Was the Mistral a Bad Deal for Russia?

The short answer to the title for this post is apparently, yes. I spit coffee on my monitor today when I was sent this story and read it, because at first I misunderstood it and thought he was worried about an invasion of Siberia, then I couldn't believe it if the translation is accurate. Russia's Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin really doesn't like the Mistral class vessel.

Two amphibious assault ships bought for the Russian Navy from France in a 1.2 billion euro deal will not be able to operate in temperatures below seven degrees centigrade, Russia's Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin admitted on Saturday, in critical comments about the contract.

"It's very odd that ships for offloading a landing force, floating in our latitudes won't work in temperatures below seven degrees," said Rogozin, who has special responsibilities for the defense industry, in a meeting of the Academy of Military Science on Saturday.

"Maybe they thought we’re going to undertake special operations in Africa but I doubt that’s going to happen," he added. He did not elaborate on why the ships would not work in cool temperatures. It was also unclear whether he meant plus seven degrees or minus seven, as Russian-speakers often leave out the word for minus when they assume it is clear which side of freezing they are talking about.

Can anyone confirm whether he meant 7 degrees or -7 degrees? The difference is pretty important, because 7 degrees centigrade would be about 44.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Is that for real?

That would have to be what he meant, because surely he is not suggesting the Mistral is a failure because China might invade Siberia in the middle of a harsh January winter sometime in the future. The first article I read about this implied he was talking about -7 degrees, but after reading the RIA Novosti article linked above, I think he means below 7 degrees centigrade, or below 44.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

Military-Industrial Commission Deputy Head Ivan Kharchenko complained about the Mistral deal earlier this week claiming it was a bad deal for Russia and the Russian shipbuilding industry. He also said the cost of cancelling the ships at this point was too high, and Russia would complete the contract for both Mistral's under construction. With both Military-Industrial Commission Deputy Head Ivan Kharchenko and Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin being very critical over the past week of the Mistral's being purchased for the Russian Navy, it does not look like the Russians are very happy about the final outcome of this deal.

There was a lot of criticism by politicians in the United States of the Mistral deal between France and Russia when it was first announced. In hindsight it makes me wonder if that criticism and initial political opposition resulted in a sabotage the deal with details like this one.

Ironically, it was 45 degrees Fahrenheit in Damascus, Syria on Wednesday, which if we are to believe these news reports, is just barely above the operational threshold temperature of the soon to be fielded Russian Mistral class. Hmm.

Kenya Gets Help From Mystery Western Air Force

The invasion of Somalia by the military forces of Kenya does involve western help, and no matter what the reporting to date has suggested - I am fairly confident the US was not surprised this action took place. No one wants to describe what kind of help Kenya is getting from foreign powers, nor who exactly is providing the help, but US officials have been quick to highlight what our help is not.

A Kenyan military spokesman, Maj. Emmanuel Chirchir, said that “one of the partners,” possibly the United States or France, had been behind airstrikes in the past few days, killing a number of Shabab militants. The French Navy has also shelled rebel positions from the sea, the Kenyan military said in a statement.

Two senior American officials in Washington said Sunday that neither the United States military nor the Central Intelligence Agency had carried out airstrikes in Somalia in recent days. One of the officials, who follows American military operations closely, said the Kenyan offensive had forced many Shabab fighters and commanders to disperse, making them easier potential targets, but emphasized that there had been “no U.S. military strikes in Somalia at all recently.”

All we really know for sure based on the very limited reporting of military activities is that the Kenyan ground and air forces have been operating at a level of effectiveness that exceeds their organic capabilities. The New York Times knows this as well, and mentions it in the latest reporting on ongoing events.

Kenya’s military — especially compared with those of its neighbors, like Ethiopia, Uganda, Sudan and Somalia — has scant experience. Several military efforts over the past 20 years by other external powers, from the United States to the United Nations, have failed to deliver a sustainable government in Somalia.

Kenyan military officials say their plan is to squeeze the port of Kismayu, one of Somalia’s biggest towns and a major money-earner for the Shabab, from two sides in a pincer movement with troops massing to the west near Afmadow and to the south in Raas Kaambooni. Heavy rains, though, have literally bogged them down, and after an initial burst of activity, the Kenyan advance seems to have slowed.

Major Chirchir said the Kenyan Navy had also positioned ships along the coastline from the Kenyan border toward Kismayu.

“Any vessel that is there with a militia we will take it down,” he warned.

On Sunday, Kenyan officials said that a French naval ship had shelled the city of Koday, south of Kismayu, and that casualty figures were not yet available. The French military has also launched small, covert strikes in Somalia in the past, aimed at terrorism suspects and pirates.

Kenyan military spokesman Emmanuel Chirchir confirmed to the Kenyan newspaper The Daily Nation that the port city of Kismayu was under persistent air attacks, but denied those attacks came from the Keyan Air Force.

“It is confirmed that Kismayu has been under aerial attacks, but it is not our troops, it must be one of our allies.”

This is believable, the only fighter aircraft the Kenyan Air Force has are F-5s, and it is hard to imagine they would be successful in precision target runs against terrorist fortifications in Kismayu.

So who is the mystery airpower bombing terrorists in Somalia? The US has two carrier strike groups - the USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) and the USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), and an amphibious readiness group - the USS Bataan (LHD 5), in 5th Fleet region that includes the Somali port of Kismayu. Until it is determined who is doing the airstrikes (and I am skeptical it is us, I think our role is ISR/logistics), the US is the obvious nation to be accused of conducting those strikes.

