Military Review

West wind. Overview of UDC "Mistral"

218



When reading articles about the State Defense Order, every time I am convinced that the Russian media work in the genre "News in the future tense ”, telling about events and plans that are most likely never to come true, but today they have become news and imposed on society as a subject for discussion. And now, among these information phantoms, on February 1 there was information about a real event - the laying of the Vladivostok universal landing helicopter landing ship in France. On this day, at the shipyard in Saint-Nazaire, metal cutting began for the first Russian UDK of the Mistral type.

"Mistral" only looks similar to the traditional ships, docks, helicopter carriers or amphibious assault ships. In fact, they have much greater potential. It was not by chance that the French isolated them into a separate class - "force projection and command vessel" (a strike-staff ship or, literally, "a force-control and control projection ship"). The distinctive features of such structures are the flight deck and the aft docking chamber located along the entire length of the hull. Also at Mistral, there is a command center at 150 operators and, equipped with the most modern equipment, a hospital at 70 places. The concept of such ships is not new - even during the Vietnam War, the US Navy was faced with the problem of controlling the diverse ship landing groups involved in the landing. Then the idea was born to combine them in one universal package.

Compared to its contemporaries, the American LPD of the San Antonio type, the Mistral looks more attractive: the French ship is operated by a crew of just 160 people, while the American landing craft docks require a 350 crew man. The future Russian ship also has an advantage in terms of the composition of the air group: 16 helicopters against 4 helicopters and 2 converters from the “Americans”. Summarizing all the above, we can give an unequivocal answer: UDC of the Mistral type is a modern landing craft, one of the best representatives of its class in the world.

Pitfalls

About the fact that "Mistral" does not fit into the concept of combat use of the Russian Navy, about its inconsistency with the conditions in which the Russian Navy operates, its vulnerability and difficulties with service, many articles, publications and scientific works have already been written. Indeed, does the Russian Navy need a similar ship? For example, it is widely known that this, similar to the ferry, structure was created according to the standards of civil shipbuilding and is not able to withstand a hydrodynamic impact with a close underwater explosion. As far as I know, such a calculation is required when designing ships for the Russian Navy. It is difficult to say how this myth corresponds to reality, but it leaves behind an unpleasant aftertaste.

I will no longer bore the reader with a list of unverified (or, conversely, overly well-known) figures, facts and rumors. I, as an amateur, are interested in more obvious points:

The visit of Mistral in November 2009 to St. Petersburg was not without embarrassment. Domestic rotorcraft Ka-52 and Ka-27 without any problems boarded its deck (of course! The length of the Mistral flight deck was 199 meters, the width was 32 meters), but as it turned out, Russian helicopters did not fit into the opening elevator, so they could not be lowered into the hangar. Scandalous история did not receive wide publicity, but did not escape from public attention.

Further - even more fun. In connection with the basing on the Mistral of Russian helicopters with a coaxial propeller scheme, it will be necessary to increase the height of the underdeck hangar by at least a meter in comparison with the original design, which, naturally, will entail an increase in the ship’s "board". Excessive sail has always been one of the flaws of the Mistral, and the "Russian series" it will increase even more. Also, this will inevitably entail a decrease in metacentric height. What does it threaten at full load and in storm conditions? That's right, tipping over.

As already noted, helicopter lifts that lift equipment from the hangar to the flight deck are unsuitable for transporting the Ka-29 with suspended weaponry. It is necessary either to purchase Eurocopter helicopters from France, or to radically rebuild the lifting mechanisms.

This problem does not end with the aircraft. Fuel for refueling helicopters is supplied from two tanks, which are located below the waterline in the stern of the ship - fuel lines stretch from afar through 3 decks filled with people, ammunition and equipment. Very dubious decision of the French, affecting the survival of the UDC in the most negative way. You may have to change the entire system of refueling and storage of fuel according to domestic requirements.



The transport deck for armored vehicles does not meet Russian requirements. It is designed for a mass not exceeding 32 tons for each combat unit. In turn, this means that on the transport deck of the Mistral there will be no Russian main combat tanks. In total, the ship will fit no more than five MBTs: three on the site in front of the docking chamber and two on the landing boats of 11770 "Serna" landing craft.

