Yeah, Good Luck With That.

France, as was anticipated, started to complain and take "actions". 

French shipbuilder Naval Group has said it will send a “detailed and calculated proposal” to Australia after Canberra canned a $40 billion submarine deal in favor of a new pact with the US and UK, much to France’s dismay. On Wednesday, Naval Group CEO Pierre Eric Pommellet told France’s Le Figaro newspaper that Australia would be receiving a bill for the submarine contract which was cancelled last week. Pommellet said a “detailed and calculated proposal” would be sent to Canberra in the next “few weeks” which sets out the money it expects Australia to cough up for cancelling the 2016 deal. The shipbuilder chief said that such an eventuality had been planned for by the French firm.The bill will supposedly cover costs already incurred as well as those to come, with some “linked to demobilization of infrastructure and IT as well as the redeployment of employees,” he said, adding that the company will assert its rights.

Any chance of me getting on the French legal team which will be dealing with this issue? I expect a financial bonanza for lawyers in this matter. But, on the other hand, one has to keep in mind that at this level, same as was with hapless Mistrals' deal (awarded to France by Russia for "mediation" after Russian-Georgian War of 080808), geopolitics and operational realities play as large, if not larger, role as financial considerations, however important $40 billion are. As I continue to stress for the last week: we still don't have all facts on our hands in terms of American-Australian intentions and I want to underscore--we are merely speculating for now. If lease comes through, things will become much clearer. Some are even suggesting the possibility of US converted Ohio-class SSGNs leased out to Australia. I doubt it, but I could be wrong. Obviously with a single Ohio-class SSGN packing 154 TLAMs this is a concern for China. But then again--I stress it--for now it is mostly a speculation. 

 

I personally lean towards SSNs on SLOCs, but we just have to wait and see. As for French grievances, well, what can I say--geopolitical weight of players is too different, not in France's favor, for France to have any reasonable chances on substantial compensation, not to speak of a wounded national pride. Thanks to Larch for pointing this out. 

HELSINKI, Finland (AP) — The top U.S. military officer met with his Russian counterpart Wednesday, against the backdrop of U.S. struggles to get military basing rights and other counterterrorism support in countries bordering Afghanistan — a move Moscow has flatly opposed. The meeting in the Finnish capital, Helsinki, between Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Chief of the Russian General Staff Gen. Valery Gerasimov comes at a crucial time in the wake of the military withdrawal from Afghanistan. Without troops on the ground, the U.S. needs to forge more basing, intelligence sharing and other agreements to help monitor al-Qaida and Islamic State militants in Afghanistan to ensure they are not regrouping and posing a threat to America and its allies. Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, said in July, however, that Moscow warned the U.S. that any deployment of American troops in countries neighboring Afghanistan “is unacceptable.” He said Russia told the U.S. “in a direct and straightforward way that it would change a lot of things not only in our perceptions of what’s going on in that important region, but also in our relations with the United States.”

As I am on record for years--I feel better when Russian and American militaries speak to each-other. Russia, obviously, is not going to allow US troops to be stationed in all those Stans, but I want to stress another tremendously important point: there IS a very real threat of Jihad and terrorism which should not be discounted against the background of the US escape from Afghanistan. We can only speculate (yet again) on a complexity of this issue, but it is an established fact that exchange between Russia and US regarding these matters exists and it is steady. Well, the United States can only blame itself for this development, with special thanks to Zbig, who due to him being a rather fanatical Russophobe and a pseudo-scholar thought that the United States can manage Political Islam it helped to create and fund. We all know how American political "science" works in real life, ask Fukuyama, late Huntington or present day Mearsheimer who got lost completely in their ignorance of the outside world.  But then again, it is a defining feature of American "academe" and elites. The proof, as it is known, is in the pudding, or as Hegel stated--practice is the criterion of the truth. Those who are not brainwashed are well aware of this truth.    

