Russia to purchase French Mistral-class LHD?

[Vympel]

Link

Russia’s RIA Novosti reports that Russia is planning on a EUR 300-400 million contract by the end of 2009 to buy a French Mistral class amphibious assault ship (LHD). The outlet quotes Chief of the Russian General Staff Gen. Nikolai Makarov, who said that: “We are negotiating the purchase of one ship at present, and later planning to acquire 3-4 ships [of the same class] to be jointly built in Russia.”

France currently operates 2 Mistral class LHDs, and recently ordered a 3rd using economic stimulus funds. Unlike some other LHD designs, the Mistral class cannot operate fixed wing aircraft. Even so, it’s an important tool of power projection. Mistral class ships can carry and deploy up to 16 helicopters, including attack helicopters like France’s Tiger or Russia’s Ka-50/52. Its main punch revolves around its 4 landing barges or 2 medium hovercraft, however, which deliver armored vehicles, tanks, and soldiers to shore. The vessel is equipped with a 69-bed hospital, and could be used as an amphibious command ship.

A Russian order would represent a change on several fronts – and also the extension of a trend…

For one thing, it would be the first major arms import deal since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. The second change is that Russia’s current procurement program through 2015 did not envision construction or purchases of large combat ships, but a new program is in development.

The foundations for cooperation on a program of this size have been laid on several fronts over the last few years. France’s Thales already provides components for Russia’s front line military equipment, from tank gunnery sights to avionics and targeting pods for Russian-built fighters. Recent memoranda of understanding for cooperation in naval R&D (Thales) and defense R&D more generally (EADS) build on the 2006 MoU between DCN and the Russian government to develop technical, industrial and commercial co-operations between the Mistral’s builder and Russia’s naval defence industry.

Reports vary on how solid this deal is - as far as the French know, negotiations haven't started yet. Any purchase would be slated to take place after 2015, since the arms plan up to 2015 doesn't account for purchasing any large warships whatsoever - unless they change the plan.

[Stuart]

Lot of history behind this one. The Tsarist Navy was largely French-designed and the French influence on the Russian Navy always has been strong. This is just picking up from where things were left off in 1917.

[Pelranius]

I assume that the Russians will install their own comm gear.

Perhaps the Russians should cooperate with Giat on getting their new MBT?

[[R_H]]

I assume that the Russians will install their own comm gear.

Perhaps the Russians should cooperate with Giat on getting their new MBT?

Isn't a new MBT near the bottom of their to do list for modernisation? BTW, Giat doesn't exist any more, it's called Nexter now.

[Pelranius]

I assume that the Russians will install their own comm gear.

Perhaps the Russians should cooperate with Giat on getting their new MBT?

Isn't a new MBT near the bottom of their to do list for modernisation? BTW, Giat doesn't exist any more, it's called Nexter now.

Thanks, French military hardware isn't very high on my lists of interests.

I just keep on hearing promises of that new Russian "152mm cannon" MBT every year. Vasiliy seems to believe them.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I just keep on hearing promises of that new Russian "152mm cannon" MBT every year. Vasiliy seems to believe them.

There probably is a prototype in existence, but whether they will ever start serial production or not is another matter. Nevertheless, at some point they will need something to replace the aging fleet of T-72B, T-80B(V) and T-80U(D) models and I doubt the T-90 is up to the task in the next decade.

[Vympel]

There probably is a prototype in existence, but whether they will ever start serial production or not is another matter. Nevertheless, at some point they will need something to replace the aging fleet of T-72B, T-80B(V) and T-80U(D) models and I doubt the T-90 is up to the task in the next decade.

Nitpick:- It's T-72B, T-80BV, and T-80UD. The (x) is usually only used informally, Vasiliy Fofanov is fond of it to differentiate tanks with only one real designation (like T-72B). T-80BV and T-80UD however are real designations.

Also, Russia doesn't have T-80UDs in service, it only has a relatively small number of T-80Us.

The T-90A should be more than sufficient until 2015, and it'll probably form the backbone of the Russian tank force even after the new tank is introduced for a while. Of course they'll start serial production on the new tank (there's definitely a prototype in existence, there's no question of that) - but not until after 2015 at the earliest, since the arms control plans don't envisage introduction of any new tank models.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Nitpick:- It's T-72B, T-80BV, and T-80UD. The (x) is usually only used informally, Vasiliy Fofanov is fond of it to differentiate tanks with only one real designation (like T-72B). T-80BV and T-80UD however are real designations.

