Posted on February 18, 2010 - by Venik
Mistral for Russia
France’s decision to sell four Mistral-class helicopter carriers to Russia was met with heavy criticism in the US, Georgia and the Baltic States. Interestingly enough, Russia’s decision to buy the four vessels for more than $2 billion was met with a lot of criticism within Russia as well. This is really the first time in a very, very long time that Russia would place such a sizable order for foreign-made military hardware.
The critics on both sides of the Russian border fail to understand a simple truth about the Mistral:it is more of a glorified cruise ship than a weapon. Incidentally, Mistrals are built by a company that specializes in building cruise ships. The West loses nothing by selling this technology to Russia. And Russia does not miss out on making any great technological strides by not building its own version of Mistral.
The most advanced technology aboard Mistral are the helicopters it carries. Russia is not interested in those. It has better alternatives. Mistral’s meager defensive weapons are also of no interest to Russia. Much of Mistral’s electronics would have to be modified or replaced to be compatible with Russian standards. What Russia needs is the ship itself. It needs this ugly but very polished, comfortable and functional amphibious assault barge because Russia doesn’t want to spend the next ten years reinventing the wheel.
The Mistral class:
Some critics in the West point to the 2008 war between Russia and Georgia as the main reason why France should not sell Mistrals to Russia. The war with Georgia was over before any amphibious ship would have had a chance to leave its base. And its not like having Mistrals would have allowed Russia to sink Georgian navy in fourteen minutes instead of fifteen minutes that it required.
The Baltic States’ concern over the Mistral situation is also difficult to understand. It’s not like Russia would have any need for amphibious landing ships in case it decides to invade Estonia. Ukraine was too busy with its mess of presidential elections to join the critics of the Mistral deal. Not that Ukraine’s opposition would have made much sense either. Not with Russia’s Black Sea Fleet already parked on its territory.
So why does Russia even need Mistrals. What military capability does it expect to gain? Where would those ships be deployed should Russia actually purchase them? These are all good questions. You see, for some years now Russia’s naval experts have been split into two camps: supporters of full-sized aircraft carriers a la the American Kitty Hawk class, while the other group supported the idea of a “universal” aircraft-carrying ship not unlike the Kiev class.
The “universal” carrier idea is attractive on many levels from cost to survivability. There is one problem with this concept: lack of suitable fighter aircraft. The Yak-141 was Russia’s last great attempt to build a fully-featured supersonic fighter aircraft capable of vertical take off. Any fighters that Russia has now or plans to build in the next twenty or thirty years will require a takeoff ramp. A Kuznetsov-class carrier would seem to be the minimum requirement.
It is entirely likely that the decision to buy Mistrals is not just an attempt to fill a perceived amphibious assault capability gap, but also a move to pacify opponents of full-size aircraft carriers within the Russian Navy. With the Mistrals in service, it would be much harder for the “universal” carrier proponents to make their case, opening the door for building huge, overpriced carriers to compete with the Americans.
Russians have to compete with the Americans. Its in their blood. I am sure Americans understand the sentiment. This is really strange for two nations that were never at war with each other, but true nevertheless. I do not think Russia needs supercarriers. It never had them, it has no experience building or operating such ships, it has no strategic need in supercarriers, it spent decades developing deadly long-range naval weapons design to effectively defeat such monsters.
Mainstay of Russia’s current amphibious assault fleet, the Ropucha class:
A large carrier is perfect for bombing the crap out of unprepared opponents on the other side of the world. Most of Russia’s opponents are uncomfortably close to its borders and can be reached by ground. One notable exception, of course, is the US. Sitting on the word’s biggest supply of energy and natural resources, Russia needs to protect its possessions. When push comes to shove and the US needs to choose between securing its energy supplies and honoring the international law, we all know what usually happens.
Russia laid claim on huge energy reserves in the Arctic Ocean and it will take more than planting a flag at its bottom to defend this claim. I am not talking of course about gathering scientific evidence about how far north Russian mainland extends underwater. Russian geologists and polar explorers are second to none, but they will not be able to stop NATO navies. Of course neither will Mistrals. What Russia needs in the north are subs and naval air power. Russia has plenty of long-range bombers, but it is far behind NATO in terms of carrier-borne fighters.
Mistrals would be great in the Back Sea keeping Russia’s neighbors company or somewhere in the Gulf of Aden chasing Somalian pirates. But unless the Kremlin plans on dropping off a hundred and sixty Marines on an iceberg, Mistrals will be of limited use in the Arctic. And this is exactly where the Russian Navy foresees the next major conflict.
Mistrals will fill a psychological niche in Russia’s naval capability. Its always good for public morale to see its victorious forces arrive in style in some distant land and spend a couple of week, uhm, explaining democratic values to the local aborigines. Mistrals would be great for that. But fighting American carrier battlegroups in open seas is not their cup of tea.
The critics of this deal both in the West and in Russia need to take a chill pill and realize that stripped-down amphibious assault ships are not the pinnacle of naval technology worth protecting or reinventing. But Russia also needs to step back and figure out exactly why it needs four Mistrals. The satisfaction of seeing several dozen helicopters and a few hundred Marines parked within striking distance of Saakashvili’s new presidential palace from which every evening he plans to take over the world simply may not be worth all the cash. Especially now that Russia has plenty of troops on the ground in what was used to be Georgia.
On the other hand, the Sukhoi T-50 flew for the first time last month and is expected to be in service some time in 2015. The naval version is also in development and at the end of this decade it would be nice if Russia had an aircraft carrier capable of effectively hosting these aircraft. A couple years ago Russia announced that it will be building several new aircraft carriers. Few details are available, but the new carriers are expected to be in a similar class as Russia’s Kuznetsov. A very sensible approach if true. I am all for Russia acquiring Mistrals, but only as long as they don’t get in the way of Russia’s aircraft carrier program.
