Russia looking to buy assault ship from France

[sunnyside]

Since we seem to enjoy military related threads.

By IRINA TITOVA, Associated Press Writer Irina Titova, Associated Press Writer - Mon Nov 23, 9:50 am ET
ST. PETERSBURG, Russia - A cutting-edge French warship sailed into St. Petersburg Monday to show off its capabilities to potential buyers in the Russian navy, whose pursuit of an amphibious assault capacity is frightening some neighboring countries.

Russia's once-mighty navy was severely degraded after the fall of the Soviet Union and it currently has no big ship with the power to anchor in coastal waters and deploy troops onto land.

Russian officials announced this year that they were planning to make their first arms deal with a NATO country by buying a French vessel like the Mistral, a 23,700-ton (21,500-metric ton), 980-foot (299-meter) vessel able carry more than a dozen helicopters able to haul hundreds of troops directly onto enemy territory.

The head of the Russian navy has said that a Mistral-class vessel could put as many troops in Georgia in 40 minutes as the Russian Black Sea Fleet took 26 hours to land during the nations' August 2008 war. Moscow declared the Russian-allied breakaway Georgian territory of Abkhazia an independent nation after the war and sent thousands of troops there. Russia, Georgia and Ukraine all have Black Sea coastlines, as does Abkhazia.

The Mistral docked Monday on the Neva River, about half a mile (1 kilometer) from the Hermitage museum. Russian media reported that the French and Russian navies are planning joint exercises with the ship this week.

Russian media reports have said a Mistral-class ship would cost Russia up to euro500 million ($750 million). Officials in Moscow have expressed interest in buying licenses to build several more in Russia.

"We strongly oppose the sale of such ship to Russia," Nika Laliashvili, a member of the Georgian parliament's defense affairs committee, told The Associated Press. "It poses a serious danger to Georgia."

The Mistral, which was launched in 2006 and first saw service in a Lebanon refugee operation, is one of the two ships of that class in the French navy.

Bruno Daffix, a spokesman for the French Defense Ministry's export and sales agency, described the ship as a "Swiss army knife" of military ships - able to carry helicopters, land forces, hospitals or refugees, among other things.

NATO officials in Brussels would not comment Monday on the possible French navy sale.

The Kremlin has increasingly 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 French Defense Ministry's arms acquisition and sales agency has reported that French exports rose 15 percent in 2008 to euro6.4 billion, thanks in part to sales of the French-Italian built FREMM multipurpose frigate to Morocco and the EC725 Cougar tactical transport helicopter to Brazil.

French military exports are expected to rise to euro6.7 billion this year.

Among France's recent big-ticket sales deals, Brazil has agreed to buy five French Scorpene submarines, one of them with nuclear propulsion, and 50 Cougar helicopters for about $12 billion. All would be assembled in Brazil.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_russia_france_navy_ship

These things are good for only one thing really, lauching an attack on another country.

[Tsukiyumi]

These things are good for only one thing really, lauching an attack on another country.

After hurricane Ike, we had the USS Nassau anchor off of Galveston to provide water and heavy equipment for disaster relief. I'd say the designation "assault" ship is somewhat like "assault" rifle: it just depends what you use it for.

[Aaron]

These things are good for only one thing really, lauching an attack on another country.

After hurricane Ike, we had the USS Nassau anchor off of Galveston to provide water and heavy equipment for disaster relief. I'd say the designation "assault" ship is somewhat like "assault" rifle: it just depends what you use it for.

^---- This and a host of other reasons: training in large ship handling, maintenance and logistics are just a few.

And lastly, one ship won't allow them to invade squat. Lets not forget that the US has a large number of these and aren't always using them for their intended role.

[sunnyside]

After hurricane Ike, we had the USS Nassau anchor off of Galveston to provide water and heavy equipment for disaster relief. I'd say the designation "assault" ship is somewhat like "assault" rifle: it just depends what you use it for.

Well, yes, you could use an M16 to hold up the corner of a table, and you can use an assault ship to haul supplies.

However in both cases you're just using what you have on hand at the moment, it isn't what they're for, and there are things that are much cheaper that could do those things better.

Assault rifles are for shooting people, and are optimized for, well, assaults. Assault ships are for getting troops, choppers, and maybe some vehicles and equipment on the ground, and are also optimized for...assaults (of other nations).

@Kendall I don't see how Russia needs experience with big ships. They already have the Kirov class after all. And from the sounds of things they provide all the maintenence practice you could want.

