[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Click for more| Home]

http://news.usni.org/2015/04/27/rep ort-france-to-keep-russi

This is a blue board which means that it's for everybody (Safe For Work content only). If you see any adult content, please report it.

Thread replies: 310
Thread images: 40

http://news.usni.org/2015/04/27/report-france-to-keep-russian-mistrals-in-planned-1-20-billion-deal

So who gets them? Any other nation that might make use of them and also has the cash to pay for them?

Also, too bad for Russia. What do they do now?
>>
Give them to the Ukrainians.
>>
>>25613841
http://news.usni.org/2014/09/19/opinion-mistral-canada
>>
>>25613841
Sell them to Japan.

>can you operate f-35b of of them?
>>
>>25613873
This.

Or Poland, anything which will make the Russians assmad.
>>
>>25613841
America will send them to Israel.
>>
>>25613841
Give them to poland for ultimate russian butthurt
>>
>>25613841
Would it be possible to turn it in to a normal carrier? Or is it only designed for helicopters?
>>
>>25613895
I'm thinking /pol/ is where you need to be since none of your post makes sense.
>>
>>25613841
>>25613841
They can't be sold without Russia's accord, since the rear half was made in Russia.
>>
>>25613913
>They can't be sold without Russia's accord, since the rear half was made in Russia.
You should read the article before you post.
>>
>>25613908
>Would it be possible to turn it in to a normal carrier?
No.
>>
>>25613891
>>25613901
le nato mind
>>
File: 1413667518196.jpg (401KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1413667518196.jpg
401KB, 1920x1080px
>>25613924
We aint buying it then brosef.
>>
>>25613909
Why wouldn't America arm its strongest MENA ally with state of the art warships to further its force projection?
>>
File: 1422906048937.gif (468KB, 500x282px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1422906048937.gif
468KB, 500x282px
>>25613955
>danish military
>>
>>25613956
1) Because the ships aren't America's
2) Because Israel wouldn't need them

Ladies and gentlemen, the geopolitical analysis of a /pol/ user.
>>
>>25613981
Are you an idiot?
Yes, yes you are.
>>
>>25613967
You wanna talk shit? You cant even dream of our Viking-shield technology...

>Bet you cant even spot it. Jætteknepper.
>>
>>25613998
So explain how the US will take possession of ships that aren't even theirs, and deliver them to Israel, who can't even use them?
>>
>>25613981
The ships are French.
Israelis defense budget is American.
This isn't pol tier trolling it's facts.
I supports Israels existence and its ability to defend and project its force.
What is all this /pol/ shit.
You probably don't even own guns.
>>
The french somehow trying to push this ship to malaysia during Malaysia-France HADR exercise recently

http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v8/ge/newsgeneral.php?id=1127873

But the chinks keep cockblocking the frog with their inferior stuff
>>
>>25614013
They will take possession with money, paid by the Israeli government.
You're an idiot with no background in this subject. Stop before you embarrass yourself.
>>
>>25613841
They are optimised for Russian weapon systems, hence useless for anyone who doesn't use them.
>>25613873
As if they can afford it.
>>
>>25614071
minor details. a refit can fix that.
>>
>>25614026
>The ships are French.
Yes
>Israelis defense budget is American.
So now the US is going to give them money to purchase them. Got it.
>This isn't pol tier trolling it's facts.
No. It's ignorance.

>>25614040
>They will take possession with money, paid by the Israeli government.
>You're an idiot with no background in this subject. Stop before you embarrass yourself.

Really?
The IN operates no aircraft.
They have no experience in operating aircraft carriers.
They have no fixed wing aircraft that can operate off the decks.
They have no ships that can serve as escorts for the Mistrals.
They have no experience operating anything larger than a patrol frigate.

And you think Israel can use these things?

This is /pol/ idiocy.
>>
>>25614098
A refit that will most likely cost more than ordering an actual new ship, if possible at all.
>>
>>25613874
YES FUCK YES AND WHILE WE'RE AT IT ORDER THE F35B DO IT
>>
>>25614110
some new software, computers, change a few fittings.
>>
>>25614118
How many could you run off a Mistral? Any chance of turning it into a light carrier like the Invincible Class?
>>
>>25614152
you'd need to harden the deck before using then, but its not about how many it can fit, but how many Canada will put on it (because everyone is penny pinching at this point in the fed gov) if we decide to get the F35B
>>
>>25614107
This is a helicopter landing craft..
Please find where it's designed for an aircraft that isn't VSTOL.
>>
>>25614139
Yeah, the lack of spare laptops and OS copies is why no one is interested in such a refit apart from shitty internet wannabe analysts.
>>
If canada bros don't buy these they are dumb.

They are already modified to handle the NW passage......
>>
>>25614176
Excellent.

No point to a single purpose Israel would have for a landing craft.

I'll wait.
>>
>>25614107
Few things wrong with this post.
It's not an aircraft carrier. It's a helo platform, which would be provided by their army similar to our LHDs.
Their escorts would be every fucking allied warship in the region.
How stupid are you?
Go jerk off on your Mosin and stop posting.
>>
>>25614026
>The ships are French.
Yes, so the US wouldn't want Israel to buy them.

>Israelis defense budget is American.
No, the Israeli defense budget is Israeli. If you're talking about American military financing to Israel (equal to about 20% of Israel's domestic budget), then that is given with the understanding it will then be used to purchase American equipment.

>I supports Israels existence and its ability to defend and project its force.
I see you've failed to demonstrate any evidence Israel seeks a major amphibious capability. Meanwhile in the real world the Israeli Navy wouldn't be able to utilize a Mistral (which would be about 10 times heavier than the largest warship they currently operate).
>>
File: 2633_1.jpg (47KB, 600x440px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
2633_1.jpg
47KB, 600x440px
So where will these babies operate off of now?
>>
>>25614201
>Their escorts would be every fucking allied warship in the region.
And which Israeli allies would those be?
>>
>>25614211
icebergs.
>>
>>25614211
All other helicopter carrying ships.
>>
>>25614201
>It's a helo platform, which would be provided by their army similar to our LHDs.
Who have never operated off of a naval warship, who operate aircraft not optimized for work at sea.

>Their escorts would be every fucking allied warship in the region.
Ah, so the allies need a helo carrier in the area. And rather than use one of the several they already have, they will pay for the transfer of the ship, the training of the crews, the building of logistical facilities, the ordering of new maritime helicopters, the training of those crews, etc...

