Mistral ships won’t be delivered to Russia Nov. 14 – French Defense Minister

a reply to: peck420

We are standing right in between Russia and USA.



Anything more for our military would be an improvement. Or else, in the event of an attack, USA might be tempted to "extend its military protection" to us... But with a catch: make Canada an extension of the american political system.

a reply to: swanne

Canada is too important for North American defense. They take a lot of stress off the USAF, and perform first line interceptions of aircraft from Russia, depending on the route they take down the ADIZ.

a reply to: swanne
And...buying ships that we do not have enough manpower to staff, equipment to equip with, and a lack of ability in our northern waters protects us from Russia how?

There is a couple of other things Canada desperately needs before we even consider assault ships.

a reply to: Zaphod58

These aren't just warships though, right? Multi-purpose?

a reply to: Zaphod58
Be honest, how much better would the US feel if Canada bought these Mistrals...vs, a couple of armed ice breakers, or an operational airfield in the far north?

a reply to: peck420

Dude. Our NEWEST naval vessel is a 10 yo sub. Most of the rest are getting to be 30 yo:

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: intrepid

Yeah, they can carry two LCAC, and up to 59 vehicles, or 40 MBTs, and up to 900 troops for a short duration cruise. They can carry 16 heavy helicopters, such as the CH-53, or as many as 35 light helicopters. So these will have a lot of use for humanitarian aid, or other missions besides just assault ships.

a reply to: intrepid
So what?

If I need a truck, it doesn't really matter what is going on in the car market. I NEED the truck.

We operate our military on a shoe string budget, we must, by necessity, buy based on need, not on want.

We need supply ships.
We need ice breakers.
We need new frigates.
We need new subs.
We need new coastal patrol ships.

We do not NEED an amphibious assault ship.

a reply to: peck420

There wouldn't be a need for a fixed airfield with a Mistral. They're long enough that an F-35B would have no problem flying off them, with minor deck modifications to the coating. That would give them much more flexibility, especially with KC-135s out of Alaska to support them if they needed.

a reply to: intrepid

Nah,they will make the USA pay for the penalties and us the taxpayers will have to eat this one too.Better to let Russia have the damn ships.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Call me when the proposed airfield comes even remotely close to $600 million (approx cost of 1 Mistral), let alone the $1.6 billion.

Or when our already trying to figure out how to afford A's government, can come up with the extra money for B's.

All so that we can buy equipment we don't need.

Yeah, I would not sell weapons to anyone flying bombers toward my territory either. Putin can go to well you know where he can go. Can't wait to see the 2nd collapse of the Soviet Empire.

a reply to: swanne
Dude I'd be ok with my great grand children paying for Canada some new Naval vessels now. I am serious. Put it on the US debt, enhance them with the latest stuff and buy em for Canada and help out the French too. Would go a lot further than the money we waste on fighting ISIS and helping the loser Iraqis or Afghans. How bout we help our friends instead of waste time in middle east.

We can always print more dollars.

originally posted by: peck420
I pray that Canada does not buy them.

I am sure they are fantastic ships for their purpose, but they are not ships that Canada needs now.

We have glaring deficiencies throughout our military, and assault ships are now where even close to the top of the list.

Well I hear our Cops are trying to get rid of some military hardware. Maybe you should inquire with the DOD. They got more than they can handle evidently.

a reply to: peck420

How much do you think a paved airfield, in a NON remote area is going to cost? You SERIOUSLY think that it's going to stay under $600M? SERIOUSLY?

Saint Louis built a 9,000 x 150 foot runway that cost $1.1 BILLION dollars. For an already established airport, in an area with great logistics, and easy access. How much more do you think it would cost to build one in the far north, where they have to fly everything in? In Atlanta, it cost $350M just to level the ground for their new runway that was completed in 2006. And that's long before you build hangers, control tower, taxiways, and all the support equipment required for operations.

a reply to: Zaphod58
I highly doubt the airfield up north is going to require $500 million in land acquisition, building removal, and person displacement fees.

Or the $100 million in geotech soil management.

Or the $50 million in structural reinforcement prior to laying the runways.

As for control tower, a far bigger tower was recently completed in Edmonton...for $70 million...including the office portion...and the retail portion...and the tie in to the existing building, etc. I wonder if all those curved glass and panel clad buildings could cost as much as a simple hanger...nah.

a reply to: peck420

You're going to have to build multiple hangars to house the aircraft, and if they're F-35s they have to be environmentally controlled hangars for the skin, with specialized equipment for maintenance, that's going to be a couple hundred million right there (a single F-35 maintenance hangar built in South Carolina, was contracted out at $34.4M, and you're going to need at least 3-4 of them minimum). You are going to have to reinforce the runway to handle larger aircraft like the C-17, so you can fly maintenance and support equipment in, as well as parts and vehicles. That's going to be another few hundred million right there, minimum, since you'll probably have to build two runways, at least 9,000 feet long, to handle them. Add in the cost of the tower, let's say $50M, and you're already looking at AT LEAST 3/4ths the cost of a Mistral if not more. That's BEFORE you add the support buildings, such as engine shops, fuel cell, hush house, etc. Even at the low end, before you add the good stuff, such as generators for power, lights, and basics, you're going to be near the $1B mark. Add in costs to fly the materials, and equipment up there, plus living quarters for the construction crew, and you're going to be well over the $1B mark.

a reply to: crazyewok

There are various forms of terrorizing. Some could ask, who is terrorizing whom? And for how long?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Beaufort houses 7 F-35 B's at a time, more than what Canada would even have up there, and hell...we'll call it $40 million.

90,000+ sq ft control tower with offices and retail...why not? $70 million.

Runways...sure, we'll pretend that we aren't pouring onto solid rock x 2...$300 million.

Power generation...we'll go stupid, well model after a 49 MW hydro project in BC (2006)...$125 million.

Running total: $535 million

How does that compare to the Mistral? Well...$1.6 billion / 2 = $800 million.

You have $265 million for auxilliary buildings and transportation costs.

Not to mention that the purchase price of the Mistral does not include operational costs, nor does it even start to address the fact that we would only have 'air support' during the summer...and if the US was so inclined to loan us some in air fueling along the way...

a reply to: peck420

So you're going to build an entire airfield, to house what, 2-4 aircraft? Even if you're only going to have 4 aircraft up there, that's at least two hangars, so closer to $70M. It doesn't matter how many aircraft Beaufort holds. I clearly said, ONE hangar there was contracted at $34.4M. That's in an area with infrastructure already built, low transportation costs, etc.

You're going to go way over $625M for construction when you add in transportation. Truck drivers alone are going to run several hundred million, construction crews another few hundred, flight costs for moving everything in up there, $3-400M.

Even if we seriously lowball it, it's 3/4ths the cost of two Mistral class ships, for an airfield that isn't usable at least half the year. A Mistral gives you an airfield that moves, is usable the entire year, and gives you more flexibility for other missions than a specially built airfield, to house almost no aircraft.

As for air refueling, you don't need it, as the deck length of the Mistral is long enough that you can launch an F-35B at a little under MTOW. It requires 770 feet on a flat deck carrier to take off at MTOW. A Mistral deck is 653 feet long, with a ski-jump deck that will allow for more weight on take off.