And one ship is enough for smaller scale conflicts (like Georgia). Especially since it can go back and forth to load up and launch forces much quicker than the US with our long range deployments. But in any case per the article they are interested in building up a number of them.

[Aaron]

@Kendall I don't see how Russia needs experience with big ships. They already have the Kirov class after all. And from the sounds of things they provide all the maintenence practice you could want.

And one ship is enough for smaller scale conflicts (like Georgia). Especially since it can go back and forth to load up and launch forces much quicker than the US with our long range deployments. But in any case per the article they are interested in building up a number of them.

Yes the Kirov's provide experience operating 20 year old cruisers, not experience in operating ships of this type. Most of their old Gator Navy vessels are gone IIRC and if they want to get back into them then this is a great plan, it'll also provide some transferable experience if they ever get their planned carriers up and running.

[Mikey]

Assault rifles... are optimized for, well, assaults.

Not really. They're optimized for ranged battle, while for true assaults SMG's and auto shotties are probably better picks. Assault on the personal level refers to confines wherein things as long as traditional assault rifles are cumbersome.

Assault ships are so named because the convention began in the military; being naval vessels, their naming convention will naturally reference their militaristic application. This does not mean that any of their other applications should be ignored. And more importantly, like Kendall said - one ship =/= the amassment of an invasion force.

[Captain Seafort]

Not really. They're optimized for ranged battle, while for true assaults SMG's and auto shotties are probably better picks. Assault on the personal level refers to confines wherein things as long as traditional assault rifles are cumbersome.

That description sounds to me as though you're getting mixed up between assault rifles and battle rifles. The latter are indeed long-range weapons, but the former are a compromise between battle rifles and SMGs - they use similar ammunition to battle rifles (albeit usually lower-powered rounds) but are much shorter, allowing them to be carried in armoured vehicles and CQB.

[sunnyside]

SMGs had their role in trech warefare. However in an assault everything isn't going to be room to room, leaving assault rifles as a compromise, though certainly optimized for the assault over other proper rifle types. Also these days even civilian body armor is pretty capable against non specialty SMG rounds. I believe shorter versions of assault rifles (carbines I suppose) are becoming dominant over SMGs in the military, except in specific instances.

And seriously Kendall. Are you just trying to give a possible tertiary reason for having the things, or are you trying to say you think the primary reason for Russia wanting a number of assault ships is maritime drilling/practice.


Also per

The head of the Russian navy has said that a Mistral-class vessel could put as many troops in Georgia in 40 minutes as the Russian Black Sea Fleet took 26 hours to land during the nations' August 2008 war. Moscow declared the Russian-allied breakaway Georgian territory of Abkhazia an independent nation after the war and sent thousands of troops there. Russia, Georgia and Ukraine all have Black Sea coastlines, as does Abkhazia.

I'd say that for local conflicts one ship does consitute an invasion force.

And again

Russian media reports have said a Mistral-class ship would cost Russia up to euro500 million ($750 million). Officials in Moscow have expressed interest in buying licenses to build several more in Russia.

[Mikey]

Not really. They're optimized for ranged battle, while for true assaults SMG's and auto shotties are probably better picks. Assault on the personal level refers to confines wherein things as long as traditional assault rifles are cumbersome.

That description sounds to me as though you're getting mixed up between assault rifles and battle rifles. The latter are indeed long-range weapons, but the former are a compromise between battle rifles and SMGs - they use similar ammunition to battle rifles (albeit usually lower-powered rounds) but are much shorter, allowing them to be carried in armoured vehicles and CQB.

I have never heard the terms "battle rifles" and "assault rifles" used except as interchangeably. If the nomenclature does, in fact, indicate different weapons, then I apologize. Indeed, the line between assault rifles and SMG's is getting very fuzzy, with new cut-down H&K "rifles" and things like the Kriss, which is an SMG that fires the .45 ACP... a pistol round, to be sure, but one with plenty of takedown power, decent penetration, and lots of internal cavitation. So, saying that "civilian body armor is pretty capable against non specialty SMG rounds" is slightly anachronistic. BTW, SMG's didn't have much of a role in trench warfare... they were more prevalent in WWII.

[Aaron]

And seriously Kendall. Are you just trying to give a possible tertiary reason for having the things, or are you trying to say you think the primary reason for Russia wanting a number of assault ships is maritime drilling/practice.

No, I'm saying that having one gives the benefits I listed. I personally don't give a rats arse if Russia builds 20 of them, the US has them, why can't Russia?