Also, Russia doesn't have T-80UDs in service, it only has a relatively small number of T-80Us.

I know that T-80BV and T-80UD are real designations, I just did not want to write the full list open. For the same reason I omitted the T-72A, which is still used at least for training. Same people say that there are no T-80B (without ERA) no longer in service, but it's difficult to know for sure unless you have real inside information.

As for the T-80UD, last time I heard they were in 'active reserve', i.e. actually kept in good storage conditions for possible future use (as opposed to some of the other 'reserves' which basically just rot away on some field in Siberia). They just don't want to use them all the time, since some of the spare parts would have to be bought from Ukraine.

The T-90A should be more than sufficient until 2015, and it'll probably form the backbone of the Russian tank force even after the new tank is introduced for a while. Of course they'll start serial production on the new tank (there's definitely a prototype in existence, there's no question of that) - but not until after 2015 at the earliest, since the arms control plans don't envisage introduction of any new tank models.

I don't know if there are enough T-90 models in service to form a backbone... Numerically the T-72B and the T-80B(V) are still far more important. They do have plans to modernize at some of the T-72B as close the the T-90A standard as possible, but I don't know how the actual work progresses. During Yeltsin's presidency nothing usually progressed, because they did not have the money and since Putin took over secrecy has been increased.

As for arms control plans -- do they actually specify tank models? I thought they only limit the overall number of tanks. In fact I find it hard to believe that any country would accept the models of their non-nuclear weapon systems to be regulated by a treaty.

[Vympel]

I know that T-80BV and T-80UD are real designations, I just did not want to write the full list open.

That's ... weird. Not only is it simply wrong, you're going to the extra trouble of hitting Shift+9 and Shift +0 for no reason at all.

For the same reason I omitted the T-72A, which is still used at least for training. Same people say that there are no T-80B (without ERA) no longer in service, but it's difficult to know for sure unless you have real inside information.

As for the T-80UD, last time I heard they were in 'active reserve', i.e. actually kept in good storage conditions for possible future use (as opposed to some of the other 'reserves' which basically just rot away on some field in Siberia). They just don't want to use them all the time, since some of the spare parts would have to be bought from Ukraine.

I heard from Vasiliy on tanknet, a while back - that they were scrapped. Hard to be sure. After all, we know basic T-64Bs are used for driver training in some units, and have seen a picture of one.

I have though never seen a basic T-80B in any recent photographs.

I don't know if there are enough T-90 models in service to form a backbone... Numerically the T-72B and the T-80B(V) are still far more important.

That's the plan. The T-90 is meant to become the backbone by 2020 through increased production, and cutting the existing tank force down.

They do have plans to modernize at some of the T-72B as close the the T-90A standard as possible, but I don't know how the actual work progresses

No, the Rogatka program (which was meant to do the same to the T-80B) has been stopped. Upgrade of T-72Bs to T-72BA standard is all that's being done - engine replacement (i.e. V-84 goes out, V-92S2 goes in), other automotive improvements, and minor FCS improvements (no thermal imager). No upgrade to protection whatsoever - T-72Bs that go in with Kontakts light ERA come out with it - T-72Bs that go in with Kontakts-V come out the same way too. Easiest way to tell the difference is whether the T-72B has a wind sensor or not:-

http://www.otvaga2004.narod.ru/xlopotov ... 2ba_07.htm

There's an article as well, but it's in Russian.

It's a shame, the "Rogatka" upgrade looked positively awesome, but I'd rather have T-90As than T-72Bs, no matter how upgraded.

[[R_H]]

Thanks, French military hardware isn't very high on my lists of interests.

No problem, TBH I only find the Leclerc interesting.

I just keep on hearing promises of that new Russian "152mm cannon" MBT every year. Vasiliy seems to believe them.

