Prediction. Russian will turn to the Chinese to get themselves a world class LHD.
What does that mean for our allies and especially scrappy little Georgia?
They're going to be facing ships that will be far more capable. The size of the attached air wing will almost double over that of the Mistral. The same with the number of troops carried.
If I'm right China & Russia become even more intertwined, the desire to prevent improvements to the Russian Navy fail completely, the Russians still get modern shipbuilding techniques (the Chinese industry is every bit as good as the French) and since the Chinese have probably hacked the French as completely as they've hacked us...the Russians still get tech transfers.
The only question is what will China demand in payment?
Update: Naval Requirements Blog tells me that the tech transfer has already been completed and pointed me to this article. Personally I still have my doubts. The Russians are still pushing hard on this and while claims are made of being able to build Mistrals we haven't seen any move to do so. I remain in a wait and see mode.
All the things that can happen when the insurgent U.S. State Department sticks its nose into the Ukraine; a place that is of no interest to the U.S. and is in Russia's backyard. Gee, couldn't see this happening.
ReplyDeleteWhat will China demand in payment? Most likely better technology from Russia. I could see Russia designing the LHD class ships, then paying the Chinese and giving them technological know-how to build some of their own. It's difficult to determine what the Russians are willing to share with the Chinese since they still hold a technological lead on them, but I'm guessing that if they are backed into a corner far enough they will do whatever it takes to win.
ReplyDeleteThey'd probably request a mix of offsets, such as enhanced pipeline contract specifics, increased deliveries, etc, perhaps a nuclear power-plant or two, or three under favorable financing (?), and probably various infused geopolitical offset agreements. Maybe certain missiles and conventional subs would be part of an expected offset too. And perhaps Ru Navy would follow up and buy PRC-designed frigates and Destroyers, in exchange for even more offset deals? We'll have to wait and see.
DeleteChina doesn't particularly need the money, they would probably prefer to put it on the tab, keep russia feeling indebted and earn themselves lots of good will.
Deletein the long term this will be good for the world, a russian and chinese military alliance could bring great prosperity to the central asian countries. Seem like the main beneficiary of US blunders in managing ukraine crisis is both china and russia..
ReplyDeletewill this translate into chinese-russian joint operation on other places like in africa ? time will tell but this is good tidings for the world..
Continued and increased competition and normal globalization will bring continued prosperity and development to Central Asia. Please, one does (should) not need enhanced joint militarization by various combinations of super powers to bring 'good tidings' or benefits around the world, in the future. That is a flawed argument and position to make in defense for such increased unilateral militarization and strategic 'us vs them', zero-sum-game playing going forward. At least in my opinion.
DeleteSorry to disagree my friend. Think more prosperous, more cooperative, less hawkish/aggressive and demobilized, demilitarized, going forward. Respects.
totally agree with you friend, but sadly sometimes it is the military strength that can stop a greedy and crazed animal trying to enter your border.. a bully nation wont enter a strong nation without getting hurt badly , and coward as it is, the bully will always go for the weak..
Deletewe are returning to the balance of power , not a single nation can lord over the others by military and economic means.. no single superpower can ruin the countries of the world just because it can..
good times for the world as a whole, not so good for the bully nation that losing its influence today
So what you are saying, is that various countries around the world today should drastically increase their respective militarization spending as pct of GDP and further enhance/boost/ increase new military alliances, as a means to counter-balance a perceived looming threat by a bullying regional 'hegemon'?
DeleteOn that score, you have justified perhaps why at least some smaller ex-soviet states desired to join NATO as a defensive hedge against any future return of bullying? Perhaps you have justified why other countries, e.g., RP, being completely outgunned by a potential regional bully, has decided to build a credible self-defense and bolster alter-regional alliances as a hedge? Perhaps why a country such as Japan is evaluating how much, if any, to increase longer-term self-defense spending, above 1% GDP?
But as far as 'Central Asia' is concerned, it's a flawed argument to make that increased strategic joint-militarization between super powers Ru Fed and PRC will bring 'good tidings' and benefits to their economic prosperity. More peaceful, liberal competition and modernized globalization will suffice in that respect. Not necessary to cheer on or advocate intimidation and hegemonic posturing in some enforced semblance of future imperial neo-authoritarian-order, either.
There are far better options and models to contemplate and advocate my friend for 2015 and beyond... in my opinion at least. Respects-
to buntalanlucu
Delete@in the long term this will be good for the world, a russian and chinese military alliance could bring great prosperity to the central asian countries@
For central Asia, you say? I guess not – ISIS sooner or later appears there and it is inevitable. And if China and Russia (by the way – why not India too? The region is vital for them)will stay firmly for their interests there – for local nations it mens endless war Ukraine-style. Not to mention existing «powder barrels» like frozen between Uzbekistan and Tadzhikstan conflict about water.