But if we assume it isn't the US military bombing targets in Somalia, and we also assume it is not the Kenyan Air Force, it makes more sense to presume the strikes are either French military or contracted out. One possibility is that the French are launching strikes from a few bases in the region, which is the most plausible scenario. There are a handful of private security outfits these days that operate UAVs for hire in Africa, which is another reasonable, but unlikely possibility.

Either way, this assault has the potential to be 'end game' for Al Shabaab. It does appear the US is playing a limited, supporting role in the background of these Kenyan military operations (mostly ISR and C2 it appears, but logistics is possible), and I for one support the US helping Kenya clean up their Somali backyard. None of Somalia's other problems will ever see the resources needed to build solutions until Al Shabaab is dealt with, and the unfolding situation in southern Somalia appears to be the first legitimate opportunity to deal the death blow to the organization in many years.

French Military Operating in Somalia

From STRATFOR here.

French military troops discovered suspected members of the al Shabaab Islamist militia attempting to cross the Kenyan-Somali border in two boats at Raas-Kaambooni in Lamu, Kenya’s The Standard reported Oct. 10. According to unnamed sources, the French military cornered the militants’ boats in the deep sea, exchanging gunfire with the militants. Four militants were arrested after disembarking the boats but six others are presumed to have drowned. Lamu West District Commissioner Stephen Ikue confirmed that the French military was involved in an operation that occurred inside Somali waters but declined further details. French security teams have joined their Kenyan counterparts in battling militancy in Lamu, according to the sources.

The French military is probably operating in Somalia following the abduction of a French citizen from Kenya in an attempt to track down her whereabouts and rescue her, but there may also be more to it than that. Either way, the French military is on the ground in Somalia, armed and apparently ready to use force.

Noteworthy this week we hear about British special forces rescuing a pirated ship off Somalia, and now French special forces inside Somalia. While the US special forces are apparently everywhere else, the Europeans appear to have stepped it up inside Somalia.

Mistrals Represent Politics and Industry, Not Military Power

By now everyone has likely heard that Russia and France have finalized the deal for the Mistral class amphibious ships. If you want to know more, I highly recommend this remarkably thorough article at Defense Industry Daily that covers just about every angle possible from the industry perspective.

As I have mentioned in the past, this deal is not a threat to US interests and the only threat that might exist to US allies is the possibility the ships could be used in a territorial dispute with Japan. With all due respect to Russia, in a territorial dispute involving conventional military power between Russia and Japan, the spirit of Admiral Togo Heihachiro will prevail in that fight every single time. The Mistrals won't be used in that way, or they will not survive. I suspect when the Mistrals are finally making a deployment, they will be used in much the same way everyone else uses large amphibious ships these days - acting as a command node for conducting soft power diplomacy missions and helping address 3rd world problems from offshore.

The deal between Russia and France is about politics and industry, and really isn't so much about military power like some politicians would like you to believe. I find myself in strong agreement with this Stratfor analysis.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov and Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov are visiting Paris to meet with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and other French government officials on June 20-21. The visit quickly follows the conclusion of an agreement between Russia and France for two French Mistral-class amphibious assault ships, worth $1.7 billion, that France has agreed to sell to Russia with the full technology transfer Moscow demanded. The ships would be built in France and delivered in 2014 and 2015, with the potential for another two to be built in Russian shipyards under French supervision.

The Russian officials’ visit is a chance to very publicly emphasize the Mistral deal, a boon for the Kremlin which wants to signal to the rest of Europe that it has a strong security relationship with France (part of its ongoing campaign to unsettle the Central Europeans and make them doubt the commitment of their West European NATO allies). It is also an opportunity to discuss several other deals the two countries are working on, covering energy, military and space technology cooperation. For France, building close ties with Russia is about ensuring that the evolving Berlin-Moscow relationship does not leave Paris unable to affect security issues on the continent.

The issue I intend to watch closely is how much Russian shipbuilder OSK will ultimately contribute and learn from the French in construction of these ships, and whether it is even possible to get a base of subcontractors stable enough to support construction of large navy vessels in Russia. All indications are if any new Mistrals are built in Russia, they would be built by the recently announced new STX shipyard being built in St. Petersburg.

The Russian shipbuilding industry can really only build two types of naval vessels - submarines and small frigates/corvettes. Exports of these types of ships to various nations sustained the industry through the really bad years following the cold war, but export orders for Russian naval vessels are drying up as most of the world is expanding domestic shipbuilding markets. Is the Mistral a program that can truly kickstart the Russian shipbuilding industry towards better quality and production techniques in the 21st century, or is this a gamble unlikely to pay off? I tend to believe it will ultimately be a small step in the right direction, and not the leap Russian political leaders hope.

Canada to Buy Mistrals?

I'm stealing GvG's bit, so don't be surprised if he has a more thorough account of this:

Canada has expressed a "strong interest" for the purchase of two vessels of the Manufacturer's DCNS Mistral class, read The Tribune Friday.

DCNS, controlled at 75% state and 25% by Thales, "is currently exploring the shipyards, particularly in Quebec, for industry associations to contract, after the green light Canadian government," wrote the daily.

He said the two ships would be manufactured locally and the group would seek a signature in 2012.

A spokesman declined to DCNS comment.

Good news for the French. Not so long ago the Canadians were giving thought to purchase of a San Antonio class LPD. Guess that's not going to work out. In ten years, at least three important navies could be operating Mistrals. Obviously there are a couple of interesting stories here, the first being the persistence of interest in middle navies for big amphibs, and the second being the ongoing problems created by difficulties in the LPD-17 construction process.