Efforts to create an advanced Russian tank have also been drawn out for a long time. The first official mention of this tank, which the media have dubbed the T-95, was made by Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev in March 2000. According to published sources, work on “Item 195” began at the UVZ design bureau in the early 1990s. The tank is presumably a significant departure from the Soviet-era tanks currently in service. In particular, it is expected to have a new hydropneumatic suspension with adaptive features, and the entire crew will be placed in a sealed compartment inside the hull, isolated from other tank components. The tank will presumably be armed with a new main gun with a caliber of up to 152mm with a new multi-channel fire control system that works in optical, thermal, near IR, and radar spectrums, and is built on the principle of identical capabilities for both gunner and commander and fully supports the hunter-killer mode of operation, a unified command information system and tactical level automatic management system, and advanced active and passive defensive aids to protect the tank from various modern and future types of threat.

Sounds expensive.

IMO, Omsk's (assuming they're still in business) Universal/Standardized Turret (based on the Obj.640, Black Eagle, turret) which can be installed on a variety of hulls sounds like it could adequately modernize a bunch of different models. Link (in German)

[Vympel]

IMO, Omsk's (assuming they're still in business) Universal/Standardized Turret (based on the Obj.640, Black Eagle, turret) which can be installed on a variety of hulls sounds like it could adequately modernize a bunch of different models.

They're not. They've got no capability to build new tanks anymore, they're only a repair/ overhaul plant now. In essence, T-80 production in Russia now is dead, with only UVZ still in the tank business (actually one of the largest tank producers in the world at the moment, given the T-90s they churn out for both the Russian Army, India, and Algeria). It's a shame, the only place to build T-80 tanks now is Ukraine.

I should add that, perversely, in some ways the Rogatka upgrade for the T-72B and T-80B was better than the T-90A. The T-90A undoubtedly has superior passive protection, but it retains Kontakts-V ERA whereas the Rogatka upgrade equips them with Relikt ERA (with superior coverage, since the Shtora-1 lights continue to be a blindspot for some bizarre reason, since they can easily be mounted over ERA plates*) and also has a muzzle reference system, which the T-90A lacks.

Of course, I hope/ imagine these issues will be rectified when the next T-90 iteration comes out (T-90B or T-90M or T-90U, whatever they decide to call it).

* India's T-90S and Algeria's T-90SA don't have Shtora-1 lights, they've got an ERA plate in their place, making their coverage superior to the Russian version.

[Pelranius]

I honestly don't see the point in a 152mm gun. Wouldn't it make more sense just to upgrade the existing 125mm cannon, possibly with unitary ammunition?

[Marcus Aurelius]

I should add that, perversely, in some ways the Rogatka upgrade for the T-72B and T-80B was better than the T-90A. The T-90A undoubtedly has superior passive protection, but it retains Kontakts-V ERA whereas the Rogatka upgrade equips them with Relikt ERA (with superior coverage, since the Shtora-1 lights continue to be a blindspot for some bizarre reason, since they can easily be mounted over ERA plates*) and also has a muzzle reference system, which the T-90A lacks.

* India's T-90S and Algeria's T-90SA don't have Shtora-1 lights, they've got an ERA plate in their place, making their coverage superior to the Russian version.

I wonder why they still bother with the Shtora-1 IR lights. Most of the systems they are effective against have been out of production for more than 15 years. There are still some copies being produced in countries like Iran and of course Russia still makes new missiles for them as well, but still it's increasingly a solution looking for a problem. Perhaps they think mostly about the (other) FSU countries such as Georgia, where obsolescent ATGM systems such as Fagot and Konkurs are still in widespread use. I don't know where those countries buy their new missiles from though; the practical shelf life of the rocket motors is less than 20 years* and the dud rate of the Soviet era missiles should already be unacceptably high.

* According to Finnish experience their shelf life is in fact closer to 15 than 20 years with the dud rate rapidly increasing after 15 years.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I honestly don't see the point in a 152mm gun. Wouldn't it make more sense just to upgrade the existing 125mm cannon, possibly with unitary ammunition?

There has been several upgrades to the 125 mm gun and ammunition. The T-90 also has a modified auto-loader, which can load longer rounds (and therefore longer penetrators) than the earlier models. When you design a completely new tank, it often makes sense to arm it with a gun that has "room to grow". That way you don't have to change the gun early in the life cycle of the design like the US had to do with the M1.

The main problem with a 152 mm gun are the space requirements of such a large-caliber ammunition. I would rather have gone for a bit smaller caliber: something around 140-145 mm might be a better compromise than 152 mm. The Western successor to the 120 mm gun was supposed to be 140 mm and had the Cold War continued longer it would already be in service. The Leclerc was allegedly designed from the beginning to house a 140 mm gun and the Leopard 2 would have received a new turret, which in fact existed as a prototype.