This makes sense to you?
>>
Nippon Rising?
>>
>>25614252
Yea.
>>
>>25614271
Yes, Japan, with its long history of preferring domestic construction, and who is the process right now of building large, helicopter carrying warships, is going to buy a French built ship.

Seriously do people think for 5 seconds before posting?
>>
>>25614279
Well, then you are an idiot.
>>
Russia can use the money to build it's own, vastly superior, amphibious assault carrier!
Or buy more body kits for SU-27s so they look stealthy.
>>
File: 1393964143767.gif (2MB, 400x225px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1393964143767.gif
2MB, 400x225px
Remember all the vatnik butthurt when the order was first postponed?
>they can't do this!
>b-but muh international law
>this'll ruin their export market for sure!
>they're just posturing to suck america's dick

I can't wait for all the slav tears. Good on you, France.
>>
>>25614300
Well according to the Vatnik in the /pol/ thread, Russia never really wanted them in the first place.
>>
>>25614300
They sold more Rafale's since telling the Russians they don't get their ships. They should cancel all their military deals with Russia.
>>
I can' believe how lucky the french government seems to be on this affair ; they don't loose face to Putin and apparently will evade heavier sanctions. Considering how bad a move keeping the mistrals was in the first place, tht's amazing.
That or they really are amazing diplomats and everything was planned since the beginning of the crisis, but I find tht last option harder to believe.

>>25614182
The class is initally fully NATO compatible, and the second ship doesn't have electronics installed in for now. Ships are modular platforms, this won't be the worst refitting of the decade.

>>25614035
It's not unusual ; it's a standard "Jeanne d'Arc" mission, they make one of those every year.
Show french might and technology, strenghten political ties, do some joint exercises, and often first mission for the navy cadets.
>>
>>25614308
They didn't. At least some factions in the govt and navy didn't want them.

They should have sold them ; it would have hurt russian economy more, and reduced the building capactity of their shipyards.
>>
>>25614071
Sell them to China then.
>>
>>25614374
>The class is initally fully NATO compatible
And the ones built for Russia vastly differ from initial ships in everything from CMS to the hull. Building ships cost a lot of money, reworking already finished ones cost even more.
>>
Reminder that the Mistral class is built to cruise ship, not warship, construction standards.
>>
>>25614429
Because arming China is so much more preferred than arming Russia from NATO perspective. Or, idk, because Chinese will never sell the ships to Russians the day they will get them.
>>
>>25614460
Fucking proof where
>>
>>25614554
>muh proofs
why even bother anymore? It's not like you're getting the ship anyways
>>
>>25614594
Lying little shit
>>
>>25614460
>citation needed
>>
>>25614300
Well, they do have to pay hefty penalties to Russia since the cancellation. And the decision to cancel the order was likely a reason behind India's decision to cancel a purchase of Rafales. Not only that, but Russia really didn't need the Mistrals in the first place; the purchase was more of a political move to show some cooperation with France.
>>
>>25614554
>>25614646

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/world-naval-forces/west-european-navies-vessels-ships-equipment/french-navy-marine-nationale-vessels-ships-equipment/aircraft-carriers-a-amphibious-vessels/531-mistral-class-lhd-bpc-amphibious-assault-ship-force-projection-command-vessel-landing-helicopter-dock-batiment-de-projection-et-de-commandment-dcns-tonnerre-dixmude-vladivostok-sevastopol-french-russian-navy-datasheet-pictures-photos-video-specifications.html

>Civil standards and technologies are used in the construction process which significantly reduces both cost and time to completion.
>>
>>25614646
>>25614554

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/russia-to-order-french-mistral-lhds-05749/
>the Mistral Class is built to commercial standards, rather than naval combat standards
>>
>>25613877
This was my first thought. Help Japan expand their force projection capabilities to help offset China's naval building binge. If the Japanese prefer to build their own, maybe the Vietnamese would like one?
>>
File: Veterans Affairs.png (460KB, 473x960px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Veterans Affairs.png
460KB, 473x960px
>>25614722
kek, looks like Russia lucked out
>>
>>25613841
Russian engineers had already gotten their hands on the blueprints anyway. The only downside is having to build ports to make them. Expect a PAK XA LHD soon.
>>
>>25614722
Jesus Christ.
France what the fuck.
No wonder Russia is okay with this b.
>>
>>25615036
>Expect a PAK XA LHD soon.
As if Russia's shipyards have no better things to build.
>>
>>25615064
>France what the fuck.
frenchfag here, government want to give less money to the army because fucking dindus & Co. want more, everybody is getting slapped not only the navy
>>
>>25613841
>Also, too bad for Russia. What do they do now?

Well, they'll likely fuck france over down the line in some other economic deal.

Really, france is just further proving that you don't buy weapons from france.
>>
File: 1396485341447.gif (2MB, 300x164px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1396485341447.gif
2MB, 300x164px
>>25615188
aww yiss the vatniks are here
>>
>>25615159
Same thing happening here in America, by the time we wake up will be England tier.
Our liberal parties don't understand that Canada and Europe enjoy their luxuries because we can scare away Russia and China.
At least Russia is white, and takes a hard stance against faggotry and Muslim immigration.
In 300 years they will be the race's savior or remembered as its last pillar of defense.
>>
>>25614743

this from the filming of battleship?
>>
Canadian here, we will take them
>>
>>25615211
They broke a contract, they deserve to get fucked. You dont need to be a ruble poster to see that.
>>
>>25615235
>Russia
>hard stance against ... Muslim immigration

No.
>>
>>25615211
What's a vatnik?

>>25614760
Honestly, the deal was more a way to build closer ties between russia and western governments than it was to give russia some sort of good warship.

What I don't understand is why France continues to tarnish their reputation as an arms dealer. From the typhoon to the eurocopter to the exocet missiles they sold to Argentina, they have a long history of fucking over anyone who works with their arms industry - and for what? Nobody would've batted an eye if France continued with the deal, but now they gain...? Good will from the US?

That's not going to matter much when the corporations involved in the arms industry don't give a fuck. They're already painting France as an unreliable dealer and these sorts of things really don't help that image whatsoever.
>>
>>25615267
>implying contracts between sovereign nations are the same as those between individuals or corporations
>>
The navy of Iraq

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Navy
>>
File: platonic debate.jpg (182KB, 918x627px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
platonic debate.jpg
182KB, 918x627px
>>25615267
>They broke a contract
Oh you mean like that agreement you had to respect the sovereignty of the Ukraine?
>>
>>25615271
Russian doesn't have massive muslim immigration, they have a large domestic population.

