If it takes 6 years + for a russian shipyard to complete a corvette what makes you think it can build a russian alternative to the mistrals?
Given the design plans and the funds to do the job the rear halves of the two Mistrals built were made in Russian shipyards on time and to budget...
If I was a navy commander I would take the chance to get already built ships rather than wait 1+ decade to recieve and alternative while the enemy is getting dozens of ships every few years.
The purpose behind buying French ships was speed only. The Russian shipyards can of course build a more suitable vessel for Russia, but the timeframe would be a decade.
One of the biggest hurdles is that the Ukraine conflict proved that the EU has firmly aligned with the US, and if there are any issues with the Mistrals, we're going to be stuck up shit creek as access to parts will undoubtedly be cut off.
the transfer of technology agreements with the ships should cover local manufacture of parts... so it should not be an issue.
5 years ago you guys were LOVING this deal, best decision ever from russia, or how we "needed" that damn mistral you guys said while i wrote:
They would and will be useful vessels, the decision was correct... they wanted them urgently and this was the best option.
The fact that France is being a bitch about it is hardly a fault of Russia.
i just pray russian goverment learned ther lesson once and for all
If the Mistrals are never delivered the Russian Navy will get the Russian shipyards to build them an equivalent vessel that will not be in service likely till 2025 and will end up costing rather more than 1.5 billion euros... though it will likely be in rubles and it will be money spent inside the Russian economy instead of French shipyards.
I never liked this deal. I was lambasted on MP.net due to my viewpoint of the deal and thought it was total corruption.
Why do you think it was corruption? 1.2 billion is not bad for two modern 20K ton ships.
France will sign. If it doesn't, all Russia has to do is precisely nothing - until France eventually has no choice but to come back and sign.
Exactly... even without fines Russia is getting its money back and will likely be taking its components off the vessels too... it misses out on introducing two large ships rapidly into service, and will likely have to wait for some time for something similar to enter service, but land changes in the far east in terms of basing and military equipment mean these ships are no longer desperately needed to ensure the safety of territory. They can take their time and get exactly the ships they want now.
A large fleet benefits more from standardisation than a smaller fleet.
I would disagree... if you only have ten ships and three are for anti sub use and three are for air defence and four are dedicated antiship destroyers then you can have three different engine types, with three different main battery missile launchers and different sensors and equipment... it actually makes rather more sense to standardise with one main battery missile launcher like UKSK, then all ten ships can be loaded with anti sub or anti ship or land attack missiles or mixtures... they can all have the same engine, similar sensors... whereas a large fleet you can afford to have very different types.
Standardisation works in both cases to reduce costs and simplify maintainence and support and training.
Just being on friendly terms does not make them allies and superior trade partners of Russia.
Russia's (military) allies are in the CSTO and its best trade partners are the ones which matters the most.
Of course it doesn't make them best buddies... just because Russia sells them stuff doesn't mean Russia should risk anything for them, but if they want to it would be good if they actually could rather than just possibly could.
They claim it for the sake of their anti-Russian narrative. Do not give them credibility by letting them have a point.
You mean Russia should shape its foreign policy to avoid fulfilling the perverted beliefs of those snakes in the grass? Russia should not give them a second thought and should do what suits them when it suits them.
Heli carriers are too vulnerable and important to be based on a potential frontline.
Nor are they needed there, unless you are planning to abandon the location.
Why are they vulnerable? We are not talking about a civilian transport ship filled with helicopters like the British used in the Falklands. These vessels will be military, they will be armed and they will have their own ECM and ESM system to defend themselves....
These are research stations.
There are nations like Chile which claim parts of the Antarctica and maintain stations in Antarctica in order to strengthen their claims.
Russia is not one of them.
Most bases there are supported by the military of that country, why should the Russian bases be different?