends on the wiring you are stepping down from 220-240 to 110. If the wiring is adequate then some transformers would need to be replaced and outlets. The wiring could remain. Apparently Russians have different ideas on grounds, but these are French built ships, so likely they are modeled on French practices. 

_The standard domestic electricity supply in France is single phase 230 volts, 50Hz. It is also common to find a 3–phase 380v distributed supply in larger properties.  _ https://www.frenchentree.com/living-in-france/utilities/french-electrical-systems/


----------



## quadrapiper

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Yes and yes.


Wonderful. On the training end - assuming this is a Fleet School billets issue, rather than Basic or time at sea?

How much of what's done now on either coast could be conducted at sea?


----------