I hope you can see the difference here?
>>
>>25615235
You do realize that we could cut all of our armed forces down to 1/3 of their current level and we'd still be fine, right?

Having a huge military on standby is a huge waste of money and resources that only benefits weapon contractors. If war comes up, we could just build up our forces then. Also,

>implying Russia or China could send an invasion fleet across the Pacific undetected and large enough to occupy the US
>>
>>25615289
Which the US broke several years prior?

American exceptionalism at its finest.
>>
>>25615296
>implying WW2 style buildup for years before a potential conflict is still possible in the age of intercontinental weapons
>>
>>25615272
I think it's suppose to be a kind of Russian version of a nationalistic "redneck"
>>
>>25615278
Being a dick is being a dick
>>
>>25615296
Russia/China have no interest in North America. They're much more liable to kicking the US and her corporations out of their respective spheres of influence, and growing those spheres of influence.

A mainland invasion of the North American continent is something I don't think anyone's ever planned. Maybe if the US breaks apart due to economic disaster like Russia did in the 90's, but I seriously doubt it even then.
>>
File: 1393647780571.jpg (166KB, 1103x674px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1393647780571.jpg
166KB, 1103x674px
>>25615300
Please, explain to me when when the US invaded the Ukraine, sank or captured most of their navy, and had active troops involved in combat during their civil war.
>>
>>25615342
>invasions can only happen militarily
>>
>>25615384
You didn't answer the question.
>>
>>25613956
Because the Saudis aren't interested in Amphib ships.
>>
File: 1365705689351.jpg (72KB, 750x492px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1365705689351.jpg
72KB, 750x492px
>>25615384
oh of course - the
>they were shifting away from our influence!
>it must be thanks to evil western intervention!
>it can't possibly be that we held the entirety of eastern Europe as the world's largest open-air prison for almost half a century!
argument.
>>
>>25615420
Except I did.

Both sides effectively had an agreement to leave Ukraine neutral, which the west blatantly violated by instigating a revolution against a democratically elected government.

btw i love how they preach for democracy when it suits them and completely ignore it otherwise
>>
>>25615420
He's not obligated to. Breaking a contract is breaking a contract regardless of anyone's opinion on Russia's "invasion" of Ukraine that you are bringing up to deliberately derail the discussion realising that nothing really justifies being a dick in business.
>>
>>25613981
>They don't need them
Fucking kill yourself
>>
>>25613924

In the picture I thought the helicopters arranged diagonally were actually badly drawn cactus people running with their arms outstretched
>>
>>25615468
>Western intervention and "funding democracy" is totally not a thing
>Neither are spheres of influence
>Gulag prison of nations 20 trillion victims of Stalin
>Look at how happy newly integrated EU members are
Oh fuck off.
>>
>>25615487
>Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
Isn't that how all of this started?
>>
>>25613841
Russia doesn't need this piece of shit.

The old Kiev class carriers were much better armed and equipped than the Mistral. They could build more of them if they need to.
>>
>>25615296
Liberals believe this lol.
>>
>>25615487
>had an agreement to leave Ukraine neutral
No, the agreement was that Ukraine would disarm, giving its strategic weapons back to Russia on the condition that their sovereignty would be respected. The conditions of the Budapest Memorandum were:
>Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
>Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
>Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
>Seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, "if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
>Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
>Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.[13][14]
Nowhere were there restrictions on Ukrainian association with any powers.

>b-but the pro-western revolution was just a bunch of EU shills!
No, it couldn't possibly be that the people in a very divided country weren't keen on having a pawn of Putin who blatantly outlawed protests as their president. And I guess we're just going to conveniently ignore the "domestic uprising" in the Crimea that the Russians have admitted to be an invasion?

>>25615507
The breaking of the contract came as a response to the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. It's like Saddam getting all buttflustered when the entire world turned on him when he invaded Kuwait, or Argentina getting mad when the French stopped Exocet deliveries when they invaded the Falklands. Blatant violations of international law, especially invading other countries, tends to go poorly for ongoing arms deals.
>>
>>25615569
The entire point of the Mistrals was that Russia cannot build something like the Kiev anymore.
>>
>>25615569
The Soviet Union could build more Kiev-class carriers. Russia as it is today can barely keep what they have afloat, let alone build anything like that.
>>
>>25613841
>So who gets them?
Russian, when Sarkozy takes office.
>Any other nation that might make use of them and also has the cash to pay for them?
They can't because this ships has Russian materials inside. To sell ships French need to rid off that materials. It's nearly impossible.
>>
>>25615569
These are, like, completely different ship classes. 1143 were heavy aircraft carrying cruisers, twice as big as Mistrals, which are helicopter carrying amphibious ships. And 1143 were build by Nikolayev shipyard, now fucked up by Ukraine.
>>
>>25615607
>They can't because this ships has Russian materials inside
just like they couldn't cancel the contract, right? :^)
>>
>>25615342
The US broke it in regards to poland, and it happened a few years prior to anything in Ukraine.

If the US is going to ignore it, why would Russia respect it?
>>
>>25615596
>>25615605
>Can't build?

Got any proof that they literally can't build one today?
>>
>>25615596
As far as I'm aware, Russia hasn't lost any shipbuilding capability at all, the Mistral was ordered in part because Russia's shipbuilding facilities are booked for the next 5 years straight.
>>
>>25615596
The entire point of ordering Mistrals was to strengthen international ties. Half of ships' hulls was built in Russia. The problem with building something of comparable size was firstly that it would take unacceptably long time for Russia alone because they'd have to compile it from smaller parts, and secondly that Russia's shipyards are stuffed with orders for years ahead.
>>
>>25615595
>It's like Saddam getting all buttflustered when the entire world turned on him when he invaded Kuwait

But that was predominantly a US geopolitical move because Saddam was stepping on the wrong turf.

Not because, as you seem to be implying, the world had a problem with a dictator in general. The US certainly has no problems with dictators, considering how many they directly finance and influence.
>>
>>25615605
SU didn't need to build more Kiev-class carriers, it was building this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_aircraft_carrier_Ulyanovsk
>>
>>25613873
then Russia would get them anyway, and not have to pay for it.
>>
>>25613873
Ukraine can't even afford natural gas. If Ukraine gets them, it will be at the cost of the US taxpayer, as usual.