Popularity: 24% [?]
Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts
Related posts:
- War in Georgia: Reviewing EU Findings
- Russians in Georgia: Goals and Consequences
- Russia and the US heading toward a confrontation
- Timeline of Georgia-Russia Conflict
- Russia’s War Booty
Visit My Website
February 19, 2010
Permalink
I enjoy your articles but there seem to be some inconsistencies in this one.
At one point you say: “I do not think Russia needs supercarriers”
And yet you go on to state/conclude: “it would be nice if Russia had an aircraft carrier”
So which is the best way forward? A smaller carrier than the US super carriers? Or simply exploiting the long range of the T50 with air refuelling? Or some other combination?
Good to see more current posts on the site.
Reply
Venik Reply:
February 19th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
What I mean is that Russia has no need for supercarriers of the USS Nimitz size. Russia has no experience building or operating such vessels. If Russia is going to build more aircraft carriers in the near future, they are likely to have displacement in the 50000-tone range and will be designed primarily for air superiority applications. In other words, Russia is likely to build a new variation of the Kuznetsov concept.
Reply
Visit My Website
February 19, 2010
Permalink
I wonder why they are ordering four Mistrals? One for each fleet? What is the rationale for that figure?
Seems to me that one Misral in the Black Sea would be enough.
Reply
Venik Reply:
February 20th, 2010 at 7:46 am
Russian amphibious assault tactics is based around ships capable of landing armored vehicles directly on shore (current Project 775 and proposed Project 11711). Mistrals are not designed for this type of an operation. Mistrals employ smaller landing craft. To achieve the desired effect, 3-4 Mistrals would need to be used. Should Russia actually buy Mistrals – which I seriously doubt – it would make sense to deploy all of them in the Black Sea. Russia simply doesn’t need them anywhere else and spreading them around would undermine their effectiveness.
Reply
vineyardsaker Reply:
February 20th, 2010 at 9:35 am
Sorry for being so obtuse, but I still don’t get the rationale for these ships. Why get 4 French ships instead of 775s or 11711s? Besides, where on the Black Sea Coast would Russia need to have the capability to land and amphibious assault force? As you say, Russia alreadu has forces in Georgia and it is building a naval base in Abkhazia. I don’t really see under what scenario these ships would be used…
BTW – if I remember correctly, a while ago you mentioned the deployment of SU-34s in Abkhazia. Any news/details on this?
Reply
Venik Reply:
March 1st, 2010 at 10:45 pm
Consider the circumstances of the Russian Navy: after decades of training for massive amphibious assaults with thousands of Marines and armored vehicles the Russian naval commanders run into an unexpected requirement for extended patrol (rather “posturing”) missions off the coast of… Africa. A similar situation arises closer to home: Georgia and possibly even Ukraine. These are cases when an all-out amphibious assault is out of the question. What is needed is a big fist that would hang over the heads of the coastal inhabitants, reminding them about the values of democracy, or whatever is on the menu.
Russia’s current fleet of amphibious assault ships was not designed for this sort of thing: they were design to attack, not threaten to attack. While Mistral’s amphibious assault capabilities may be questioned, its loitering (to borrow from aviation terminology) abilities far exceed those of the rather old and tired Ropucha-class. Mistral is big, well-equipped, and in comparison luxuriously comfortable. Not to mention that it can carry a serious helicopter assault force. It is the perfect combat vessel with which to threaten various banana republics.
Now, the Project 11711 is a logical continuation of the Ropucha-class. It’s a ship designed for a mass amphibious assault, but just like Ropucha, it is not well suited for long-term “patrol” missions. Yes, it can carry three dozen APCs, but they are not much help unless you land them on the ground.
The other problem with 11711 is more significant: it is very much a paper ship. The past twenty years have not been kind to the Russian shipbuilding industry. Much know-how has been long and very little R&D has been carried out. Especially in the area of amphibious assault ships. Recent statements by Medvedev suggest that technology transfer is the primary reason for the planned purchase of the four Mistrals. Russia wants to buy one complete ship (minus weapons and radars) and to license-produce three more at home. This would give Russian ship designers and builders a valuable close look at what they missed over the past two decades.
This first-hand experience would be extremely important in light of Russia’s plans to build new aircraft carriers. While Mistral is not what Russia is looking to build, it is as close a sample of Western aircraft-carrying combat ship as Russia can hope to dissect. Naturally, there are also political reasons for this planned purchase: Russia is seeking closer ties with France and nothing is better for improving relations than billions of euros.
Naval and air force bases in Abkhazia give Russia more flexibility but not a complete freedom of action in the Black Sea. Unfortunately, I have no new information about the Su-34s and their possible deployment in Abkhazia. It is really too early to know.
Ekranoplans, like Ropucha, are good for carrying out amphibious assault operations. They are not particularly useful for hanging around for extended periods of time.
Visit My Website
February 20, 2010
Permalink
Also – if the goal is to transport naval infantry units, would ekranoplans not be a better solution?
Reply
Visit My Website
April 7, 2010
Permalink
Why no mention of the Kuznetsov Class carriers? They can’t carry that many planes and only one was finished, but they have powerful missiles.
Reply
jako777 Reply:
August 26th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Not after 2015 upgrade refurbishment Peter… Kuznetsov will not have “powerful missiles” and will have much more planes (MiG-29K not SU-33)
BTW Kuznetsov is air carrier and Mistral heli-carrier completely different thing…
Reply