In related news, Russia continues to build and launch those pesky missile corvettes capable of carrying anything from 3M14M and 3M54M to Zircon, like there is no tomorrow. The latest one, two days ago was launched in Kerch, at Zaliv wharf. 

This one is named Askold after the famous Russian cruiser of Russo-Japanese war and of Gallipoli fame. It (she) still has to have navalized Pantsir and other systems installed. Can you imagine a ceremony at Zaliv when first project 23900 LHD will be launched? I hope to live to see this. I am sure HIMSELF will be present for this occasion. I am also in a desperate anticipation of Admiral Nakhimov getting more publicity and getting ready for sea trials in 2023. I cannot recognize this world anymore. The changes in the last 5 years are stunning and historic in scale and scope.

Real Friday's Akulas.

And I mean the way they were and are known, not some Typhoon (after the missile complex) moniker. Project 941 Strategic Missile Submarines, Akula. I post here some photos which convey better than anything I ever saw the mammoth size of those beasts. First is pretty much generic view of those subs near pier.

   

Now to how people look in comparison:

#1

 and 

             

#2

The question is, even considering the fact that those are very expensive ships to maintain, and plans exist to scrap two out of remaining three, what is going to happen, if somebody among the powers that be decides that it is too early to scrap those beasts? Yes, I am aware that they are not as silent as their younger heirs but Dmitry Donskoi, which underwent a refit as a Bulava SLBM test platform, is still around and doing well. And there were calls from some quarters (in Russian) to retain remaining boats Archangelsk and Severstal' for, and you may have guessed it already, not SLBMs but as Kalibr (and possibly Zircon) carriers. After modernization, of course. You know what is approximate number of cruise (land-attack, anti-shipping and anti-submarine) missiles such a boat can carry? In accordance to Alexandr Mozgovoy, one of the most competent observers of Russian Navy, the number is 396, yes, you are not mistaken three hundred ninety six cruise missiles. This is a devastating fire power and, yes, let's face it, a submerged and very Russified version of a US Navy's good ol' idea of Arsenal Ships.  

Of course, one may (justifiably, I may say) raise the issue of first four Ohio-class SSBNs converted to SSGNs but the similarity between the two will be very superficial. To start with, the idea of Arsenal ship hasn't been born in a vacuum, Soviet Navy's Project 1144 (Kirov-class) nuclear battle cruiser can easily claim the fatherhood of arsenal ships concept since were conceived as...well, arsenal ships, albeit for a Sea Denial mission. But much more is important, when comparing 154 Tomahawks, carried by Ohio-class SSGNs and any Russian Navy's concept or actual sub is the fact that all modern Russian subs carry or will carry large quantities of extremely capable anti-shipping missiles--this is full blown Sea Denial mission, which in layman's lingo means sinking enemy's ships and subs. If sinking is done by current 660 kilometer (350 nautical miles) range P-800 or 3M54 or whatever comes soon in the shape of 3M22, Sea Denial and A2/AD implications become more than just operational or strategic, they become political. Potentially, even a single Akula in Cruise Missile configuration (allegedly Project 941 KU) becomes, after proper modernization, a massive factor without even leaving relatively comfortable confines of the Russia's fleet and ASW patrol aviation zones. 

Are these fantasies or a viable operational (and technological) concepts? Difficult to say, but Russia employed unorthodox technologies not for once, be it on land, in the air or in the sea. Will such a hypothetical modernization of remaining Akulas be expensive? Hell, yes. But so is modernization of Peter The Great, not to mention Admiral Nakhimov. I think those underwater mastodons didn't say their last word yet and considering financial restraints for building a whole new fleet of yet another SSGNs, apart from actively building Yasen-class (Project 885) SSGNs, using of the good ole' Red Oct....forgive me, Akulas doesn't seem to be such a far fetched idea after all. In the end, a decision (a correct one) to modernize a fleet of Project 1155 Large ASW ships is being implemented. You all know a very old principle--If Ain't Broke Don't Fix It. One may add--use it.