Yay, limited government.
>>
File: sXRztl0.jpg (470KB, 2448x2448px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
sXRztl0.jpg
470KB, 2448x2448px
>>25615680
>broke the Budapest Memorandum in regards to Poland
>a treaty in which Poland was not involved

Just to humor you, I'll pretend that Poland was somehow involved. So when did the US
>invade Poland
>assert undue economic pressure to influence it
>threaten them with military force

Lemme guess - you think Germany isn't legitimate either because East Germany was so quick to abandon the USSR and rejoin the FRG?

>>25615726
yeah I guess the Saddam one was a bad example. The Falklands however it a near perfect precedent for this kind of thing, though.
>>
>>25613841
>too bad for Russia

not really, they're getting paid, and the only use Russia would have for them was if they were going to invade Norway or something.
>>
>>25613841
>Also, too bad for Russia. What do they do now?

Build their own. The most important part of the deal for Russia was the technology transfer. They got the tech and they don't have to pay for it.

Win win for ruskies.
>>
>>25615824
>Russia
>building anything
With their nonexistent shipyards and 3rd-world economy? What, do you just want another half-built aircraft carrier to be sold to China as an amusement park?
>>
>>25615693
>Russia hasn't lost any shipbuilding capability at all
Except Nikolayev shipyard is now owned by Ukraine and desolated while Russia currently lacks large enough construction cranes. If they'd have to build Mistral all by themselves they'd have to build it from smaller blocks, which would take ridiculous amount of time. They could build such cranes, however this would mean they will stand and rust until the R&D for the new ship will be finished, which is an enormous waste of money that no one is willing to take.
>>
File: 2014 fleet summary.jpg (701KB, 619x2048px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
2014 fleet summary.jpg
701KB, 619x2048px
>>25615861
>half-built aircraft carrier to be sold to China as an amusement park
If you are on trolling spree at least do it properly, idiot. Kiev was 30 years old when it was sold to China, and Minsk was about as old and was sold by Ukraine.
>>
>>25613891
>>25613901
Please don't.
>>
>>25615861
Russian shipyards have been buildings dozens of nuclear submarines per year.
>>
>>25615974
How come they have only 3 Borei? They should have over 200 since 1996.
>>
>>25615772

>bad example

No man, you were right, reminder, a coalition of over 30 countries helped kick him out of Kuwait.
>>
>>25615861
They already built big parts of the mistrals thanks to french help. The original contract was to allow Russia the option to build two more in their own shipyards after the first two.

They're still gonna build those two.
>>
ctrl+f

"Austr"

No results.

Australia is in the market. They're bringing in two very large LHDs, and arguments have been made for carrierising them for F35 operations. The Australian military tends to plan off an uptime of 1/3, so if they're serious, they'll want a third LHD so they have a real capability when they retire the interim testbed LHD they bought off the UK.

The main problem is that everyrhing Australia has bought off the EU defence market in thr last few decades has been a farce, particularly frog stuff. Eurocopter and NH90 have been some of the most disasterous acquisitions in Australian defence history, so I'm not sure if the Aussies will want to get their feet wet again.
>>
>>25615525
What would they use them for?
>>
>>25615974
>>25615999

They have been using the scraps from older subs to do it. Not really new construction.
>>
File: image.jpg (59KB, 400x489px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
image.jpg
59KB, 400x489px
>>25614211
My god the ka-50 is the sexiest heli chopper ever
>>
Sell to Argentina
Then give all the specs to the British
>>
>>25616408
>Sell to Argentina
So some West African nation can repossess them?
>>
>>25616433

THREE nations that are now happy!
>>
>>25613841
I still think it's hilarious that when this first happened the Russian MoD spokesman said that they didn't want them anyway and that France could keep the 'rust buckets'.. After they spent all that money to build them. It was so incredibly childish that I couldn't stop laughing when it happened.
>>
>>25613841

They're technically fucked. Considering that the largest military surface ship they built in more than ten years is a 130 meters frig that was rid with design, production and quality problems, that the first element of the first ship of the class was laid down nearly ten years ago and it is not delivered to the navy for active use, that the other three are incredibly late as well, and that their Borei submarines use propellers with a thirty years old design, they simplky don't have the know-how to build anything larger these days in any meaninful delay or significant number.

Their only alternative to get anything in an acceptable delay (and yes, with a better quality to what russia can produce) is to buy Amphibious assault ships from China, but it will freeze in hell before the russians can swallow their pride and do so, and i can't even begin to imagine what the chinese would demand in exchange.

As for France, well played, even if they retain the ships they can still bill for the technological transfer (not that russia is in any position to do anything with anytime soon), and everyone remotely serious knows that they were perfectly right to say the russian to go fuck themselves after they tried to bully them by flying strategic bombers near their borders. Don't come and cry like whimpy little bitches when you don't behave like strategic partners. France reputation is still 100% alright, considering their recent deals.
>>
>>25615595
If I were Ukraine I would have kept those nukes.

It's like every country that had nukes at one tome or another has gone to shit once they've given them up.
>South Africa
>Ukraine
>>
>>25614289

>helicopter carrying warships

Those are destroyers it says so right on the label
>>
>>25616109
Australia chose Juan Carlos I over Mistral in the first place. If we wanted a third LHD (Choules is a LPD btw) we would buy Spanish again.
>>
>>25616846
>South Africa
South Africa went to shit because of the fookin prawns, not because they gave up their nukes.
>>
>>25616933
>MNU shill
the prawns dindu nuffin you corporate thug.
>>
>>25613841
>>25613841
>>25613841
Fucking French Indian givers!
>>
>>25613841
As far as i can see the only thing that has really happened is the Russians paid $800 mil for two ships, didn't get them and now France is paying them 1.2 billion in compensation. The Russians get a $400 million overall boost to their Defense budget and the French get ships that have no C4 or air defense systems that are not suitable for any of their current requirements.

Honestly if i were Russia i'd repeat this deal all day erry day, France just gave them $400 mil and shit tons of knowledge about western ship building technology and got nothing in return.
>>
>>25615974
Please list the 24+ nuclear submarines built in 2014, then list the 24+ nuclear submarines built in 2013, then list...
>>
File: 1386109489904.jpg (74KB, 640x480px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1386109489904.jpg
74KB, 640x480px
>>25613841
Canada of course. We had carriers before and we damn well better get them again.
>>
>>25613841
They should be purchased by NATO, the EU, or some other country that might want one (or 2). Canada has been linked to interest in obtaining one.
>>
>>25616433
Wasnt Angola supposed to buy the Spanish or Thai carrier? The French could always sell to them
>>
>>25617032
That's a retarded misrepresentation of the facts.
>>
>>25615974
What a fucking bullshit claim.
>>
This kills French naval industry. No one in NATO will pay for this and no one from third world would want to deal with country that flip flops on $billion shipments due to political pressure
>>
>>25618075
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
>>
>>25618075
Nevermind 2014 was their best export year ever and 2015 will top that by far.
>>
Next time outsource stuff to a neutral state like China, Putin.
>>
>>25613841
your mom
>>
>>25615824

Except the technology was never transferred. It's sitting in a French shipyard.
>>
So many Russaboos bending over backwards on this. A week ago they said this would never happen, now they are saying it's good that it happened.