In all fairness, it's probably not much of a leap via 'prediction', to say that Kremlin is planning to increase inter-dependence, investment and coordination with PRC China. This prediction (or rather, assessment) could have easily been made at least 5 yrs ago by anyone reading international affairs news.
ReplyDeleteIt has likely been a given and for years been already factored into the future-oriented calculus of probable threat matrix and balance of power shift et al.
Even with a couple Mistral ships in the flotilla, without recent flare up in tensions and the uncertainty with potential follow-up intentions with Europe as whole et al, most likely Kremlin and Ru military deciders and planners would have been seeking additional 'cheap' options to satisfy Kremlin's previous declarations for requiring up to 6 air-craft carriers by the 2020s.
And yes, such a concept as depicted above could just as easily come with a ski-jump and launch, say Mig-29K(?) or at least other next-gen fixed-wing designs.
The reason Russia wanted to buy Mistral was not because they couldn't build something similar themselves, but because of reliability problems, ie how many days the ship is actually out in the sea instead of being docked for repair in a year.
ReplyDeleteBuying Chinese doesn't fix this problem as Chinese built ships suffer from reliability problems of their own and are dock queens. In other word, nothing changes for Russia.
Do you have some sort of evidence for this big accusation? I am sure they could develop and build their own such ship, they could have even done so using non-russian engines if they wanted too, but that would have taken much longer and probably cost more.
DeleteI think it comes down to three things, cost, time, and limited resources to design things (can only design so much at one time). For a country like russia to maintain such a powerful military they need to make sure they spend their money very efficiently.
Jacobite.NZ
Delete> they could have even done so using non-russian engines
Western engines are not available for Russia's warships. Civilian ships, yes. Warships, no.
Well probably not now, but before the sanctions why not? Anyway I don't see how Russian engines are dangerously unreliable.
DeleteHmmm, interesting. After quick searching I made – it is obviously for me that this possibility (such procurement in China) is not widely discussed in Ru-internet military circles. Was some Info about Korean “Dokdo” ships.
ReplyDelete@especially scrappy little Georgia?@
We have two full-equipped military bases on the former Georgian territory – to deal with these “noble high-lords”, no need in Mistral-class ships. But otherwise Pacific region – will be the World's focus point. As a proof of this version I can stress the fact that special naval base for Mistral-class ships is being constructed (should be ready until 2018) in Vladivostok.
@The only question is what will China demand in payment? @
Interesting question! China got a lot of military technologies from Russia, and I will not be surprised if Chinese LHD's design is built in cooperation wit Russian engineering centers. More of this, more and more facts point to me that Mistral was not the main variant for achieving LHD even after the contract with France was signed.
Maybe payment in tech... but, do China really want to do this? They can take it if they want, they have cash (Russia need cash) they have a will to do this and they have "other" ways to possess them as US notice some time ago. In this position as a dominant power China is no longer a humble customer, they are the rich customer that dictate deals.
DeleteBut about this concept, it's looking nice I admit, but I don't get one thing. Why they have 3 weapon systems on stern, Chinese Goalkeeper clone the Type 730, another one ( LD-2000?) and SeaRam copy. Two of them, classic and rocket make sense but three?
And info' you have some details about Zauralec–D?
@they are the rich customer that dictate deals.@
DeleteReach but not strong enough in terms of military (a bad collocation), so they can chase political goal in addition to material offsets: to attract more western attention to Russia, to strengthen Russian position in the region for help to China and so on.
@Two of them, classic and rocket make sense but three?@
Different ranges - SeaRam on distance 10 000m, then LD-2000 with their TY-90 rockets on distance 6 000 m, then LD-2000 's and Type 730's “shredders” - from 2 000- 3000 m distance. Standard Russian tactic – first hit with a rocket then finish with a volley of shells.
@And info' you have some details about Zauralec–D@
Chassis is the main interest for me. If “Rakushka”'s – it is logical so I'm completely happy, if a different from Rakushka and BMD – it is cursed money-sawing again.
This is a very interesting interview with TSNIITOCHMASH ( Zauralec's developer) in Russian.
http://expert.ru/2012/10/15/generalnyij-plan/
google translation with my correction of a target moment from the interview above-said
“Development work is called "Zauralets." This self-propelled Universal Gun Mount for airborne troops. It will have to meet all the requirements of paratroopers. It must be transported by air. It should be to parachute out of airplanes. It must be held anywhere as any armored vehicle and fire on, the same range, which require conventional ground forces. Here are all of these elements add up to one, and we will. “
from another sources
“Began public testing of prospective self-propelled artillery "Zauralets-D", reported the press service of the government of the Volgograd region.