Observing Al Qaeda Threat to France

I don't really know what to make of the threat to France by Al Qaeda, but it has been suggested that even though the information regarding the threat comes from someone attempting to cross the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, the threat itself is supposedly originating from Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Details:

French Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux, told a European television network that Saudi Arabian-supplied intelligence has described a new terror threat from al Qaeda, prompting France to placed its security and intelligence agencies on high alert.

Hortefeux confirmed that “in the last few hours,” France received a warning that a potential attack was forthcoming, but did not give any specific details. Hortefeux went on record as stating that the "threat is real" adding that, "We must not underestimate or over estimate the threat. We are directly concerned."

Three thoughts come to mind.

First, noteworthy France is currently deploying the Charles De Gaulle to the region, despite the ships minor detour. As the situation develops it will be interesting to see if the French carrier projects power towards the Arabian Peninsula. Unlikely, but it is worth noting it is a potential option for France.

Second, AQAP knows the French aircraft carrier is coming their way, and given how 2010 started with AQAP threats of attacks at sea against naval targets... it raises the question whether AQAP would attempt an attack against the French aircraft carrier. Given that France will be prepared for such activity, I see this as unlikely, but some one probably said the same thing about ramming the twin towers with commercial airlines.

Finally, contrast the situation France is in with that of the UK. Here we have France, with their aircraft carrier battle group deploying at a time the nation has a specific threat to deal with essentially projecting military power to the region as a strategic option to support the defense of France at home with disruptive attacks where the enemy is should that option become necessary.

On the flip side we have the UK, busy executing political strategery in support of a jobs program to produce aircraft carriers without combat aircraft, and moving to retire the only aircraft carrier in the nations inventory capable of projecting air power. I have no idea what the budget obligations and priorities of the British government is, but whatever it is - the results of the defense budget suggest national defense is driven by a domestic agenda and was given the priority of a national afterthought.

Charles de Gaulle Deploying to Afghanstian

According to this source (in French), the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle is deploying for 4 months to the Indian Ocean to support operations in Afghanistan. "Agapanthus 10," as the mission is called, was presented at a press briefing of the Ministry of Defense by Admiral Jean-Louis Kerignard.

The carrier battlegroup will consist of the aircraft carrier FS Charles de Gaulle (R91), FS Forbin (D620), FS Tourville (D610), the naval auxiliary vessel FS Meuse (A 607), and the submarine FS Amethyst (S605). The air group on board the aircraft carrier will have 12 upgraded Super Etendard, 10 Rafale, 2 Hawkeyes, and helicopters. The operation is expected to begin in mid October and last until February.

In any context, the contribution of an aircraft carrier in support of operations over Afghanistan is a significant coalition contribution by France. This will be the 5th deployment by the FS Charles de Gaulle (R91) in support of military operations in Afghanistan (the previous four were in 2001/2002, 2004, 2006 and 2007).

Joint UK-French SSBN Fleet?

This is an interesting notion that is unlikely to happen in anything but a very limited sense:

France has offered to create a joint UK-French nuclear deterrent by sharing submarine patrols, the Guardian has learned. Officials from both countries have discussed how a deterrence-sharing scheme might work but Britain has so far opposed the idea on the grounds that such pooling of sovereignty would be politically unacceptable.

In a speech this morning in London, Gordon Brown said he had agreed to further nuclear co-operation with France last week after talks with Nicolas Sarkozy. The prime minister did not comment explicitly about submarines, saying only that the UK and France would both retain "our independent nuclear deterrent".

"We have talked about the idea of sharing continuity at sea as part of a larger discussion about sharing defence burdens," a French official said.

A British official confirmed that the French government had raised the idea of shared "continuous at-sea deterrence", but added that any such scheme would cause "outrage" in the midst of an election campaign.

Today, Brown said of his talks with the French president: "We have agreed a degree of co-operation that is, I think, greater than we have had previously but we will retain, as will France, our independent nuclear deterrent....

Sarkozy hinted at the potential for shared deterrence in a speech at Cherbourg. "Together with the United Kingdom, we have taken a major decision: it is our assessment that there can be no situation in which the vital interests of either of our two nations could be threatened without the vital interests of the other also being threatened," he said.

Britain and France could synchronise nuclear deterrent patrols and co-operate in the deployment of surface fleet task forces, sources say. However, British officials played down the possibility of formal agreements on the nuclear deterrent - or on sharing each other's aircraft carriers.

The idea of a shared deterrent is certainly interesting; during the Cold War, the NATO alliance essentially "shared" the nuclear umbrellas provided by the US, the UK, and France. Italy and West Germany did not need to invest in their own nuclear weapon programs because it was impossible to imagine an attack that would not also involve one of the three nuclear states. The current situation for France and the United Kingdom is very similar. While it's obviously possible to imagine France or the UK going to war independent of one another, it's difficult to envision scenarios where the nuclear deterrent of either country would become militarily relevant in an independent conflict. If anyone flings a nuke at either London or Paris, the expectation would be that the other would become involved (not to mention the United States). Thus, the idea of a shared deterrent has some appeal, especially given the high cost that both countries face in replacing their SSBN fleets.