Hilarious.

The Russians didn't get the tech transfer you shitheads, and they still can't build anything that wasn't designed by the soviets.
>>
>>25614449
Citation needed.
>>
I know /k/ is full of rednecks, but I didn't expect so many to be Westaboos
>>
>>25621178
1/3 of the hull was made in Russia, the blueprints were indeed sent to Russia.
>>
>>25622190
Great, Russians can put steel together...........
>>
Add the C^2 capability from regular french mistrals and make them NATO ships like we do with E-3s
>>
The Bumerang is copied from French tech, The T-14 uses Thales FCS all technologically transferred to Russia because of Mistral deal.

It's served it's purpoise.
>>
>>25613873
>Give
This is not how you spell "sell"
>>
>>25622473
Isn't T-14 supposed to be using the T01-K04 Agat-MR sight?
>>
>>25622473
No tech got transfered to Russia.

Its still floating in france
>>
>>25623151
T-90 also use Thales Catherine
>>
>>25623189
Ok?

How is that relevent to the minstrel?
>>
>>25623151
Baltiysky Zavod made the stern. It was built there because it was part of the technology transfer contract. So some technology was indeed transferred.
>>
>>25623250
They built bulkheads and living arrangements.

Thats hardly what i would call "tech transfer"

Unless the russians really did need to learn how to build proper comparments...then ok
>>
>>25613841
what use would the Russian navy have for them anyway? Russia has about a tenth of the financial resources as the US, so they could never build up a competetive navy.

They should just stick to making subs, and sub escorts for their arctic bastion, anything more is a waste of resources.
>>
>>25614713
I didn't now about this, sauce, please.
>>
>>25613967
It's not a bad idea actually
>>
>>25623622
honestly they probably do
>>
>>25613841

Mistral class ships stand on the wishlist of the german navy.
>>
>>25623932
No they don't.
>>
How come the russians can't built their own LHDs?
>>
"Give them to Polaks"

Well.. what if Russia demands its part of the ship back?

Remember.. The Russians built the hull....
>>
>>25623955

They don't need them...
The deal was signed between Russia and France to save the French shipyard in exchange for plans and machinery and of cause the ships.

From a military point of view the Ruskies have no purpose for the Mistral because they have a defensive doctrine where they don't invade countries like the US and if they operate somewhere it's most likely in the range of their airfields.
>>
>>25624000
But they're gonna build 4 aircraft carriers
>>
>>25624006

Yes that was the deal.

However, they absolutely don't fit into their doctrine and the admiral-staff criticized Serdjukow (former Russian defence minister) for buying them.

Over all Serdjukow is blamed to have done immense damage to the Russian defence capabilities and defence budget.

I see it the way that Ruskies want their cash back instead of the ships.
I mean.. considering they allready got the machinery that came with it the deal and also the blueprints for the Mistral-ships.
>>
>>25623622
Dude, Russians didn't simply start welding metal together and said "ok, this is the stern of Mistral", they needed all the blueprints.
>>
Is it happening?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/28/us-finland-navy-idUSKBN0NJ0Y120150428
>>
>>25624000
>Ruskies have no purpose for the Mistral because they have a defensive doctrine where they don't invade countries like the US

lol. What is Georgia. What is Ukraine.
>>
>>25614110

good thing we got naval engineer here who knows all the things that the refit needs and also the exact cost of said things

Or

>your're just talking out of your ass
>>
>>25624086
>>25614071
>>
>>25613841
Australia
>Use the Mistrals as LHDs
>Gut the two Canberra LHDs under construction, re-fit as real CVLs
>Acquire F-35Bs
We force projection now
>>
>>25621420
It is optimised for Russian helicopters, Russian weapon systems, Russian climate and Russian fuel. Or did you think they'll use CH-53 and Phalanx?
>>25623151
Technology transfer happened during building. 2/5 of the first ship (and 3/5 of the second one, iirc) was built in Russia by Russians thanks to the technology transfer, and later 3rd and 4th ships were/are planned to be 100% Russian built. I suppose you think of "tech transfer" as literally physically shipping it to Russia to that they could back engineer something in some Slavoslavsk? Well, too bad, you are wrong.
>>25623955
The concept was long time alien to Soviet naval military doctrine, along with "pure" aircraft carriers. As their naval doctrine changed they have begun to develop a project similar to American Tarawa class, but never had a chance to finish it due to the dissolution of the USSR, same as their first "pure" aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk.
>>25624000
However Russia does need to renowate its amphibious fleet, as it is desperately aging, as their own Ivan Gren class ships are built in a very slow pace.
>>
>>25624086
>good thing we got naval engineer here who
...can determine if refitting a ship fully optimised for one military for a completely different one is a "minor detail" on the first place.
>>
>>25624000
>they have no need of them, they just went through all the trouble of ordering them as a joke

Vatniks are hilarious
>>
File: kherson.gif (66KB, 600x500px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
kherson.gif
66KB, 600x500px
>>25624167
>they have begun to develop a project similar to American Tarawa class
Here's a bit information on it. Technically they could revive it and don't bother buying Mistrals at all, but i imagine it is pretty obsolete as of now and needs to be reworked from scratch to fit modern military needs.
>>
>>25624191
They were ordered as attempt to revive the naval industry. Russia isn't in desperate needs of these ships at all.
>>
>>25624191
Troubles only began later though. Ordering and building them went fairly smooth. Regardless of how much do Russians need these ships, they got some technology out of it and now will either get the ships, or their money back to spend it on a couple more tasty 22350 frigates. It's a win-win.
>>
File: Georgia 2008.jpg (82KB, 604x453px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Georgia 2008.jpg
82KB, 604x453px
>>25613891
Why would they be assmad at getting free stuff?
>>
>>25624214
>Russia isn't in desperate needs of these ships at all.
It somewhat is. Their active amphibious fleet is in horrible condition and all the shipyards of appropriate capabilities are too busy.
>>
Wasn't the main benefit of this deal that France would give Russia a bunch of naval tech and co-develop the ship in a Russian naval yard? So they've basically given the Russians a bunch of military technology and expertise and are now going to hand them over cash as well?

