Marine Nationale (French Navy)

[KiwiRob]

turin, I don't think there is a problem with R&D I believe the main problem is with the yards, they quickly converted to building commercial vessels in the 90's and pretty much trashed their military shipbuilding competance. Another big problem is the loss of the Crimean Peninsular to Ukraine, all the Soviet Navy's aviation ships were built there.

 

[Twickiwi]

You make it look like Red Storm Rising is going to happen next year. Frankly the Russian interest in the Mistral type (still no word from the French on the whole thing) demonstrates again only one fact: The Russian shipbuilding industry is in serious disarray, right down to the level of R&D competency. Please keep in mind that once upon a time Russia was able to build everything involving helo-carriers and LPDs (the latter not a prominent concept in Russia, but certainly existing) on its own. The Russian navy still loses ships every year, no replacements are in sight, the shipyards management are being shouted at by the President on a regular basis for messing up even when they actually get some money.

This procurement, if it ever happens, will mean nothing in terms of balance of power. The Russian navy continues to fall apart at the seams. The French can just as well make some money out of it.

You are right. Russia is a country with a slowly imploding demography and a tinpot military establishment. My only point is that any useful asset they have will be used to thwart European policy.

If you think Russian Mistrals cannot be used usefully to intimidate smaller neighbours or menace European militaries as the consider whether to intervene in failed states or countries that request European military help, then I will take you at your word.

 

[turin]

turin, I don't think there is a problem with R&D I believe the main problem is with the yards,

KiwiRob:

Yeah, I agree with you there. I did not want to implicate that they completely lost competency. I just think that the overall financial situation is not helping with R&D. So yeah, the Mistral-debate might not be concerned with that overall.

More recently it was pointed out elsewhere that the Russians also take an interest in the Johan de Witt-design of the Netherlands, so one way or another they want to get their hands on a reliable LPD+helo capability. Now considering how Medvedev chewed out the Sevmash-director in public about inefficient construction (on the SSBN in that case), I guess they really want to increase pressure on the yards to get their act together. Mentioning, that the lead ship would be build abroad but later units are to be build domestically would serve the carrot-and-stick-approach and, assuming the best, end in a win-win-situation for both the yards and the navy (the latter would at least get their first unit rather quickly).

Twickiwi:

My only point is that any useful asset they have will be used to thwart European policy.

If you think Russian Mistrals cannot be used usefully to intimidate smaller neighbours or menace European militaries as the consider whether to intervene in failed states or countries that request European military help, then I will take you at your word.

Oh, I would not say that. Whatever LPD-design they would end up getting, its certainly helpful for certain power-projection/expeditionary warfare-operations. So as far as European policy is concerned, I think there has to be a distinction between the EU powers and the smaller countries neighbouring Russia. For example Russia at the moment is preparing a rather extensive training exercise in Kaliningrad, which might have a bit of an impact on the Baltic states. So in this regard enhancing expeditionary capabilities might very well change Russias posture in the Baltic Sea and, thinking of Georgia, also in the Black Sea.

As far as menacing the European powers (UK, France, Germany etc.) goes, well, an increased military posture and a somewhat direct confrontation is a bit far-fetched, I would think. It certainly would not help Russia in the medium to long term. Instead it would encourage the aforementioned nations to consider spending a bit more on expeditonary and general military capabilities themselves (the UK and France are rather well-equipped, Germany not so much and they are currently thinking hard about getting some credible sea-lift capability).

I guess, this whole discussion now turns away from the MN, so sorry for getting off topic here.

 

[PhysicsMan]

Another big problem is the loss of the Crimean Peninsular to Ukraine, all the Soviet Navy's aviation ships were built there.

The ex-Soviet shipyard for large vessels is not in Crimea. It's in Nikolaev, a city on Black Sea some distance from Crimea.

 

[KiwiRob]

The ex-Soviet shipyard for large vessels is not in Crimea. It's in Nikolaev, a city on Black Sea some distance from Crimea.

Woops what was I thinking, I was only in Nikolaev a couple of months ago, The Black Sea Shipyard (formaly know as Nikolayev South Shipyard) was the one that built the aircraft carrying cruisers, there is also 61 Communards and Okean Shipyards (now owned by STX), these yards haven't built a lot in recent times, huge facilities with very little business (IMO due to inept management and extreme corruption).