[Pelranius]

I honestly don't see the point in a 152mm gun. Wouldn't it make more sense just to upgrade the existing 125mm cannon, possibly with unitary ammunition?

There has been several upgrades to the 125 mm gun and ammunition. The T-90 also has a modified auto-loader, which can load longer rounds (and therefore longer penetrators) than the earlier models. When you design a completely new tank, it often makes sense to arm it with a gun that has "room to grow". That way you don't have to change the gun early in the life cycle of the design like the US had to do with the M1.

The main problem with a 152 mm gun are the space requirements of such a large-caliber ammunition. I would rather have gone for a bit smaller caliber: something around 140-145 mm might be a better compromise than 152 mm. The Western successor to the 120 mm gun was supposed to be 140 mm and had the Cold War continued longer it would already be in service. The Leclerc was allegedly designed from the beginning to house a 140 mm gun and the Leopard 2 would have received a new turret, which in fact existed as a prototype.

I agree. 152mm ammo sounds even stranger when you consider that they want to make the turret smaller.

There's also rumors of a 135mm cannon in the works, but I've never seen any proof.

[JointStrikeFighter]

I agree. 152mm ammo sounds even stranger when you consider that they want to make the turret smaller.

There's also rumors of a 135mm cannon in the works, but I've never seen any proof.

Well the turret is apparently going to be unmanned. So read into that what you will.

[[R_H]]

I honestly don't see the point in a 152mm gun. Wouldn't it make more sense just to upgrade the existing 125mm cannon, possibly with unitary ammunition?

I think with ETC the 120mm and 125mm would be able to hold their ground against 140mm or 152mm. The only advantage they have is when firing HE and guided munitions.

WRT to unitary munitions, I don't think they're able to fit (too tall) in the carousel AL.

[Sea Skimmer]

There has been several upgrades to the 125 mm gun and ammunition. The T-90 also has a modified auto-loader, which can load longer rounds (and therefore longer penetrators) than the earlier models. When you design a completely new tank, it often makes sense to arm it with a gun that has "room to grow". That way you don't have to change the gun early in the life cycle of the design like the US had to do with the M1.

The M1 tank was always intended to have a 120mm main gun. The 105mm was only used because of delays in adapting the German 120mm to American production methods and ammunition designs following the abandonment of the 152mm gun/launcher from MBT-80.

I agree. 152mm ammo sounds even stranger when you consider that they want to make the turret smaller.

There's also rumors of a 135mm cannon in the works, but I've never seen any proof.

The 135mm seems to be disinformation or inaccurate interpretation of photos by NATO. The Ukraine did display and offer a 140mm gun for sale a while ago, and it was almost certainly based on leftover Soviet research. Like the NATO 140mm gun projects it supposedly can also accept a 125mm barrel (120mm in NATOs case of course) so that stocks of old ammunition can be used for training.


140mm Bagira is on the right, the weapon on the left is a high power model of 125mm called Vitiaz 48 calibers long.

Its unlikely Russia will ever field its 152mm gun as its ammunition technology is bound to have improved since the late 1980s. Back then Russian ammo was distrinctly unimpressive, and this limitation would have been a major driving force for such a radical increase in firepower to match the radical increase in NATO tank armor. NATO meanwhile found ammo improvements could let 120mm do almost everything they had asked from the 140mm tubes.

[Pelranius]

I honestly don't see the point in a 152mm gun. Wouldn't it make more sense just to upgrade the existing 125mm cannon, possibly with unitary ammunition?

I think with ETC the 120mm and 125mm would be able to hold their ground against 140mm or 152mm. The only advantage they have is when firing HE and guided munitions.

WRT to unitary munitions, I don't think they're able to fit (too tall) in the carousel AL.

There are existing 120mm and 125mm missiles in the form of the LAHAT and Reflexs. They seem pretty good, though they probably won't match a larger ATGM like the TOW or Kornet in terms of sheer firepower.

[Marcus Aurelius]

There are existing 120mm and 125mm missiles in the form of the LAHAT and Reflexs. They seem pretty good, though they probably won't match a larger ATGM like the TOW or Kornet in terms of sheer firepower.