That said, nuclear weapons play other roles besides deterrence. Nukes remain a prestige weapon, and in some sense guarantee a seat at the big power table. Without nukes, it would be much harder to distinguish France or the UK from the bevy of second tier powers (Germany, Italy, Japan, Poland, Spain, Canada) that lack nuclear weapons but have otherwise similar defense profiles. Indeed, it becomes very hard to justify the two security council seats for France and the UK if they're sharing one of the key elements of their national power. Again, the idea of folding the two European permanent seats together (and replacing with, say, India or Japan or Brazil) makes some intuitive sense, but would be procedurally very difficult.

The command and control details of a shared deterrent would also be difficult to work out. There are a variety of different schemes, running from a CoG to CoG link (Brown calls Sarkozy from the ruins of London and asks him to shoot back at aggressor country X) to high level military contacts to the direct presence of French and British naval officers on each others submarines. Working out firing bureaucracy would be extremely complex, especially given that both countries seem to have somewhat idiosyncratic nuclear command procedures. Future procurement would also be a bit twitchy, as the RN SSBNs are scheduled for replacement prior to the French. However, the procurement issue might also be the firmest ground for collaboration; 4-5 boats to one design makes much more financial sense than 6-8 boats of two designs.

Cross-posted at LGM.

The Mistral Sale

I have a short article about the France-Russia Mistral sale up at World Politics Review.

France's decision to negotiate the sale of four Mistral-class Amphibious Transport Docks to Russia has been met with harsh criticism in the United States and among some NATO allies. Georgian Foreign Minister Eka Tkeshelashvili was particularly brutal, declaring of the sale, "It's not even appeasement of Russia. It's a reward for Russia."

There is no question that the acquisition of the four amphibious warships will substantially enhance Russia's power-projection capabilities. However, Russia is not the only state to have committed to the construction of large-deck amphibious warships. In fact, Moscow's purchase of the Mistrals comes in the context of a global "amphib" splurge. Big "amphibs" are trendy, and the Russians have simply decided to join the club.

Mistral Deal Inked

Via War is Boring, a French Ministry of Defence official has indicated that France has agreed to sell a Mistral class amphibious warship to Russia. The article gave no indication about the rest of the deal (such as the licensing of the construction of additional Mistrals in Russia), but it did note that France's NATO ally Lithuania had expressed concern about the deal. The contract for the 21000 ton warship, however, appears to have been too tasty an offer to turn down.

...This article indicates that France will sell four Mistrals to Russia. The implication seems to be that all of the ships will be built in France, although it's a touch unclear what this means:

France has agreed to sell Russia a Mistral-class amphibious assault ship and received an order to build another three, Radio France Internationale reported Monday.

I don't imagine that this can mean selling one existing ship, then building three others; perhaps it means that one sale is final, and three are still in discussion?

The Mistral Sale and the Russian Information War on Georgia

On December 1, 2009, the Center of Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST) in Moscow published a collection of essays about the August 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict. The report is written in Russian so it is unlikely to be widely disseminated, but for English readers, the Jamestown Foundation has a two part summary of the report up (Part 1 and Part 2). The report is well done, although any who read the original Russian report will find plenty to quibble about.

The two part series at Jamestown Foundation is a good primer for the ongoing discussions of the Mistral amphibious ship sale to Russia, because there is a new twist in the sale that is directly related to Georgia.

You have probably heard by now how France has come up with a number of reasons how they justify the deal, beginning with the need to better integrate Russia with Europe. The French ambassador to the UN will not even discuss the subject with reporters there who ask questions, and there is no sign from the government that France considers the issue subject to influence from other nations. Russia also faces internal pressure regarding the sale from those who believe the industry needs the work. It is true, but the Russian government apparently has no faith in the shipbuilding sector in Russia right now. It is still unclear how the Mistral deal will help the Russian shipbuilding sector, but improving procedures and modernizing the shipyards is considered one aspect of the Mistral deal.

Meanwhile the Mistral deal is reportedly set for March according to some Russian officials, but there is more to the deal than meets the eye and the deal is not a sure thing. As it turns out, the Mistral deal is part of a larger Russian information war against Georgia.

First Caucasian Channel began broadcasting on Eutelsat’s new W7 satellite on January 15th, and it only took 2 days for Russia to complain about the channel. The channel was created by the Public Television of Georgia earlier this year with a main objective "to bring truth to peoples in North Caucasus - to Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan as well as to Russian republics in the Caucasus that fight against the Kremlin's armed forces." The channel was taken off the air after being up for less than two weeks. The station was intended to run a few weeks as a test before a long term contract for the channel with Eutelsat would begin on January 31st. The reason the station was taken off line was originally said to be technical in nature, but Eutelsat no longer says it is a technical issue, rather claiming the trial period has now expired.

On January 27 Le Figaro ran an article suggesting the reason the channel was taken down was Russia. "Eutelsat is under strong pressure from Russia to break its contract with Georgia," asserted a diplomat in Tbilisi on Tuesday. The operator Eutelsat is about to give in to the Kremlin, "which would be very serious" and, according to the Georgian diplomat, "akin to political censorship" the Le Figaro article says.

Gia Chanturia, general director of the Georgian Public Broadcasts was in Paris this weekend seeking answers from Eutelsat and French government officials. He is unlikely to like what the French tell him, because my sources both in Washington, DC and Paris have confirmed that Moscow has made cancellation of the First Caucasian Channel by Eutelsat a condition of the Mistral sale.

While I am sure there are still negotiations ahead, it is noteworthy the French government is indeed entertaining this condition of the sale - as no contract has been signed.