I was thinking of Sevastopol which is in the Crimea, home to the Black Seas Fleet (stupid place to have a fleet, all it takes is one scuttled tanker across the Bosphorus and you are bottled up, ready to be sunk) and a very Russian part of the Ukraine.

The Ukraine has some massive yards, there is another large yard in Kherson. It's a shame that these areas went to the Ukraine, had they remained in Russian hands it would probably be one of the best shipbuilding areas in Europe.

 

[swerve]

I was thinking of Sevastopol which is in the Crimea, home to the Black Seas Fleet (stupid place to have a fleet, all it takes is one scuttled tanker across the Bosphorus and you are bottled up, ready to be sunk) ....

The Bosporus is easy to block by Turkey, but I think scuttling a tanker wouldn't be enough. The narrowest parts are deep, & the wider parts are a bit wide for one tanker to block. There was a sunken 164K dwt tanker (the Romanian MT Independenţa) in the mouth of the Bosporus for a few years, & although a hazard to navigation, it didn't limit traffic at all. I saw it there, in 1981.They stuck lights on it, until it was taken away. The only closure was while she was aground & burning, and I don't think the risk from that would stop warships in time of war.

The Russians don't have much choice. If they didn't have a fleet in the Black Sea, it would leave part of their coast exposed to anyone coming through the strait, & the navies of the other littoral states. The rest of their coasts are either equally easy to bottle up (e.g. the Baltic) or prone to icing up. Hence their constant attempts over the last 300 years to secure ice-free ports.

 

[KiwiRob]

Ok then two tankers, big ones 300,000 DWT, but you get my point, plus I would imagine in time of war trying to force ships through the Bosphorus would be difficult.

The Black Sea isn't all that large, very shallow in places, once you got air cover superiority it would be pretty difficult operating any vessel.

 

[swerve]

Well, no, I don't get your point. Unless you control the banks of the Bosporus, you can't sail through it anyway. If you do control the banks, you can clear any obstacle (assuming a disregard for pollution, etc) pretty quickly.

The Soviet Black Sea fleet was needed if they were ever to seize control of the Bosporus. Air power can't land an invasion force. The current Russian fleet is mostly old ex-Soviet relics, & the most surprising thing about it is that they haven't scrapped more of it.

Yes, there are shallow areas in the north, but most of it is deep. The deepest point is 2200 metres, & the average 1270 metres.

 

[kev 99]

The current Russian fleet is mostly old ex-Soviet relics, & the most surprising thing about it is that they haven't scrapped more of it..

I know what you mean but if you look at the RN immediately post war it was in a similar position as the Russian Navy post Cold War, both trying hard to hang onto past glories when they both needed to wield the axe.

 

[harryriedl]

I know what you mean but if you look at the RN immediately post war it was in a similar position as the Russian Navy post Cold War, both trying hard to hang onto past glories when they both needed to wield the axe.

I think worse because at least in the UK position pretty much everybody had exhausted fleets so the cutting didn't seem so brutal. Plus the postwar developments many were British lead. None of these have been able to help the Russian fleet (it not helped that its considered the least important arm compared with the UK view).
The Russian haven't explained the requirement of the Mistral have they it seems unnecessary

 

[kev 99]

I think worse because at least in the UK position pretty much everybody had exhausted fleets so the cutting didn't seem so brutal. Plus the postwar developments many were British lead. None of these have been able to help the Russian fleet (it not helped that its considered the least important arm compared with the UK view).
The Russian haven't explained the requirement of the Mistral have they it seems unnecessary

Russia's vast fleet of knackered nuclear powered subs has been a big fly in the ointment though, when you have to go cap in hand to other nations to pay for decommissioning them it doesn't particularly help.

 

[turin]

when you have to go cap in hand to other nations to pay for decommissioning them it doesn't particularly help.

Its common sense for all parties involved: The Russians only spend as much money as they have to. The West wants to see those subs getting dismantled in a somewhat credible way in order to aviod environmental and security-related implications. I would not cover all those costs on my own either if I knew that someone else is happy to pay for it, too.

@harryriedl

The Russian haven't explained the requirement of the Mistral have they it seems unnecessary

There is arguably a requirement. The Russians operate amphibious troops for decades now and they are running out of ships to operate them from. Every year their Navy loses ten ships for one (or less) they get. They also lost one of their major shipyards which specialised in large vessels (namely Nikolayev) and the rest is not doing well either.