Who's doing the fucking here?
>>
>>25624072
they invade neighbouring countries, which means the only use they would have for the Mistral would be taking the Scandinavian countries. Every other neigbouring country with a coastline are also a tankers dream.

Perhaps with the exception of some jap islands.
>>
>>25613873
>Ukranian navy
>wich port? Crimea?
>>
>>25624072
>What is Georgia
A war started by Georgia, as EU stated. It's funny though how internet warriors keep bringing it up as something Russia did escalate.
>What is Ukraine
A civil war. Inb4 muh 4,5 tanks, muh 1,5 BTRs. Get a life. Crimea, however, was a perfect example of what Russia could do a bit more efficiently with Mistrals, not having to transport dozens of helicopters throughout its bases on the peninsula by air, which resulted in a number of pretty damasking "Ruskies art cometh" Hellmarch youtube videos.
>>
>>25624412
They have some small naval bases in Odessa and Ochakov, iirc. Not that it means anything though.
>>
>>25623991
The Russians gave up all rights to the ships.
>>
>>25624255
France will also have to pay plus 300 million euros in compensation for other expenses and breach of contract. It's a win-win for Russia.
>>
>>25613841
Russian here.
> Also, too bad for Russia.
Whole deal was a brainchild of former Minister of Defence and was heavily criticized from the start as expensive and unnecessary. Local shipbuilding industry was furious about this decision because they didn't get the contract themselves.
Former MoD was famous for fishy procurements of foreign military equipment. Kickback from Frenchs and corruption were suggested, some of his subordinates now is under invesigation (on unrelated charges).
> What do they do now?
Get money back and bail out from deal. Our United Shipbuilding Corporation (UFC) would be happy as no such deals is possible in the foreseeable future.
>>
>>25624468
>A war started by Georgia, as EU stated.

EU states that Georgia started a conflict with Ossetia, then Russia attacked. So yes the Russia did escalate it.
>>
>>25625802

The Georgian artillery shelling of Ossetia killed Russian peacekeeping soldiers, any country in their position would have escalated.
>>
>>25624072

Georgia and Ukraine are both in the range of Russias airbases...
They don't need an aircraft carrier.

Also Russia was legaly obliged to intervene in Georgia because Georgians began to slaughter UN-Soldiers.

And Ukraine.. Well.. I haven't seen convincing official evidence of the Ruskies army acting in Ukraine...
How it looks if the Ruskies intervene you could see in Georgia... Trained and equipped by the US for years and screwed over in 2 days and 3 more days to wipe up the rest.
>>
>>25623955
They lack the ability to build large warships.
>>
>>25624214
They were ordered because the Russians have no ability to build large warships.
>>
>>25626127
hello mr vatnik
>>
File: I'm cia.jpg (49KB, 690x720px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
I'm cia.jpg
49KB, 690x720px
>>25626676
>Implying anything he said was wrong.
Nice try CIA.
>>
File: 21900 moskva.jpg (201KB, 1800x1200px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
21900 moskva.jpg
201KB, 1800x1200px
>>25626484
What does specifically distinguish *war*ships in this case?
>>
>>25627012
Construction to warship standards. Warships and commercial vessels have different features.

There is a reason that the largest surface combatant the Russians have built in 30 years is a Frigate.
>>
>>25617036
That guy might have been exaggerating but only a little.
From checking Wikipedia:
It looks like this is the current list of subs under construction:
7x kilo class
3x borei class
4x yasen class
2x oscar class

So they're current building at least 16 subs. 9 of which are nuclear.
>>
>>25627403
Per year?
Can you read?
>>
>>25620835
They had to transfer most of the tech so that Russians could build their half. And not long after the original decision to delay the delivery, there was a conspicuous data theft that covered the rest.
>>
>>25627460
>They had to transfer most of the tech so that Russians could build their half.
Yeah? What Tech was transferred.
>>
>>25627483
All of it
>>
>>25627505
Yeah? Examples?
>>
>>25627403
>3x borei class
2 started in 2014, 1 started in 2012.

>4x yasen class
1 started in 2015, 1 started in 2014, 1 started in 2013, 1 started in 2009.

So no, not 24+ every year. 1-2 every year. I can't even believe you'd dare post this:

>2x oscar class
Which have been "under construction" since 1994!
>>
>>25627427
Sorry, It doesn't have completion rates and like I said, he was exaggerating. But there is no doubt the Russia is building a fuckton of subs. More than anyone else by a large margin.
>>
>>25627514
The deal included transfer of the full designs so that Russia could build two follow on cruisers.
>>
Transfer them over to Nato and use them for Disaster relief.
>>
>>25627544
Even though the kilo and lada submarines are not nuclear, they're really the biggest threat to NATO. A kilo class can sink an aircraft carrier at a very favorable cost benefit ratio. Something like $200 m for the sub whereas the carrier costs close to $13 B, and that isn't even counting the planes that will be lost with it.
>>
>>25627545
>More than anyone else by a large margin.
1 or 2 per year.
Are you sure about that?

Because the US is currently putting the same number of Virginias in the water.
So are you sure that the Russians are building more than anyone else "By a large Margin" or would you like to admit that you are wrong?
>>
>>25627664
At the same time, the Kilo has a limited operational area, limited endurance, and the US CSG has to basically run over the Kilo to get killed.

War is not a rock paper scissors affair.
>>
>>25627392
The reason is the desperate lack of funding and R&D for large warships to build. Russian part of Mistral hulls were built at the same shipyard as that icebreaker, and as far as i know this shipyard is capable of building ships of up to 100000 tons displacement.
>>25627403
>2x oscar class
You what? Post proofs.
>>
>>25627698
Russia has 9 attack class submarines under construction 7 kilos and 2 ladas. So they're currently building 18 subs about 2-3x as many subs as the US.
>>
>>25614107
>This is /pol/ idiocy.
Whoa there, not even /pol/ is as fucking dumb as /k/.
>>
>>25627770
Keep fucking try to move those goal posts when the original claim was about nuclear submarines.
>>
>>25627725
It isn't hard to figure out where a carrier group is and scoot a kilo from the sub base to the carrier.
>>
>>25627749
>The reason is the desperate lack of funding and R&D for large warships to build.
They have plenty of funding. They have no capacity for large surface combatants.
No ships larger than a frigate.