And that leads me back to the CAST publication. The paper leaves an impression of political and military equilibrium between Russia and Georgia, but I either misunderstood or stand in strong disagreement with that conclusion. There is no balance between Russia and Georgia as a result of the August 2008 war, and just as the United States did nothing for Georgia when Russia had troops on Georgian soil, do not expect the United States to stand up for Georgia now. The suggestion there is some sense of balance between Russia and Georgia is a myth, whether presumed, implied, or created; and the Mistral deal with all of its conditions serves as a visible reminder of that reality.

As we watch Russia leverage their unequal national power to influence France, keep an eye on eastern European countries like Poland. This will get bigger than Russia, Georgia, and France before it is all over, and the potential for long term consequences in Eastern Europe is not trivial. It is noteworthy that foreign military sales reform is an issue in the 2010 QDR. The details of FMS will be important, because it may turn out to be the difference between our allies in Eastern Europe buying quality military equipment from the US - or seeking vast quantities of military equipment from elsewhere.

Just saying... France may trust Russia, but countries like Ukraine and Poland do not. The FMS issue in the US and the Mistral deal between Russia and France will insure that Foreign Military Sales is an enormous topic in 2010 - something I discussed in the first edition of Midrats.

(Speaking of Midrats, tune in Sundays 5:00pm - today's guest is Mackenzie Eaglen on the QDR)

UFOs, Ballistic Missiles, and Other News Around the World

Heard the one about the UFO seen from NewFoundland? Check out the picture in the story. One might think the Canadians were watching the new French M51. Seems odd to me though. While the time would match up, that is a heck of a distance to get such accurate photography.

In other news, North Korea looks to be preparing for their next ballistic missile launch. Not surprising, they traded artillery fire last night.

Have you noticed Somali piracy has slowed down quite a bit in the new year? It must be coincidence the level of violence inside Somalia has risen considerably during the same time. They are different issues, but there are interesting patterns and relations that can be measured and compared. For example, even after the Monsoon season was over last year, piracy didn't increase immediately and very few contact incidents were reported at sea. At the same time, the level of violence in Somalia was very high. It is a repeating pattern worth observing.

Singapore has taken over command of CTF-151.

Tonight is the State of the Union. The Nation is still fighting 2 wars in Asia and has this enormous humanitarian operation underway in Haiti, all of which are heavily reliant on the work of our nations Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Guardians. It is very telling the only defense related issue leaked so far regarding the State of the Union is "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

The Obama administration is more like the Bush Jr. administration than the Clinton, Bush Sr., or Reagan administrations in my opinion, and it is easy to highlight why. Political issues are emphasized with more importance than the serious issues that are directly influencing the country.

Десантные корабли

We have previously covered in detail Russia's interest in purchasing an amphibious ship from both France and the Netherlands. Based on the details of this Defense News article, we should have included Spain in that analysis, although there is a lot of similarity between the Dutch Rotterdam class and the Spanish Galicia class.

Russia's interest in purchasing amphibious ships isn't solely about ships though, it is really about technology and industrial development with Russia's shipbuilding sector. Picking out some of the details in this RIA Novosti article we get a better feel for the reasons the Russians are keen on help from Europe.

First lets establish the real Russian intention here:

"The Russian side reiterated its position that it needs not just one warship but technology to enable it to build such ships at Russian shipyards," he said.

More than anything else, Russia is looking to import skilled labor from Europe's shipbuilding sector to help fix the problems Russia has with specific technical skills but also experienced project management staff within their shipyards. The human element to bring skill and talent into the Russian shipbuilding industry is the major factor here, because the domestic production element will allow Russia to attempt a rebuild at just about the same time the Russian Navy disappears.

The article goes on to discuss the Mistral class specifically:

The chief of the General Staff earlier said that Russia would decide by the end of 2009 whether to purchase a Mistral-class amphibious assault ship from France.

The Defense Ministry has said a final decision should be based on "a thorough assessment of the effectiveness of [French] technology in the framework of domestic shipbuilding program."

The assessment to determine if DCNS can build and manage a domestic production in Russia for at least 4 more of the ship class is only part of it, the technology transfer being the other part. The Mistral represents many things for Russia including technologies such as a modern command-and-control suite, combat data and management systems, automation technologies to allow for fewer crew members, and electric drive propulsion for surface vessels. While Russia has some experience with electric drive, the Mistral represents modern western naval architecture and insights into how to build better surface warships with electric drive.

All of this will be critical to Russia if they are to rebound from the impending disappearance of the Russian Navy from the worlds oceans.

Finally, lets examine the Russian view in context:

Russia's current arms procurement program through 2015 does not provide for construction or purchases of large warships, so the acquisition of a French warship is more likely under a new program, through 2020, which has yet to be developed.

This is a very important detail to the entire discussion, because it takes the long view through the prism of economics and strategy and helps us understand how this might unfold.

I am in full agreement with Alexander Khramchikhin. If you missed it, Dr. Dmitry Gorenburg translated this article on his Russian Military Reform blog.

[The Bulava's] effectiveness has turned out to be simply amazing. The missile has not entered serial production, and never will, but it has already destroyed the Russian Navy. Almost all the money allocated to the Navy’s development have been spent on this mindless dead-end program.

Any person who can see the real situation well understands that in a few years the Russian Navy as a whole, as well as all four of its component fleets, will cease to exist. This is already absolutely inevitable — the situation will not be changed even by mass purchases of ships from abroad.

