Russia may purchase Mistral class LHD from France


Aero_Wing_32

Junior Member
Come on. French got a sucess this time, and these ships seem really good. They won.

Don't sail into false colours, Dear. Disinformation and false rumors are easily spreading out by internet blogs or websites, all declaring they re official Military news site... many linked to lobbyists.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Don't call me dear. I don't like that.

I never stated they were a "fail" They are good ships. But far from perfect.

And don't tell me what to believe and not to beleive about the World's navies. I'm no child..I'm 57 years old. I served with the USN for 20 years. I know how ships work and if they do not work. I still have many connections with the USN.

And I believe there is some truth in the statement I posted. That ship the Mistral and it's sister Tonnerre are overly automated and have needed much needed "tweaking" like may other of the worlds warships.
 
Last edited:

Aero_Wing_32

Junior Member
Don't call me dear. I don't like that.

I never stated they were a "fail" They are good ships. But far from perfect.

And don't tell me what to believe and not to beleive about the World's navies. I'm no child..I'm 57 years old. I served with the USN for 20 years. I know how ships work and if they do not work. I still have many connections with the USN.

And I believe there is some truth in the statement I posted. That ship the Mistral and it's sister Tonnerre are overly automated and have needed much needed "tweaking" like may other of the worlds warships.
I also don't care about your long USN career, that prove nothing on your knowledge on this Mistral class. What I know is that russians got a better awareness of this class ship, than you did in 20 years served in the Navy. The Business intelligence is also an Art to spread out continuous disinformation on your foreign contenders.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
That's nice..You do know personal insults are not allowed in this forum???

The Russians are getting a great deal on these ships. I have read quite a few articles about the Mistral ship and have knowledge from outside sources about the ship. Like I stated good ships but not perfect. No warship is.
 

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Aero-Wing, you may not care about popeye's service, but his service has netted him a great deal of knowledge, especially since most of it was on aircraft carriers, about vessels that propose to carry aircraft of their nationality onto the high seas. Most of us who have spent any length of time in this fourm are aware of popeye's experience level and respect it.

Perhaps with a little more time...and a little more open attitude, you will too.

As it is, the Mistral Class is the French answer to large deck amhibious assault. It's not as large or as capable as some of the other vessels out there, but it is a fair design, though it does seem to be top heavey. Reports also indicate, that in order to save money, at least portions of the ship were built more to commercial standards than to strict military ones. In battle, that could prove to be a costly decision.

Time will tell.

As it is, it is pretty clear the Russians are going to get some of these vessels. Maybe four or more.

The French are just completing their third vessel and are gaining experience with them that I am sure they will use to benefit the Russians in the sale.
 

Aero_Wing_32

Junior Member
That's nice..You do know personal insults are not allowed in this forum???

The Russians are getting a great deal on these ships. I have read quite a few articles about the Mistral ship and have knowledge from outside sources about the ship. Like I stated good ships but not perfect. No warship is.
We are in a discussion board, or what? Where is the insult? Where is the respect to people who do not think the same way you do, and don t come from the same part of your world? If you disagree with the russian choice or do no understand it, just ask to russians officials. But stop telling wrong things on another Industry, the european one, you don t really know from the inside, or just by "gossips" comments found on oriented websites.
 

Skywatcher

Senior Member
We are in a discussion board, or what? Where is the insult? Where is the respect to people who do not think the same way you do, and don t come from the same part of your world? If you disagree with the russian choice or do no understand it, just ask to russians officials. But stop telling wrong things on another Industry, the european one, you don t really know from the inside, or just by "gossips" comments found on oriented websites.
FYI, you don't have to be an insider to figure out the flaws in the design and construction of a warship.
 

mkhan

New Member
aren't the new British carriers also being built according to commercial standards and not military ones?
Which brings an important question to mind : do the designers think that the ships will never actually get hit? or that they will never be in a serious war? I doubt that any commercial ship is going to stand up to being hit by any modern anti-ship missile?

Just curious about what kind of reasoning goes in building such ships (economy argument would go down the drain if you lose the ship in your first serious engagement) unless the idea is never to get involved in a serious (potential opponent with something more than a AK-47 and RPGs )war in the first place?
 

Ambivalent

Junior Member
The Mistrals were built to a commercial standard, which affects things like internal ventilation (how well the ship can be sealed in an NBC environment), construction of water tight doors, the ability of lighting and electrical fixtures to withstand shock from explosions in other parts of the ship or in the water close aboard, fire safety features, fire fighting equipment, counter flooding capabilities, the presence or absence of high volume pumps to de-water flooded compartments, etc.
I had not read anything to indicate the Cavour or the RN's CVF are built to a commercial standard (and, btw, there are a dozen or more commercial standards to choose from, each with it's own associated detailed specifications, insurance rates for the type of commerce your ship is engaged in, and operators make an economic decision about which standard they wish their ships to be built to). The USN's first purpose built LPH's of the Guadalcanal class were built on a commercial cargo ship hull and machinery but were otherwise mil spec. Note that Tripoli struck a mine in the Persian Gulf during Desert Storm, suffered a huge hole in the hull some 7 X 10 meters, the shock of which blew the fire out in the boilers. After isolating the flooded compartments and re-lighting the boilers, the ship continued on it's mission. This wasn't even a double hulled ship.
Most anti ship missiles will only damage a large ship like a modern tanker or container cargo ship. The old oiler USS Ashtabula was a WWII vintage AO that was lengthened, or "jumboized" to 25,450 tons. This is about the size of a Mistral. After decommissioning Ashtabula was used as a target in a SINKEX. After being hit by 8 Harpoons, 2 Standards, 3 Sea Skuas, 4 1000 lb bombs and over 100 rounds of gunfire the ship was ravaged but still afloat. Have a look at the photo.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The Sacramento, which I put some time aboard, had double bottoms, and the fuel tanks ran along the sides of the ship. Ammo and dry stores were down the center third of the ship, surrounded by fuel tanks and void spaces. The fuel tanks had longitudinal baffles to reduce slosh, and also to take the impact of weapons. Each tank had automated fire fighting systems. The cargo holds ended two decks below the weather decks, with cargo handling decks above the holds, so they were protected from bomb and missile damage. Elevators served the cargo holds and brought stores up to the cargo handling decks.
These were very well protected ships and their crews were very confident of them. They were fast ships too, able to outrun the frigates of the day and even some destroyer classes.
 

Top