They want a quicker re-armament and modernization than their home grown defence industry can provide so their forced to go elsewhere. They recently put in a $1.5bn order for Sukhoi fighters too, so they will obviously buy Russian if they can. Seem's like they can't here.
Oil slick, nah we don't need a 1st tier navy, the Army can do all that can't it heaven forbid we look to and prepare for the future...
Apparently so lol Those are, however wildly disparate industries, and they havn't sold many ships to other states, but their aerospace industry has been doing fairly well selling aircraft. As you pointed out anyway, they were never the best at designing suface ships, and because of the conscipt nature of the sailors, most systems on their ships used to have built in redundancies, and could only cruise for short periods of time - as few crew on board could effect decent long running repairs. If they want to modernize then they can't do that anymore, which means they need to alter their entire modus operandi for the surface fleet. SSN's not so much, they have pretty good designs as their best went to the sub fleet as we know. More than even us or the Americans the Russians are still trying to get rid of their Cold War makeup - so far only their airborne brigades have managed it, looks like the Navy is next on the list.
I think most of the biggest Soviet-era shipyards were located in Ukraine and the baltic States, correct me if I'm wrong. The Russian shipbuilding industry also lost a lot of skilled staff & human capital to more lucrative civilian industries in the 90s. Look at the problems they've had refitting the Admiral Gorshkov for the Indians over the past few years, it doesn't bode well for their naval building capability...
Over at ConHome, Tim Montgomerie debates Will Inbodenâs review of the main themes of the Tories foreign policy. I urge CoffeeHousers to read both articles, but the section on the relationship between energy and defence struck me particularly, recalling Liam Foxâs 2006 Chatham House speech on the subject. Hereâs the premise of Foxâs argument:
âWe are all competing for the same natural resources to feed the economic system. The potential for terrorists or even nation states to interrupt this supply to cause widespread â rather than just local â disruption increases enormously.â
Fox pointed out that global energy competition requirements had evolved beyond Britainâs defence strategies and capabilities. Nowhere was this clearer than in our reliance on gas. The Institute for Civil Engineers estimated that 80 per cent of energy shortfall caused by increased competition for oil would be replaced by gas, 90 per cent of which will be imported through a pipeline from the continent. The problem is that Britain can only store 11 days worth of energy in case of emergency, whilst capacity is set to improve Britain would, according to Fox, âlag behind many of our European neighbours, which makes us all the more vulnerable to volatility in gas deliveriesâ.
This positionâs shortcomings were evidenced last winter when Russia turned the tap off. As Fox argued, a European defence initiative, free from EU interference and armed with a nuclear deterrent, would limit threats posed by nation states. But the upshot is that Britainâs energy needs must become more self-sufficient. Our geography is such that, unless we carpet this green and pleasant land with giant satanic mills, renewable energy will be insufficient, leaving us to rely on biofuel and nuclear materials imported via shipping lanes that will become the playground of wannabe Blackbeards. Terrorism/piracy off the Horn of Africa could be exported to Suez, Panama, the Gulf of Guinea and the South China Sea. If we are to protect the energy that drives economic prosperity then, even during the coming era of cuts, it is vital that the Royal Navy receives the resources to command the sea.
I can't help but feel that in 20 years' time the first decade of the 21st Century, and the obsession with Islamic fundamentalism / jihadi terrorists will look like a diplomatic and strategic blind alley that has done the West no good whatsoever, but cost us a lot of lives and treasure which would have been better used confronting the real strategic concerns we face: competition for increasingly scarce natural resources, the decline of the West relative to the Eastern powers, and the impact climate change will have on the world we live in.
Andy, in theory it is possible to construct and build such a vessel. But it requires time, investments. As a result home made ship would be more expensive.
Our French friends have something to sell. Why mot to buy if it eventually would save money? Being equipped by Russian made helicopters, the ship would be very usefull in the Black sea region.
Current DF, mr.Serdyukov is not a military man at all. Fat former furniture trader and son-in-Law of Putin's close friend (former PM mr.Zubkov), he looks first of all on the economic side of any investments into military hardware.
Andy, there other causes. First of all, it is ineffective Russian shipbuilding industry. I recall that last year mr.Putin asked buisnessmen - why it is less expensive to order to build ships in S.Korea? Why do Russian shipyards work so slowly? Also, the French could be stimulated to buy Russian made equipment, helicopters for example. Why not?
If you wish to sell, then first buy something from your potential client.I suppose that two contracts would go in parallel.