In light of this, it is especially amusing to observe the fierce “battle for Sevastopol.” Why do we need it after 2017? To pay Kiev enormous sums to rent empty piers? By that time, at best the Novorossiisk naval brigade will be all that’s left of the Black Sea Fleet. And the discussion of whether we need a blue-water navy or a coastal one is a complete farce. We won’t even have a coastal force — the maximum that our “navy” will be able to accomplish in ten years is the immediate defense of a few main naval bases. Because we built the Bulava.

I think there is a lot of truth to the melodramatics expressed in that opinion. The Russian military budget has thrown money at the Russian Navy, so naturally one would expect the Russian Navy is on the rebound? Hardly.

Next year the Russian Navy expects to launch a single new surface combatant - a Project 20380 corvette - and three nuclear submarines. However, I am unsure that is entirely correct information, because the only three Russian nuclear submarines ready to be completed are the Severodvinsk, a Project 855 Yasen (Graney) class nuclear submarine, the Alexander Nevsky, the second Project 935 Dolgorukiy (Borei) class nuclear ballistic missile submarine, and the Nerpa, the Project 971 (Akula II) class nuclear attack submarine expected to be leased to India. Perhaps the third submarine for Russia will be the Sankt Peterburg, Project 677 Petersburg (Lada) class diesel-electric submarine?

Doesn't really matter though, right now the foreign investment for frigate exports to India and submarine exports to Vietnam and Indonesia is all that is keeping the shipbuilding industry in Russia on life support, completely unable to modernize. Financing has become a huge problem for the modernization efforts to the defense industrial base of Russia, and without a significant increase in the price of energy Russia's economy is unlikely to rebound very quickly. Russia's attempts in military modernization are not going very smoothly, indeed 36,000 officers were laid off this year alone - and it will take the better part of the next decade to build the non-commissioned officer corps desired in the Russian military reform. All of the defense equipment purchases listed by Medvedev in his State of Russia speech in November were items that are around a decade old, with no new modern aircraft, ships, or Army equipment making the list. Indeed, even the nuclear missile procurements announced included 16 Sineva nuclear missiles for Delta-IV SSBNs and some Topol-M and RS-24 ICBMs, all of which have been around over a decade.

With the recent Bulava missile failure, the continuation of the Borei line of ballistic missile submarines may be in doubt, and no plans to purchase production Balava missiles for existing Borei submarines was mentioned for 2010 by Medvedev. Bottom line, Russia gambled with heavy investments into their strategic nuclear arm at sea with the Borei/Bulava combination, and the gamble did not pay off.

Just as the US Navy is going to experience rapid retirement in the near future due to our rapid naval buildup in the 1980s, what is left of the Russian fleet is about to experience its own rapid retirement. They are clearly getting desperate for working hulls when making serious comments about modernizing old Kirov class cruisers, but the truth is Russian naval officials are out of other alternatives. They can't afford new construction because the yards need modernization, and the yards that can produce ships are on life support filling export orders. That leaves Russia with few options other than to look to Europe, and France in particular would be the ideal place to start.

The reason appears to be French Prime Minister Francois Fillon, who is quoted in this Jamestown Foundation article discussing the Mistral deal.

French officials are now also starting to speak about a Franco-Russian “modernization partnership.” This seems designed for France to emulate Germany’s officially declared “modernization partnership” with Russia and to catch up with Germany in Russia’s estimation at least politically, if not in overall capability. During Putin’s visit, French energy companies announced intentions to join Gazprom’s Nord Stream and South Stream projects. For its part, Renault is prepared to rescue Russia’s insolvent automobile producer AvtoVaz (Interfax, Le Monde, Le Figaro, Les Echos, November 25-30).

Fillon has emerged as a leading figure in France’s rapprochement with the Kremlin, on the intertwined tracks of strategic security policy and business deals. At the 2008 NATO summit, Fillon publicly opposed the Georgian and Ukrainian membership action plans, arguing that their approval would upset the balance of power to Russia’s detriment. At present, Fillon actively promotes the Mistral sale to Russia, which could dramatically tilt the balance further against several NATO countries, Georgia, and Ukraine. The French discussions with Russia, under way for several months, ignore NATO and EU procedures on military equipment exports.

According to Fillon and other French officials, “It would be impossible to call for continental stability in partnership with Russia if we refuse to sell armaments to Russia. A refusal would amount to contradicting our own discourse” and obeying “the old reflexes” (Le Figaro, November 26; Agence France Presse, November 27).

The Republicans in the Senate apparently read the Jamestown Foundation's analysis, because their action today adds yet another element to the ongoing discussions by Russia to partner with France to build amphibious ships. The Cable has an outstanding article that covers the political happenings.

The friction between top GOP leaders in Congress and the French government is over the Mistral-class amphibious assault ship, which the French are considering selling to the Russian Federation. As the biggest potential arms sale from a NATO country to Russia, U.S. lawmakers are worried this could set off a chain reaction of NATO arms sales to Russia. Plus, they share the concerns of Georgia and the Baltic states that the ship could allow Russia to increase its aggressiveness in its near abroad.

So what does this have to do with Iran sanctions? Well, The Cable brought you exclusively the story of how the State Department wants changes in the Chris Dodd Iran sanctions bill that's currently pending in the Senate. Basically, the Obama administration wants exemptions for countries that cooperate with American sanctions against Iran. France presumably would be at the top of the list.

But a senior GOP Senate aide told The Cable that Republicans negotiating over the Iran sanctions language would not allow an exemption for France or French companies if the Mistral deal goes through.

"Whether or not France gets an exemption could very well depend on whether France decides to sell this ship to Russia," the aide said, explaining that "it's possible to draw that exemption narrow enough so that the president could not possibly exempt France."

