Russia has traditionally been a land power, with vast borders and – now – enormous internal resources. So it was with some interest that I read of plans for the Russian Navy to purchase a French-made helicopter assault ship:
A French amphibious assault ship like the one Russia hopes to buy arrived Monday in St. Petersburg, fueling concern in Georgia and other ex-Soviet nations that Russia is upgrading its navy to intimidate its neighbors.
The Mistral military ship, which can carry more than a dozen helicopters along with dozens of tanks and other armored vehicles, would certainly be a modern way to project Russian power…
The Kremlin increasingly has 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.
A dozen helicopters and a few dozen tanks could make a demonstration, but it’s hard to see what sort of national strategy such a vessel might support. With a mechanized ground force and secure internal lines of communication, it seems to this amateur that an amphibious assault ship would be little more than a 21st Century Kuznetzov or perhaps a Gorshkov – another expensive prestige purchase that would do little to enhance Russian security, and frankly do little to threaten any border states within the near abroad that are not already threatened.
Still, it’s their money.
If it was mine, I might focus more on ordnance safety though.
Russia stood up an “expeditionary” force of about 5000 well equipped troops for “reaction” to when russian citizens etc are in peril. The amphib would give them something more reliable.
Theres also “talk” of refurbishing the older Petr Velicky CGN type boats to be used as flagships for their different fleets (Norther, Baltic, Black, Pacific). Fat chance of refueling and bringing back the CGNs. The french ships (1 bought) 3 or 4 built under license would get them some lessons in western shipyard technology, six/sigma manufacturing lessons, etc and 3 or 4 decent ships to show the flag with. A lot faster than what their shipyards are capable.
remember, these are the shipyards that take 10 years or more from launching to commissioning, and have been working on the Gorshkov and Nerpa for quite a long time without anything to really show for it.
Having heard first hand from someone that has been there, the destruction to the state of Georgia, not just in the disputed areas but the entire country, I don’t think this will be welcome news.
Based on the “West’s” recent political shift from one of expansion to one of appeasement, I think new ships in the Black Sea present a real danger.
You might not think much of them in a global sense but I think neighboring states think quite a bit about them.
Think of them as flagships.
Our LHA/LHDs do not carry all but, are the centerpiece of transport for a MEU.
One of these for each fleet would provide a core to build on for a simular capability…
Wasn’t the submarine Kursk sunk due to a torpedo malfunction/weapons handling problem some years ago?
they will make wonderful reefs, wherever the Russians wind up placing them.
I was thinking that myself. As a high school friend turned bubble-head once said with a smile: “There are only two kinds of ships. Submarines and targets. Which one are you?”
The Russians have never been very good at ordnance safety. Remember when the Northern Fleet Ammo Dump blew up in the early 80′s?
No worries. French-built warships are designed to run up a white flag as soon as there is a threat.
I suspect it’s not the single Mistral that has people worried – it’s the license to build several more.
At that point you start having an amphib fleet of note.
Do you have a twitter?
http://www.russianbear5000.com