>You what? Post proofs.
I think hes talking about the refits for Tver and Orel
>>
>>25627797
I'm not defending the original claim. I said it was an exaggeration. What *i* said was a "fuckton of subs"
>>
>>25627770
>2 ladas.
Under construction since 2005, top lel.
>>
>>25627817
>I'm not defending the original claim. I said it was an exaggeration.
>That guy might have been exaggerating but only a little.
>only a little

And even when you start talking about diesel submarines you STILL refuse to talk in terms of per year.
>>
>>25627836
They halted construction after they found problems in the test model, then they resumed it after they fixed the problem. That is the sign of a healthy development process driven by engineering over politics.
>>
>>25627802
>It isn't hard to figure out where a carrier group is and scoot a kilo from the sub base to the carrier.
Ok, how fast do you think that sub moves at vs how fast the CSG moves?

>>25627770
And still only one or two go into the water per year.
Thats not more than the US, that just means the Russians are slower to build subs than the US.
>>
>>25627793
You talking about the /pol/ that thinks nuclear weapons brought down the WTC and that the US never landed on the moon?
>>
>>25627858
It looks like Russia had 5 kilos commissioned in 2014, 3 slated for 2015 and 3 slated for 2016. So US is doing 1-2 subs per year and Russia is doing 4-7
>>
>>25627817
>What *i* said was a "fuckton of subs"
And you are wrong.
They launch at max 2 per year after it takes 5 years of construction to finish one.

Not to mention that the Russians are using hull sections from older subs to pump them out as quick as possible and they STILL can only match the pace of the US pushing them out brand new from start to finish.
>>
>>25627892
>It looks like Russia had 5 kilos commissioned in 2014
And the argument shifts again, from building to commissioning. But fine. How many in 2013? Zero. How many in 2012? Zero. How many in 2011? Zero. How many in 2010? Zero.
>>
>>25627811
They do have sufficient funding now and thereby are renovating at least one Kirov class battlecruiser, developing a new destroyer and though i doubt it possibly even an aircraft carrier. Before that they desperately lack money. If you want proofs, look at the story of "50 Let Pobedy" nuclear icebreaker built by yet the same shipyard: they laid it down in '89, put it on hold in '94 and only resumed its construction in '04.
>>
>>25627874
>Ok, how fast do you think that sub moves at vs how fast the CSG moves?

A carrier's job is to sit around and bomb shit. They're basically a stationary target. If they're having to flee kilos, they've been operationally neutralized.
>>
>>25627892
>It looks like Russia had 5 kilos commissioned in 2014
What?
I only see B-261 and B-237 being commissioned in 2014. Where do you see the others?
>>
>>25627938
>They're basically a stationary target.
Never ever post again.
>>
>>25627936
I'm pretty sure I used the present tense, not the past tense.
>>
>>25627938
>A carrier's job is to sit around and bomb shit. They're basically a stationary target. If they're having to flee kilos, they've been operationally neutralized.

Are you serious?
>>
>>25627955
>I used the present tense
Fine. How many Kilos is Russia building in 2015? In 2016?
>>
>>25627968
I already said. Check the log.
>>
>>25627989
Where do you see 5 Kilos commissioned in 2014? I only see B-261 and B-237
>>
>>25627989
No actually you tried to shift the argument AGAIN to commissioned per year. How many Kilos are going to be laid down in 2015?
>>
>>25627948
3 for Vietnam.

Hq-182, hq-183, hq-184
>>
>>25628017
Oh. So someone else was paying for it. Gotcha.
>>
>>25628032
They still built em. Hard to see how having a popular sub design and a busy shipyard is a bad thing
>>
>>25628044
It's not.
But when you are talking about the ability of a shipyard to produce subs, it makes it easier if someone else is paying the bills, does it not?
>>
>>25627958
>>25627952
>are you serious?
Yes
>>
>>25628066
Ok, so you have no idea what you are talking about.
>>
>>25628053
If we're talking about the production capabilities of the russian sea yards it is somewhat irrelevant.

Of course the US has more money than Russia, no need to argue over a statement like that. It is obvious.
>>
>>25628071
Or you don't.

It is definitely one of those two options.
>>
>>25628097
TOP FUCKING LEL. You switch the argument from nuclear to diesel subs and then you get declare someone else's statement "irrelevant"?
>>
>>25628097
So because the US has an advantage in a key area of production (money) its irrelevant?
Why?

Doesn't the cost of something factor in to its production?
>>
>>25628106
I'm sorry, if you want to have the other argument, you'll have to wait for the other guy.
>>
>>25628105
Well lets see. How fast is a carrier along its PIM while undertaking air operations?
>>
>>25628123
You are arguing that the current production of submarines by the Russians is more than the US, but you don't think that the costs of production are relevant?
>>
>>25628132
Costs are relevant, but not who is paying. Cost is a good measure of the efficiency of the industry and the design.
>>
>>25628170
>but not who is paying.
Why is that?
>>
>>25628170
>but not who is paying.
Why? Without those external contracts, then those boats would not have been built. They were not built for the Russian Navy, and thus are irrelevant.
>>
>>25628194
>>25628210
If we're not talking about their construction capability, then it doesn't make sense to look at construction at all.

Whether a particular country is building subs, depends on how many they need. The Russians have a large effective fleet already, but they can maintain and expand their capacity and naval production infrastructure by filling orders for other navies.
>>
>>25628126
Were you going to make a point?
>>
>>25628261
>construction capability
Yes but for some reason you don't think that funding is a part of construction capacity.
>>
>>25628349
Yes, I was asking to see if you knew what you were talking about.
>>
>>25628370
I'm not going to play games. If you have a point, make it.
>>
>>25628355
Whether the US or Russia has more money just seems a daft topic to discuss.
>>
>>25628473
I have made it. You can't answer. You do not know how CSGs move while conducting air operations.
>>
>>25628497
We are talking about the capability of the Russians to construct submarines vs the capability of the US to do the same.

Funding of building programs is a crucial part of construction tempo.

The Russians received external sources that inflated the number of building programs they are capable of undertaking.
>>
>>25628523
You don't know either, apparently. You have to make a statement to demonstrate knowledge.
>>
>>25628549
You can call those "inflated" numbers, I call it effective management of their naval construction resources.
>>
>>25628582
>You can call those "inflated" numbers, I call it effective management of their naval construction resources.