Development and production of the newest artillery complex is carried out in the interests of the Airborne Troops (VDV), Russian and now look CAO "Zauralets-D" is kept secret.
According to the CEO Dmitry TSNIITOCHMASH Semizorov latest self-proplelled "Zauralets-D": "It must be transported by air. It will have to parachute out of airplanes. It must be held anywhere as any armored vehicle and fire at the same distance, and which require conventional ground forces. "
The new gun-louncher will combine the capabilities mortar's, howitzer's and cannon's. It is assumed that the main caliber gun is 120 mm and 152 mm, the instrument will be able to fire guided munitions.”
http://военный-пенсионер.рф/tehnika-i-vooruzhenie/25764-nachalis_gosudarstvennie_ispitanija_perspektivnogo_samohodnogo_artillerijskogo_orudija_zauralets-d.html
Nah it's over complicate the defense zone, you engage target with rockets, then you put your barrels on the roll. And you have two CIWS systems that double it's role in the same defense zone, one can be used only as slaved to main system and other able to do not only that but also go in to autonomous mode.
DeleteThe defense system on this concept is all mess up. Both SeaRams are on the aft, one can fire in both sides but bow is totally unprotected by it. Only 730 is in that defense zone and it has a big dark zone in front below bow. Another two on both sides AGAIN different CIWS systems (they don't look as the one on stern) . Now we have 4 different CIWS systems on ship... that's insane.
@"The new gun-louncher will combine the capabilities mortar's, howitzer's and cannon's. It is assumed that the main caliber gun is 120 mm and 152 mm, the instrument will be able to fire guided munitions.”
152mm... that's... huge. Especially for something that will going to be drop from plane.
Btw: Ukrainians show a possible photo of KamAZ-43269 in Lugansk, wonder how much it is a legit one. If it is, then someone on Russians side again fuck things up.
@152mm.@
DeleteI guess for tactacal nuke shell as well. Russian technology can put nuke warhead only in 152mm shell, our doctrine means wide usage of nuke. Just a thought.
@KamAZ-43269 @\
Bggg. A very strange vehicle at my take, I do not get it still. And If it goes some pretentd to show it as good olg BTR 152. Bgggg
He he he, yeah I never get that vehicle. It's just an good old BTR 152 with new paint and one axis less. You see Tigr or Wolf or Nimr and you think, ok... progress, looking good, modern. And they they show "that" and at the start there is an Déjà vu. What next time? BT-7 2000 edition?
DeleteBut there is something, nostalgic in that design or whole philosophy. You remember those "line" of new vehicles from UAMZ & INTRALL? Kolon and Torun... big mutherfuckers. Look strong, powerful. But they also have something from BTR in it.
The hull of two (2) Mistral's were built in Russia, is a special steel to accept ice.
ReplyDeleteThe French only built the breasts of ships.
The Russian metallurgy is exceptional, so much so that the US buys Russian rocket motors.
99% of the world Niobium is produced in Brazil, the Russians did not have access to this ore and metallurgical techniques developed with different ceramic components.
The Niobium has extremely high mass and most North American technologies for overheating are based on it.
The Russians have disabilities rubber seals but, Indians and Chinese have technology that supplies it.
As for the F-35, it seems a Chinese product that loose little pieces.
In day-to-day field we need robust equipment as a Kalashinikov running up with sand inside.
The Osprey are beautiful to see until the day you enter in one, God forbid this thing!
Make no mistake, a normal war there will be no air support drones, they are very vulnerable electronically.
Does every man for himself and his rifle.
Scrappy Little Georgia will go the same way as scrappy little Taiwan. A bunch of people with plenty of fight but who ultimately will be abandoned in the high stakes game of diplomacy. And the reasons that will be given explaining those "rational" diplomatic views will be many.
ReplyDeleteNot getting into technical discussions, I'll leave that to specialists of naval warfare. Just two things on which I agree/disagree:
ReplyDelete1. the Russians will get the two Mistral LHDs from France pretty soon. They won't back out of this market, and neither will the French.
2. In the future the Russians will be looking for better development of their own naval shipyards and try getting into "joint ventures" with alternative providers of naval technology, i.e. China being the most likely candidate indeed.
3. we may think that the technology transfers that were scheduled within the French contract have already taken place, at least partially thx for Russians hacking/pirating the French companies involved.
4. Currently, neither the Russians nor the Chinese have a know how that is on par with the French regarding the development and actual construction of LHDS of this quality. I know people are gonna argue otherwise, mentioning at least half the ships were built in Russia and are equiped with Russian electronics and weaponry, but still, if they had the capability themselves they would not have turned to a foreign country to help them.
5. Gerogia might be worried, but I'm pretty sure Kiev doesn't feel very good either ... any further push towards NATO miight put both of them in a very akward position, with Georgia being the most vulnerable to full on invasion in case things go south.