Russia's Mistral class LHDs: updates

[RC]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

...
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]

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.

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]

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.