Further, Russian sailors will not be able to effectively use the space of the dock camera. "Mistral" - the French ship and its dock chamber was designed in accordance with the parameters of NATO assault vehicles. Therefore, despite the solid dimensions of the dock camera (57,5m x 15,4m x 8,2m, area 885m.kv.), Only 2 landing craft Ave 11770 are placed in it. And air-cushion landing craft of the 1206 Kalmar Ave. and 12061 Aurel Murena will not be able to be based on the Mistral at all - the DKVP do not pass through the gate of the dock camera in height! It turns out that you have to create under the "Mistral" new airborne landing craft.

French engineers have prepared a great surprise for Russian sailors. North Seamen are especially "delighted", as well as all those who try to exploit the Mistral in the northern part of the Pacific Ocean. The fact is that the boards of the French UDC have wide openings that provide natural ventilation on the helicopter and transport decks. A great idea for the tropics turns into a nightmare for the northern latitudes - icing of the whole technique is guaranteed. So you can not just wall up these openings, you first need to design an extensive system of forced ventilation.

Continuing the "ice theme", I will say that the Mistral hull does not have ice reinforcement, and this, given the conditions in which the Russian Navy operates, practically excludes the basing of French ships in the Baltic, the Pacific, and especially in the North. Especially a lot of problems with the nasal bulb, which is designed to improve ride quality. Those. a simple thickening of the board will not succeed. According to experts, this means developing a new project ship.

A separate conversation is worth Mistral propulsion system using submerged main electric motors. Screw-steering column type "Azipod" provide ease of maneuvering, but this system has serious drawbacks:
- first of all, it is a low speed of travel (18 nodes compared to 22 – 24 nodes at the UDC of the San Antonio type of the US Navy);
- operation of ships with “Azipods” requires regular docking for inspecting the steering wheels. And there is an opinion that there are no docks for such large ships in Russia, especially in the Pacific Ocean. I can assume that the "Russian Mistral" will get the traditional propulsion and steering wheels.

Not armed and not dangerous

Yes, the Mistral is almost completely absent defensive weapons. Machine guns and two twin Mistral MANPADS (this is not a typo, obviously the French really like this name), which are analogues of the Russian Needle or the American Stinger, can hardly be taken seriously.

On the one hand, it cannot please me as an adept of the deck aviation. The purchase of a Mistral UDC means a change in the shipbuilding paradigm of the Russian Navy. Simply put, the Navy adopts the concept of carrier fleet Western style. Use of the Mistral in landing operations is possible only with a powerful air cover, otherwise the entire landing will turn into a bloody mess. The naval version of the attack helicopter Ka-52 is effective only against ground forces. Neither in range nor in combat capabilities, he will not be able to replace carrier-based fighter-bombers. Accordingly, for this entire strike force, guard and supply ships are needed. It turns out that Russia plans to create a powerful and balanced ocean fleet.

If this is not the case, then the purchase of "Mistral" is like an adventure. Or the naval command does not intend to use French ships in amphibious operations, i.e. for their intended purpose.

Money down the drain?

Mistral is the French name for the cold wind blowing in the Rhone Valley. Won't a UDC with such a name be a waste of money “into the wind” in the direct and figurative sense? According to one radical Internet user, the Russian admirals bought themselves two foreign cars, each worth a billion dollars worth 2.

It seems strange: for the Russian fleet, in general, useless ships were acquired, which have no place in the modern concept of the Russian Navy, without escort ships and, most importantly, without the presence of numerous marines and means of landing it.

Maybe I was exaggerating in vain. With the purchase of Mistral, the domestic shipbuilding industry will gain access to the latest global technologies. Perhaps this is true, but then it is not clear why it took as much as 4 of a ship of this type.

In principle, the conversation is not that it is bad to acquire foreign military equipment. It's not so bad that we are trying to borrow the best solutions and designs. The point is that these billions could be spent more efficiently by purchasing, instead of UDC, other samples of European ships that the fleet really needs. As an option - the Spanish frigates of the type "Alvaro de Bazan". Even without the Aegis system (the sale of which is out of the question), they are a powerful and modern marine complex weapons. Most likely, the size has been played here - the Mistral looks much more solid than the frigate with a displacement of 6000 tons.

In my personal opinion, the Russian Navy is now in such a condition that any warship is valuable to it. It is better to let the sailors get the “Mistral”, than these funds will go offshore.