Oh and by the way - as I said before - they are also talking to the Dutch about a Johan de Witt-type vessel, four of them, to be precise.

 

[kev 99]

Its common sense for all parties involved: The Russians only spend as much money as they have to. The West wants to see those subs getting dismantled in a somewhat credible way in order to aviod environmental and security-related implications. I would not cover all those costs on my own either if I knew that someone else is happy to pay for it, too.

I rather doubt those other nations are 'happy to pay for it' - I rather suspect they feel that they have to because Russia isn't as willing to clean up its own impending environmental disaster as it should be.

 

[turin]

I was being sarcastic and I pointed out why exactly they have a decisive interest in doing what they do - which partly was identical to what you wrote...

 

[kev 99]

oh okay

 

[youpii]

Mer & Marine has released the FREDA specs.
Frégates : Le point sur les futures FREDA

Very similar to FREMM ASM.
- Improved Heracles radar (at least 250km)
- No towed sonar
- 32 x Aster 15 & 30 instead of 16 x Aster 15 & 16 x Scalp

32 AAW missiles is very few for a 6000-tons ship dedicated to AAW. It's actually less than the F70 AA that they will replace (40 SM-1).
They also rejected Mica VL and didn't include any other short range defense.

Very disappointing.

 

[murene]

The improved herakles radar is the demonstration of failure, the current Herakles multifunction radar is a good multifunction radar for a frigate multi-missions that aims to control the nearby airspace and can draw all the performance the Aster 15 (30 km max range) ,but use the Aster 30 with a configuration similar is a alarming symptom of lack of money , if the current architecture is preserved and maintained the same outside dimensions of the Herakles radar, increased range of detection can not be very high.
That sounds like a radar that is slightly higher than the current benefits Herakles, but very tight for a AAW fighting with stealth aircraft and strong ECMs.

 

[Spacearrow99]

The improved herakles radar is the demonstration of failure, the current Herakles multifunction radar is a good multifunction radar for a frigate multi-missions that aims to control the nearby airspace and can draw all the performance the Aster 15 (30 km max range) ,but use the Aster 30 with a configuration similar is a alarming symptom of lack of money , if the current architecture is preserved and maintained the same outside dimensions of the Herakles radar, increased range of detection can not be very high.
That sounds like a radar that is slightly higher than the current benefits Herakles, but very tight for a AAW fighting with stealth aircraft and strong ECMs.

Yes the FREDA are very disappointing. I wonder if the FREDA will be the AAW DDG for the French carrier groups?. They would've very ground protection in that role. The E2Cs would supplement the Herakles imperfections. The French should upgrade two more of FREMM to the FREDA standard.

The French should put the V L Mica's active seeker on the V L Crotale ,so they can carry a quad packed short range missile, and then they would be able to carry more Aster 30s.

 

[youpii]

The improved herakles radar is the demonstration of failure, the current Herakles multifunction radar is a good multifunction radar for a frigate multi-missions that aims to control the nearby airspace and can draw all the performance the Aster 15 (30 km max range) ,but use the Aster 30 with a configuration similar is a alarming symptom of lack of money , if the current architecture is preserved and maintained the same outside dimensions of the Herakles radar, increased range of detection can not be very high.
That sounds like a radar that is slightly higher than the current benefits Herakles, but very tight for a AAW fighting with stealth aircraft and strong ECMs.

They should at least use the EMPAR radar like the Horizon & Italian FREMM and put a higher mast. Also need extra Aster or Mica VL missiles.
If not, they are only good enough to complement a Horizon, not act alone. But given the small number of ships in MN, they might actually often being the sole AAW ship in a battle group.

 

[Spacearrow99]

They should at least use the EMPAR radar like the Horizon & Italian FREMM and put a higher mast. Also need extra Aster or Mica VL missiles.
If not, they are only good enough to complement a Horizon, not act alone. But given the small number of ships in MN, they might actually often being the sole AAW ship in a battle group.

If the Horizons are attached to the French AGs then they can probably get away with it. The FREDA could then be attached the French carrier groups were they have supported by the E2Cs in a networked group. If they are assigned are assigned to AGs the French may be in alot of trouble.