REPORTS: Russia abandons its Mistral warship deal with France

[Bosonic]

Source: Business Insider

Russia has given up on its €1.2 billion deal for two Mistral-class helicopter carriers with France, according to reports.

Following Russia's alleged role in supporting separatist militia in eastern Ukraine, French President François Hollande had imposed two conditions necessary for the sale. These were a cease-fire that was being observed by all sides and tangible evidence of progress toward a political settlement over Ukraine's future.

Neither of those conditions were deemed to have been sufficiently met in order to complete the transfer of the Mistral ships.

All that remains now is for the two sides to agree on a compensation package for Moscow.

Read more: http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-abandons-its-mistral-warship-deal-with-france-2015-5?r=US

[Kelvin Mace]

1. The stupidity of the arms business

It is certainly not in France's national interest, nor NATO's, nor the EU's, nor the rest of the world's, for Russia to be able to buy such a weapon. But, the French arms dealer was looking at a mountain of cash and said "screw good sense".

Hopefully, Russia will stiff the for the money.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. maybe we could buy them, considering what failures

our designs have been.

[erikspartan]

5. Not worth it

Whoever does end up buying them will have a lot of work to do retrofitting them I assume, and the Russians will probably throw a fit regardless of whomever ends up with them. A couple of smaller navies have been looking to purchase them, but I don't think they would adapt very well to the USN's needs.

[Adrahil]

13. ? What failures would those be?

[GGJohn]

17. What failures would those be?

Our Iwo Jima class helicopter carriers have been highly successful, very dependable and versatile US Navy warships.
They can also land the Harrier Jump Jet on it's deck, making it more mission capable.

[samsingh]

3. can't France just keep them?

[hack89]

6. They are expensive to man and operate

the French military has more important priorities to pay for.

[happyslug]

8. Sorry but these ships can be used by France.

France is already operating three of them thus France can quickly adapt to use these two carriers.

Complement: 20 officers, 80 petty officers, 60 quarter-masters

Can carry: Capacity: 59 vehicles (including 13 AMX Leclerc tanks) or a 40-strong Leclerc tank battalion
Troops: 900 (short duration)
450 (long durations)
150 (serving as operational headquarters)

Thus these ships would be an easy adoption by the French Navy and Marines. Given that France would either have to pay for the themselves, whether the French use them or not, i see the French Navy adopting at least the one that is finished and ready to be delivered. The Second one is being built, but is almost ready to be launched.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistral-class_amphibious_assault_ship

As far as men, these ships will NOT be that much of a drain on France. Given that France may now have to pay for them, whether Frances uses them or not, those costs are already spent (France may have to cut other programs to pay for these two ships, even if the two ships are kept in dry dock and never used).

Sorry, the additional costs of operating these ships are NOT that high, given we are talking of using existing Helicopters, men and vehicles to keep these ships ready for combat (Except for the 80 men crew and the fuel to operate these ships).

[hack89]

10. ok. nt

[happyslug]

4. I see Putin wins....

If Putin had cancelled the contract, he would NOT be able to recover any of the money, but the French IMPOSED additional conditions that Putin did NOT agree with, thus it is FRANCE that is breaking the Contract AND MUST PAY RUSSIA FOR BREACHING THE CONTRACT.

Given the drop in the price of oil (The money from oil is what Russia was going to pay France for these ships), Russia does NOT have to come up with the additional money to pay for the rest of these ships, in fact Russia will be getting MONEY for the French Breach. It is a sure sign Putin does not NEED these ships for he does NOT plan to go to war and it is an additional sign that these ships are no threat to Russia if they remain in French/NATO hands.

Sorry, it would have been better to force Putin to come up with the money for these ships by saying the contract is still on. If Putin could not come up with the money (The drop in oil has really hurt Russia) then it would have been Clearly Putin's breach of the Contract and thus Russia would lose the ships and NOT GET ANY MONEY (and a ruling by a board of Arbitrators may even require Putin to come up with some money do to his failure to pay for what he contracted for).

[hack89]

7. Russia desperately wanted these ships

their military industrial base is antiquated and inefficient. The Russians were counting on these ships to give their military an infusion of modern technology and capabilities.

These ships are irrelevant to current events in Europe and say nothing about Putin's desire for war - any potential conflict will be a land war.

[happyslug]

9. Putin does NOT have to pay for them, France does.

And France has to pay Russia.

[newthinking]

11. They will resurrect their ship building capacity

The (from the former USSR) shipbuilding factory in Sevastopol is apparently already being retooled. (I heard about this from friends as people there are apparently excited about the jobs it is bringing. The factory had heavy layoffs over the past 10 years previous and they consider these good paying jobs).

This was pretty much a stupid move, as we will see with the sanctions when we look back. Russia is not nearly so "isolated" as our media presents, and they were already getting a lot of their supply chain from Asia.

China has seen what is going on with Russia as a warning of things to come and both Russia, China, and the other BRICS countries have accelerated their plans. I would not be surprised if part of the reason that the President is willing to compromise on some surprising issues in TPP is related to the speed at which competition is coming. In reality, even without these agreements we have pretty much been the only game in town for a long time in global trade. I wonder if there are preference/exclusionary components in these trade deals to try and maintain a semi-monopoly in things like global financial instruments?

[Calista241]

12. That's at least a 20 year plan right there.

Building a shipyard is enormously complex. The logistical challenges alone are nothing to sneeze at. Dry docks and what not MAY be able to be refreshed and modernized from their current decrepit state, but that's not a guarantee.

That'll have to design a new ship that meets their requirements. Theyll have to design a development lifecycle for those ships. They'll have to hire and train a workforce to do all of that. Then they'll have to actually build a bunch of ships.

All of these require an enormous commitment of time, money and manpower. Russia will have to commit some of their best engineers to such a project, and then decide if this is the best use of their time and skills.

Putin will not be President forever. Will his successor have the same goals and plans for Russia?

[Adrahil]

14. How is this a problem?

Russia is an aggressive bad actor. I don't see how denying them more weaponry is a bad thing.

China is a much bigger deal than Russia, which is about as important economically as Italy or Spain. That is, not very. If they didn't have nukes, no one would give a crap.

[tabasco]

15. Got a copy of the agreement for us to peruse?

Or are you pulling this out your ass just to praise Rooty Poot.

[happyslug]

16. Did you read the article?

It says,the only remaining issue is how much France will pay. Such terms are normal in such situations subject to an agreed neutral arbitrator to decide any outstanding issues.