The purpose of the Soviet/Russian gun tube launched missiles is to extend the effective range of the main gun against hard targets. In the 1970s and most of 1980s the effective range of Soviet tank main guns with AP ammunition was about 3,000 meters* or less (much less in the case of the 115 mm gun). The missiles extended the range up to 4,000 meters. Starting in the late 1980's improvements were introduced to fire control, ammunition and gun barrels, which increased the max range up to 4,000 meters. Consequently the most recent versions of the 125 mm missiles have an increased range of 5,000 meters. All the Soviet/Russian gun launched missiles have semi-active command line-of-sight guidance, either with radio link or later with laser beam (i.e. the missiles are so called laser beam riders).

The LAHAT is a bit different. It can be launched without direct line-of-sight to the target from the launching vehicle. It also has much longer range than the Russian missiles.

In terms of firepower both the Russian missiles and the LAHAT would require some luck to destroy a modern MBT from the frontal aspect. Lighter armored vehicles are of course a different matter and sometimes side hits are possible.

* Nevertheless it was not just 2,000 meters for the 125 mm gun like many Western sources believed. The 115 mm smoothbore gun was the only one that could not hit tank size targets at 2,500 meters reliably with the ammunition available in the 1970s.

[[R_H]]

Source

140mm+ caliber lethality
The original goal, as stated above, was to achieve muzzle energy of 18MJ. In tank armor penetration by kinetic energy (armor piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot – APFSDS) the principle (and the simplest) factors which effect penetration are velocity and mass.8 Therefore, the simplest equation which can given an idea of a round’s penetration is KE = ½m •v2. With an increase in muzzle energy you can either increase mass or velocity of the round. With a decrease in mass there is an increase in velocity, and the same is true vice versa. This greater muzzle energy is established through the use of larger propellant charges – larger barrels can withstand larger charges because the created pressure during gas expansion is distributed along a greater surface area. The idea is the same in high-pressure guns, except that special materials are used to withstand higher pressure in the breech and barrel.9 Although the common goal is 18MJ, there is nothing that suggests that the muzzle energy produced by a 140mm caliber tank gun is and always will be 18MJ. The performance of a 140mm gun, and any gun, is based only upon the construction quality of the barrel, breech and round and the quality and volume of the propellant. In fact, a 140mm gun may produce only 16 or 17MJ of energy.10

According to Rheinmetall, a 140mm tank gun produces energy of 23MJ at the muzzle. However, only 14MJ are relevant to the penetrator itself.11 Fired from a NATO 140mm gun, a tungsten heavy alloy (WHA) penetrator with a length to diameter (L:d) ratio of will penetrate roughly 830mm of rolled homogenous steel after penetrating a 400mm ceramic module (the ceramic is not necessarily encased in steel).12 Due to the considerable power achieved by the 140mm powder gun and the availability of the technology, it was thought as early as 1989 that the 140mm would be used as a stop-gap solution.13 The amount of technology demonstrators of this caliber make it apparent that at one point in time it was a real solution. The U.S. XM291 solid propellant gun showcased a breech which could fit both a long 120mm cannon and a 140mm cannon if it was necessary in the future.14 However, today the 140mm gun is no longer considered a real option by any NATO tank-producing country.15 Instead, the Germans introduced the new 55-caliber long 120mm tube and the DM53 APFSDS in the KWS I upgrade of the Leopard 2A5 (the 2A4 to 2A5 upgrade is the KWS II, which increases the depth of the front armor array).16 The XM291 120mm tube is also longer than the current M256 (a copy of the Rheinmetall 120mm L/44), but was never implemented and there is still no gun modernization program in sight.17,18

and

Even with a decrease in the ammunition held, the volume of thirty 140mm rounds would be roughly 3.05m3. An individual 140mm APFSDS could weigh as high as 40kg, while a 120mm APFSDS weighs between 19 and 23k. This means that thirty 140mm rounds would weigh roughly 1,200kg as compared to the 830kg of a forty round 120mm ammunition load. 22 Rheinmetall’s 120mm L/44 weighs 1,190kg, while the L/55 version increases the weight to 1,347kg. GIAT’s (now Nexter) 120mm F1 weighs 2,800kg and the M256 weighs 1,901kg. The high-pressure MG251 weighs roughly 3,300kg.23 However, let’s take Rheinmetall’s L/55 and the XM291 as the more recent in solid propellant technology (the XM291 saves about 600kg worth of weigh as compared to the M256). In comparison, a 140mm gun (including the trunnions) would weigh over 3,200kg. It would also require a breaking force of up to 1,200KN.24 In gun weight and ammunition weight alone the increase in weigh would be about 1.5 metric tons. The necessary increase in turret volume to allow a depression of the main gun to anywhere between 7º and 10º could cost another 5 to 6 metric tones in weight. The increase in gun caliber would also result in an increase in the size of the mantlet, resulting in another increase in armor volume and weight. In fact, a total weight increase due to the larger turret armor volume could amount to up to over 10 metric tons.25 Insofar, the total weight increase amounts to closer to 15 metric tones.