The Cable obtained a copy of the letter by French Ambassador Pierre Vimont responding to Republican concerns to the French Mistral sale. However, The Cable article goes on to note "France won't go by the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls or the European Union Code of Conduct for Arms Exports, as the Senators had wanted."

Maybe I am missing something here, but it does not appear that France is out of line regarding the procedures for military exports as outlined by either the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls or the European Union Code of Conduct for Arms Exports. Indeed, one of the more remarkable characteristics of this deal is how transparent both Russia and France have been.

With the Russian Navy about to disappear entirely, it is very difficult to say that even a half dozen Mistral class ships would somehow create a balance of power issue with Europe. It is very much unclear what national interest the Senate Republicans are protecting here. Are the Senate Republicans honestly putting the possibility of a Russian Mistral amphibious landing against Georgia in 2020 ahead of the possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon in 2010? Well that's stupid, why not simply have a Georgian aircraft import some illegal North Korean anti-ship missiles and ruin Russia's day without all the international political blow back?

Regardless of any potential political maneuvers by Republicans in the Senate, or the US government in general, France is almost certainly going to make the deal with Russia, as the deal carries economic value to both countries. The only thing the Senate Republicans can do is disrupt relations between the US and 2 other security council members right before the UN votes on Iranian sanctions. The absence of strong UN sanctions is almost certainly going to make everyone jittery about the potential for a military confrontation between Israel and Iran, which is sure to make energy prices climb above the forecasted $60-$70 range. Given that Russia's economy can only improve with higher energy costs, can someone please show me the strategic logic of US involvement in the Mistral deal here?

At some point, the old cold war crowd needs to accept that the cold war ended, and we won. It is time to build a better future already, one where we don't have to fear the once mighty Russian conventional weapon capacity, rather build a stable world where the once mighty Russian doesn't feel compelled to rely upon their quickly diminishing nuclear weapon capability.

Q Ship Bags the Bad Guys

OK, so it wasn't a real Q ship, but it is the concept at work when pirates confuse the FS Somme (A631) for a commercial ship.

Somali pirates in two skiffs fired on a French navy vessel early Wednesday after apparently mistaking it for a commercial boat, the French military said. The French ship gave chase and captured five suspected pirates.

No one was wounded by the volleys from the Kalashnikov rifles directed at La Somme, a 3,800-ton refueling ship, French military spokesman Rear Adm. Christophe Prazuck said.

La Somme "was probably taken for a commercial ship by the two small skiffs" about 250 nautical miles (290 statute miles) off Somalia's coast, Prazuck said.

"They understood their mistake too late," he said.

One skiff fled, and La Somme pursued the second one in an hour-long chase.

"There were five suspected pirates on board. No arms, no water, no food," Prazuck said.

I have always dismissed the Q-ship as a waste of time and resources fighting piracy, but since this isn't even the first time pirates have made this kind of mistake, maybe I was wrong?

There was an IMB alert earlier this week a mothership was sighted towing two skiffs near the Seychelles. I wonder if these were the same pirates identified in the alert.

For the record, FS Somme (A631) has a top speed of 19 knots and ran these guys down, suggesting tactical speed for ships is not a major factor in dealing with these very low end asymmetrical threats.

Brazil Goes with the Rafale

It looks as if Brazil has decided on the Rafale.

Brazil opened talks with Dassault Aviation SA and France to buy 36 Rafale fighter jets, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said, pointing to broader military cooperation with the French as a key factor in the choice.

Lula said talks started largely because France is offering access to the plane’s technology. The contract would be worth as much as 5 billion euros ($7.2 billion), an official at the French president’s office said on condition of anonymity. French President Nicolas Sarkozy said France plans to buy 10 military transport planes from Empresa Brasileira Aeronautica SA.

The arrangement will also allow Brazil to build the Rafale on license, and apparently even to have export rights. The possibility of Brazil purchasing F/A-18s had been mentioned, but the article suggests that Boeing was not approached for a bid. The article doesn't specifically indicate that some of the Rafales will be capable of operating from NAe Sao Paulo, but given that the Brazilians are completing an upgrade, it's probably a safe bet.

More broadly, I suspect that there's a bit of concern in Washington that Brazil seems to be seeking extra-hemispheric defense partners. Brazil has purchased from non-US suppliers before, of course, but given the increasing dominance of the US in global arms sales, it's almost surprising when alternative options are pursued. As with every defense procurement decision, the political issues are difficult to separate from the strictly military considerations.

France Gets Tougher on Piracy

France has passed some strong legislation to fight pirates.

"In a context of rising acts of piracy, particularly in the Indian Ocean, an efficient fight against piracy requires us to strengthen the French state's capacity to intervene, especially on the high seas," reads the cabinet bill.

Under the bill, navy commanders "acting under the control of the judicial authorities, will be able to record piracy crimes and offences and to arrest their perpetrators with a view to bringing them to trial," it reads.

The bill aims to "enable the commanders of the navy ships, while at sea and in waters that do not depend on any state jurisdiction, to take measures adapted to the exercise of the state's police powers at sea." The bill gives broad powers for prosecution:

"French jurisdiction will apply for acts of piracy when the perpetrators and accomplices are arrested by French agents and that no other state exercises its competence."

France appears to be all in on the legal side of piracy. The French have already started putting troops on their fishing vessels in the Seychelles, for example. The US House and Senate have debated bills related to piracy, but it is unclear if any consensus or meaningful action will result. Last I heard there was still considerable disagreement in the US bill details, and it is unclear how new laws will impact the private sector or the Navy.