So it does not accurately reflect the construction capacity of the Russian navy.
>>
>>25628567
I am probing your knowledge.
What knowledge do you have of carrier operations that leads you to believe that carriers do not move while conducting them?
>>
>>25628593
Russia builds more subs per year. 2-3 times as many. You can complain that that isn't a fair comparison because Russia's subs are in high demand around the world, but my original statement that Russia builds more subs by a large margin holds.
>>
>>25628611
Your yoda games are boring. You obviously don't have anything intelligent to say.
>>
>>25628635
>but my original statement that Russia builds more subs by a large margin holds.
As long as the rest of the world pays for them.
>>
>>25628635
You also ignore that some of the Russian subs use cannibalized hull sections from older Russian subs, shortening construction time.
>>
>>25628702
You're complaining that Russia builds new subs efficiently? That hardly seems like a bad thing.
>>
>>25628718
They aren't. They are using junk parts from old subs. If you call that quality, I don't know what to tell you.
>>
>>25626127
>Georgians began to slaughter UN-Soldiers.

the fuck are you even talking about?

>and Ukraine.. Well.. I haven't seen convincing official evidence of the Ruskies army acting in Ukraine...

ah, ok. You must be new to /k/ and have *zero* knowledge of weapons systems or how Russia has opperated historically in places like Transnistria, Abkhazia, and S. Ossetia. Got it.
>>
>>25628739
A hull is a hull.

The irony is that Russia is sounding more capitalist than the US.
Russia:
>marketing popular designs
>cutting costs
>profiting handsomely

US
>government financed construction
>completely ignoring cost efficiency
>no profits
>>
>>25628832
The US does is not in the business of selling submarines. They don't need the money, unlike Russian shipyards who are stuck begging for contracts from Vietnam to stay afloat.
>>
>>25628832
> A hull is a hull.
That must be why the Russian Navy rejected the Lada Class sub they built.
>>
>>25621850
What a fucking retarded post. The overwhelming majority of /k/ is American. You feel good about having a thought so stupid?
>>
>>25623955
They no longer have the proper facilities or a properly trained labor force to do so.

It's literally that simple.
>>
>>25626127
This Pantsir-S1 photographed in Ukraine in January says that you're an idiot. You think Russia would hand over this piece of gear to a bunch of knucklehead "rebels"? Either they are that stupid and did that, in which case they're actively supplying the "rebels" with sophistcated new military tech- or the russian soldiers are swapping their russian flags for "DNR" flags and going on "holiday". I'll let you guess which is more likely....
>>
>>25628913
But that's bullcrap. Russian Navy never operated LHDs as a class to begin with, hence nowadays they lack any proper R&D history to develop one on their own.
>>
>>25626127
>I haven't seen convincing official evidence of the Ruskies army acting in Ukraine
Putin admitting to have invaded is apparently no longer enough proof for vatniks
>>
>>25626127
>small force that goes to Iraq is trained by NATO for COIN
>vatnik shits like yourself think you 'beat' anything
>still denying any russian involvement in Ukraine

Stage 1
>>
>>25614174
>>25614152

Is the F35B and LHDs the future of carrier warfare? Australians bought from Spain, the Nips are building two different classes. God knows who else will buy them in future.
>>
>>25628920
Or the photo isn't actually from Ukraine.
>>
>>25631943
Bullshit, it never snows in Russia! only in Ukraine!
>>
File: T-72 differences.jpg (115KB, 700x794px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
T-72 differences.jpg
115KB, 700x794px
>>25631943
>>25632438
Tell me more about all the T-72B3s that Ukraine has.
>>
>>25626127
>And Ukraine.. Well.. I haven't seen convincing official evidence of the Ruskies army acting in Ukraine...
>>
>>25632589
>Cannot into logic

What doth the T-72B3 have to do with the Pantsir?
>>
>>25632589
You're aware any country can buy a Sosna-U and install it on their tank, right?
>>
File: vizzini.jpg (27KB, 377x377px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
vizzini.jpg
27KB, 377x377px
>>25632682
>>
>>25632682
>>25632722
Funny, yet only the T-72B3 has them, and it's only in Russian service.

Stage 1 vatniks.
>>
File: russian_tanks.jpg (121KB, 585x548px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
russian_tanks.jpg
121KB, 585x548px
>>25632940
>only in Russian service
And novorussian service. Selling arms to rebels is just good capitalism. Completely legit.
>>
File: FSB Plant Ukraine.jpg (574KB, 1000x2400px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
FSB Plant Ukraine.jpg
574KB, 1000x2400px
>>25632982
>>
>>25616447
Nobody outside the west is going to buy those. South or Central America, East Asia, Central Asia, Africa/Middle East. France showed that the only people they'll sell to are western countries and if you aren't a western country they won't hesitate to fuck you over and take your money.

This is perfectly fine for the other western countries who don't have this reputation and no doubt encouraged France to shoot themselves in the foot.
>>
File: ukies_no_batteries.jpg (161KB, 604x880px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
ukies_no_batteries.jpg
161KB, 604x880px
>>25633010
Completely.
Legit.
>>
>>25624255
From what I understand, France got one of their shipyards bailed-out by the deal.

So it was basically:
>Russia buys Mistrals
>French Shipyard gets part of the contract, keeps shipyard from going bankrupt
>Russians get western technology
>French build/design to commercial standards so as not to give any technology
>Then Ukraine
>France decides to cut the contract and keep the ships
>But will pay a 1.2b settlement for it
>Russia gets +$400m, whatever tech
>France saves their shipyard, loses $400m, and further damage their reputation in the arms dealing market

Did Russia plant spies in the French government or something?
>>
>>25628132
>You are arguing that the current production of submarines by the Russians is more than the US
Which it is.
>>
File: 1426969371781.jpg (164KB, 633x852px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1426969371781.jpg
164KB, 633x852px
>>25633147
Completely.
>>
>>25628667
>accuses other person of moving goalpost
>literally every other post made is moving goalpost
>>
File: putin_buddist.jpg (89KB, 620x372px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
putin_buddist.jpg
89KB, 620x372px
>>25633205
>That's why Jews and communists support Putin
And Buddhists. Putin has the Buddhist vote all locked up.
>>
>>25633154
There is an error in your logic. While France could still deliver the ships it would result in a much larger backlash.
Keep in mind that the contact was cancelled in the wake of EU sanctions, so everyone knows that france wanted to deliver, but the rest of EU told them not to.
Thread posts: 310
Thread images: 40


[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Top | Home]
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5
If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.