How NATO Could Buy and Operate France's Helicopter Carriers

The delivery of the Mistral carriers to Russia would be a strategic disaster. Hence, the idea that NATO buys these ships from France and operates them makes perfect sense. Of course, there are many obstacles, especially with concern to funding. Here is how these problems can be solved. 

How to fund the purchase

French Mistral LHD (Wikipedia Commons)

Two German Members of Parliament and Jeff Lightfoot from ACUS proposed that NATO should buy the two French Mistral helicopter carriers, which are about to be sold to Russia. Due to Putin's increasing assertiveness, giving the Mistral carriers to NATO is a very reasonable idea. Major obstacle for such a project would be the issue of funding. Each Mistral costs €1,2 billion, plus compensations for France's contract penalties to Russia and the continuous operating costs. However, France should evaluate to put the contract penalties on hold for the time being as a part of further EU sanctions against Russia.

Moreover, the high costs are the best argument for a purchase by NATO and not by EU, because the US, Canada, Turkey, Norway and Denmark (CSDP Opt-Out), which are financially capable, would be on board. This would not be the case, if EU goes for the Mistrals. 

The funding of nearly all NATO activities works by the principle "costs lie where they fall". Common funding, in contrast, is relatively small and it would in no way be sufficient for purchasing and operating helicopter carriers. Hence, NATO would have to create a new special budget. Of course, many in Washington would have concerns about burden sharing. Therefore, NATO members should agree that the Europeans cover at least 51 % of the operating costs. This does not mean that America will always have to pay the other 49 %. However, it would guarantee that US burdens remain limited, while US influence remains on a relevant level.

Among the European's contribution, Germany should cover a large amount of the costs. For next years Germany will be the only financially healthy among the big European countries, until the babyboomer's retirement will blow up the German federal budget. Thus, the Mistral purchase for NATO could only work, if Berlin is prepared to put some hundreds of millions in. Britain, France, Italy and Spain are fighting hard to keep their own carriers in service. Hence, it is unlikely that they would be able to make major financial contributions.

However, the benefits for Germany would be worth the money. Not only would it be a boost of naval power. Germany could also compensate its past unreliabilities and make clear it is willing to take a leading role in NATO. Moreover, the German debate about buying two Joint Support Ships would stop before it really began. For the implementation, Germany would have to increase its navy's budget and active personnel.

Among Canada and the smaller European NATO members, there would be a need to develop a mechanism and criteria for the amount of national contributions to the NATO-Mistrals. Possible criteria could be the GDP and economic growth.  

Who should operate the Mistrals

Operating the Mistrals would not be difficult for NATO. The Alliance has decades of experience with combined and joint operations in common structures and standards. However, member states would have to find a mechanism to decide, which country sends how many officers, non-commissioned officers and seamen. This could be related to the amounts of financial contributions. 

Moreover, to deepen partnerships, NATO should consider making it possible for like-minded partners like Sweden, Finland, Australia, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and Georgia to join in with staff, too. This is in particular interest for Japan, Australia and South Korea, who are also operating helicopter carriers. 

British HMS Ocean (Wikipedia Commons)

As NATO has two Standing Maritime Groups (SNMGs), which are working well, the most reasonable idea is to add the one Mistrals to each SNMG. However, as only the US, the UK, France, Italy and Spain have operational experience with carriers, it needs to be carefully evaluated, which country contributes to which Mistral. As the US and Germany would carry the largest burdens, they should contribute to both Mistrals. Moreover, national interests have to be taken into account to make the Mistral operation work in practice. 

In consequence, the distribution of countries should look like this. NATO-Mistral One should be added to SNMG 1, which used to be responsible for the North Atlantic and is therefore be more Northern oriented. The countries running it should the US, Germany, the UK, Canada, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Poland and the Baltic States, which guarantees that Northern members' interests are satisfied. NATO-Mistral Two should be added to SNMG 2, which has always been NATO's maritime group for the Mediterranean. The countries running it should be the US, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Turkey, which guarantees the Mediterranean member's interests are served, too.

In case this does not work, an other approach could be to create a new Standing NATO Amphibious Group with one Mistral at sea while the other one is in the shipyard. However, due to the constraints of capabilities, the proposed integration into the SNMGs would make most sense.

 

What the carriers could do

The homeport of NATO-Mistral One should be in Germany, in case it carries the largest European burden. NATO-Mistral Two needs a homeport in the Mediterranean. The best choice therefore would be Toulon, because the French port has the facilities to support the Mistrals and it would suit the French desire for jobs.

In the North, NATO-Mistral One could be used for demonstration of political will and exercises in the Baltic Sea and in Norwegian waters to re-assure the Northern and Eastern allies. However, it should not be ruled out that NATO-Mistral One goes to other more distant places, too. It could well happen that either NATO-Mistral Two is already booked or under repair, while a crisis occurs. 

The Mediterranean is surely the theater where Mistrals will be needed the most. Missions would be evacuation and rescue of citizens (Libya shows currently how necessary this capability is), crisis response (Mistrals can serve as a platform for attack helicopters), humanitarian missions (e.g. supporting Italy in migrant rescue) and naval diplomacy (e.g. support of the Mediterranean Dialogue).

UK Lynx helicopter during Haiyan disaster relief (UK MoD)

Even the Indo-Pacific could become an operational theater for NATO-Mistrals. Their helicopters would be rather useful for counter-piracy in the Indian Ocean. Moreover, a Mistral-centered SNMG is a credible mean for a show of force in the Persian Gulf. Outreach to the Contact Countries, China and India by combined excercises in the Indian Ocean is thinkable, too. Moreover, disaster relief would surely become a task. Britain's disaster relief in response to Typhon Haiyan stressed the worth of helicopter carriers. 

 

Moreover, for EU/CSDP fans there is no reason to oppose a Mistral purchase by NATO. Under the Berlin-Plus agreement (2003), EU is able to use NATO's capabilities. Although in case of an EU mission, US staff would have to be replaced by Europeans. 

The signal to Putin

Given NATO finds consensus on the purchase and funding of the Mistrals, it would be very strong signal to Putin. That the Alliance is able to find such a significant consensus would be worth even more than the new military capabilities. Russia would experience that what it does has serious consequences and that the West is finally ready to decide on measures that underline words with serious actions.

What names for the ships?

Last but not least - How should the Mistrals be named?  My proposal would be to name the after NATO's first secretary general "Lord Ismay" and the first SACEUR "Dwight D. Eisenhower".