Russia Buys a Mistral

Wow.

Russia said Wednesday it plans to buy a new helicopter-carrying assault warship from NATO-member France in an unprecedented deal experts say reflects Kremlin efforts to accelerate military modernization.

The agreement for purchase of one Mistral-class naval ship also equipped with hovercraft and landing craft will be completed by the end of the year, the Russian chief of staff, General Nikolai Makarov, said.

He did not name a price, but the Russian government daily Rossiiskaya Gazeta reported this month that the ship, which can carry 16 heavy helicopters, 470 airborne troops and other gear, costs 700 million euros (995 million dollars).

Christian at Defense Tech jokes that the Mistral would be less than useful in another war against Georgia. I'm not sure that's even true; the contribution of the Russian Navy to victory against Georgia was detailed on this blog, and the presence of a modern, effective amphibious warship would have created even more problems for the Georgians. More importantly, a Mistral gives the Russian Navy a much greater capacity to conduct operations and project power in distant parts of the globe. This isn't to say that the Russians are about to conduct an expeditionary campaign in Somalia, but a Mistral certainly gives them options they didn't previously have.

Fighting Pirates, The Easy Way

Apparently, this pirate bunch mistook FS Nivose (F 732) for a commercial ship. The French were not unprepared.

Two pirate assault boats approached the Nivose "at great speed," Capt. Christophe Prazuck said, but a French helicopter intervened before the attackers had time to fire at the French Navy ship.

The helicopter fired warning shots, he said.

The pirates, who had a mother ship as well as the two assault boats, are being held for questioning on the Nivose, Prazuck said. The vessels were carrying AK-47 rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, but the pirates did not fire, he said.

The incident took place about 1,000 km (620 miles) east of Mombasa, Kenya, at 8:30 a.m. local time (0430 GMT) he added.

This is an interesting case. he French took 11 prisoners, and it will be interesting if the proactive action by the French Navy to stop the pirate attack before it started will give the French enough to prosecute.

It could be this bunch gets set free, meaning because we stopped the pirates from attacking before they were able to shoot bullets at people, no crime. Under that law, you have to get shot at before you can shoot back, which could also mean any offensive action against pirates would be seen unlawful.

French Conduct Hostage Rescue Off Somalia - Updated

The AP is reporting the French Navy has raided a French yacht hijacked earlier this week, resulting in the death of one French hostage who was being held by pirates off the coast of Somalia.

President Nicolas Sarkozy's office said two pirates were also killed in the operation in the Gulf of Aden, while three others were taken prisoner.

The boat, the Tanit, was seized by pirates last Saturday with four adults and a child on board.

There are dangers involved with hostage rescues. One thing is certain, anytime a ship with a French flag gets hijacked by pirates, the French military responds every time.

Updated: The blog covering the journey of the French yacht Tanit is here. Florent Lemaçon, the owner of the yacht, was killed in the rescue attempt. Whether he was executed or killed in the crossfire remains unclear.

His wife, 3 year old son, and 2 friends on the yacht have been rescued. Pictures of all on the blog, last updated March 20. If you read through the blog (in French), you will not how they did not take the piracy situation seriously, joked about piracy actually as if they were regular writers at the Huffington Post, ultimately ignoring the warnings they did not understand nor believe in.

News Analysis of the SSBN Collision

This article has been recommended by several experts as the best English analysis to date regarding the SSBN collision. Some key points in the article:

They avoid using active or ' pinging ' sonar to find other objects, as it would give away their own position. The sophisticated passive sonar systems - listening for sounds from another vessel - would be switched on. But as both subs move astonishingly quietly, they were able to blunder into each other without either spotting the other.

and

U.S. vessels are just as quiet as Britain ' s but the countries exchange information on where their submarines are patrolling.

There is no information-sharing deal with France , it is understood.

and

He said while Nato countries let each other know what general area of the Atlantic they are operating in, neither submarine would have had a precise position for the other. Saunders said submarines don ' t always turn on their radar systems or make their presence obvious to other shipping. '

The whole point is to go and hide in a big chunk of ocean and not be found. They tend to go around very slowly and not make much noise, ' he said.

and

In submarine warfare hiding means being quiet - too quiet for an enemy sonar system to hear and pinpoint you.

Both the British and French missile submarines are extraordinarily quiet, while their own sonar systems are designed to ' hear ' the slightest sound from an enemy ship.

and finally...

Both were listening hard for any other ships or objects to avoid, but each submarine was so quiet that the other was unable to hear it.

Only Britain , France and America are thought to operate such sophisticated and silent vessels. Russian boats are noisy by comparison.

But whereas British and American submariners routinely inform each other of roughly where their missile submarines are patrolling, to prevent just this kind of freak accident, it is understood there is no similar arrangement with the French.

As the French Navy generally has only one missile submarine on patrol at any one time, the British submarine had the remarkable misfortune to collide with the only vessel in the world which it is unable to detect, and knew nothing about.

Emphasis mine. That last sentence is based on the assumption that Russian and Chinese submarines are louder, but in the future as their underwater technology improves and matures, this will not always be the case. At some point it is going to become a priority to develop a technology other than sonar to increase the capabilities of detecting very quiet submarines underwater.

Expect the conversations regarding strategic patrols between the US, UK, and France to increase as a result of this accident.

Also, check out Peter Hitchens blog entry regarding the incident.