References are at the bottom of the linked page.

[Lonestar]

An interesting blog entry on Information Dissemination

It would appear the Russians are keeping their options open when it comes to buying European amphibious ships. In late June, the HNLMS Johan de Witt (L801) made an appearance at the International Maritime Defence Show held in St Petersburg. Among the visitors was Russian Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, Vladimir Vysotskiy. is a much larger brother of HNLMS Rotterdam (L800), the Dutch Landing Transport Dock currently undergoing repairs at Scheldepoort in Vlissingen-Oost. According to this Dutch media report, the Dutch LDP is competition to the French Mistral. Translation from blog regular Gijs.


Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding in Vlissingen could win an order for four Russian amphibious transportship.

This was confirmed yesterday by CEO Hein Ameijden. "But there are also a lot of contacts between the French and the Russians, I understood from the newspapers. And I give the French a very good chance," Van Ameijden said.

In late June, in the port of St. Petersburg, the International Maritime Defence Show 2009 was held. The amphibious transport ship HNLMS Johan de Witt was there at the invitation of the Russian Federation. Several manufactureres of products in the field of naval construction had an exhibition on the Johan de Witt. Although a Damen stand was not present, there were talks about a possible order for the first time in St. Petersburg.
At 16,800 tons, HNLMS Johan de Witt (L801) is not as large as the French Mistral, but is less expensive. HNLMS Johan de Witt (L801) was built to transport the combat logistics and support elements of a Netherlands Marine Battalion, where HNLMS Rotterdam (L800) would carry the assault element when the ships operated together. Typically HNLMS Johan de Witt (L801) carries around 550 Marines. Additionally, HNLMS Johan de Witt (L801) has aviation facilities for supporting up to 6 medium helicopters.

These ships are very mature however, with design similarities between the British Bay class and the Spanish Galicia class, suggesting configuration could be optimized for the Russian needs.

[K. A. Pital]

Buying or joinly building 3-4 Mistrals would recuperate the loss of 4x Kiev class carriers by Russia in the 1990s. Very interesting. It's a shame our own shipbuilding is in such a dismal state (no prime surface combatants laid for what, 20 years or more?) that we even consider buying anything from the French, but even so it would be an extremely welcome addition. With several Mistrals and a few new carriers Russia's Navy could achieve a greater level of force projection capability than it had even in Soviet times.

[That NOS Guy]

Buying or joinly building 3-4 Mistrals would recuperate the loss of 4x Kiev class carriers by Russia in the 1990s. Very interesting. It's a shame our own shipbuilding is in such a dismal state (no prime surface combatants laid for what, 20 years or more?) that we even consider buying anything from the French, but even so it would be an extremely welcome addition. With several Mistrals and a few new carriers Russia's Navy could achieve a greater level of force projection capability than it had even in Soviet times.

What about surface escorts? Several Mistrals and a "few new carriers" won't come cheap, and the Russian navy is strapped for funds as is, or such is my understanding.

[K. A. Pital]

What about surface escorts?

2 of the 3 remaining Kirov class cruisers may be reactivated if the cards lay right, meaning if the money keeps flowing to the Navy (one is quite probably gone anyway since it's reactor was removed from the hull), and it may be that new destroyers will be procured in the future after we test the construction capacity on larger frigates (Neustrashimy, etc). Of course, it wouldn't come cheap. But bying carriers without escorts is sort of... stupid. 956 and 1155 will serve as escorts for the time being I believe, with the lifetime of the latest hulls extended to the greatest possible extent before new combatants arrive. That's the only way the Navy can realistically hope to maintain it's fleet of first rate ships.