West wind. Overview of UDC "Mistral"





Medical unit



Luxury cabin for Madame and Monsieur



Deck for armored vehicles


Bon voyage!
Author:
218 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. ars_pro
    ars_pro 10 February 2012 09: 08
    +3
    It is not surprising that to bring it to mind you will have to work with a file or harness the France, let them do as expected, at the same time go through the school of our requirements, hehe if they do not rest. Our taxpayers just won’t give such money ... !!! request
    1. aktanir
      aktanir 10 February 2012 11: 37
      +32
      It is better to say thank you very much to the author for such a competent and comprehensively reflecting the technical aspects of the Mistrals material. It is very pleasant, easy to read the article and most importantly I learned a lot of new things. And then "needed", "not needed" and no constructive.
      1. Professor
        Professor 10 February 2012 15: 07
        +5
        I can assume that the “Russian Mistrals” will receive traditional propulsion and rudders.

        I could not resist the comment. How does the author imagine this? Completely redo the power plant, stretch the shaft and add a steering device? Let it be known to you that a system like Mistral is successfully used on icebreakers.
        1. Santa Fe
          10 February 2012 18: 25
          +10
          Completely redo the power plant, stretch the shaft and add a steering device?
          Or docks will be created specifically for servicing the Mistrals

          Let it be known to you that a system like Mistral is successfully used on icebreakers.
          Apparently you remembered the icebreaking tanker Mikhail Ulyanov?
          Well, what does he have to do with it? The rudder drives have little effect on ice performance, the whole problem is with their maintenance. The Pacific Fleet, for which the Mistrals are intended, does not have a suitable infrastructure

          For the same reason, even a much steeper USSR flew with the TAVKRs - in the Far East they were based only on a raid. as a result, they are twice as fast as the due date
        2. alex-defensor
          alex-defensor 11 February 2012 13: 03
          -1
          Like it or not, there are questions, BUT !!!

          1. Optional Mistral will be used in the northern latitudes. We actually need a presence just closer to the equatorial zones, we are not there (yet)

          2. Already statements have been made about the creation of oceanic combat groups, in particular Rogozin.

          3. I have already said, but I will repeat. The purchase of the Mistrals is in many ways a geopolitical step. Thanks to this purchase, France also provided us with "some services", one of them is support in South Stream, but this is not the only counter measure.
          1. Santa Fe
            11 February 2012 17: 46
            +8
            We actually need a presence just closer to the equatorial zones, we are not there (yet)
            More details please

            Statements have already been made regarding the creation of oceanic battle groups, in particular Rogozin.
            This is typical future tense news. What kind of oceanic groups can we talk about if Russia has not even decided on the appearance of the new destroyer?

            Thanks to this purchase, France also provided us with "some services", one of them is support in South Stream
            The interests of oil workers were higher than the interests of sailors?
            It is very suspicious when public funds on such a scale are used for the interests of private oil producers ...
    2. Trezvomag
      Trezvomag 10 February 2012 12: 32
      +3
      Work on the alteration of the Mistral is in full swing under the requirements of our military. Those. as the author of the article wrote, the deck heights for helicopters will be changed there, the layout of the premises will also be changed there, but not because of the passage of aviation fuel pipes, but because the cabins there are made for 2, 4 and 6 people. Our military demanded to make a cockpit of the cabins, and if I'm not mistaken for 8 people each. Well, moving the pipes is not so much an unsolvable task, they will probably take this into account. At the expense of weapons, I do not know, but the question is, how much is it needed for a ship that will go under security anyway? After all, the deployment of various missiles requires a lot of space, which means that it will transport less people, and at the same time equipment. After all, if you look at our aircraft-carrying cruiser, then this is not quite an aircraft carrier and not quite a cruiser, and the tasks for it are somehow unclear. The hull will have to receive ice reinforcements. And as for the incompatibility of our landing craft and the dimensions of the docking camera, then on this issue I admit that perhaps we will "fly over" and we will have to buy their boats as well. But maybe they will either expand the docking camera, or make a new boat project.
      1. viruskvartirus
        viruskvartirus 11 February 2012 02: 55
        +2
        By boat confirmation http://warfiles.ru/show-2169-dlya-vmf-rossii-vozmozhno-budut-zakazany-4-katera-k
        atamarana-tipa-l-cat.html
      2. puffnutiy
        puffnutiy 14 February 2012 16: 30
        +2
        I am not a sailor and have not been on warships. In this regard, the question on photo No. 1. From all the information that I gathered from the books, I realized that there should be bulkheads on the warship, with the ability to seal them tightly. And here in the photo is a simple corridor like this. Is this normal for a warship? Doesn't hurt the fight for vitality?
        Another question on service infrastructure. Does the price of ships include infrastructure or is it some money that will again be paid to the French? Should the infrastructure begin to be created simultaneously with the ship, or can it be quickly built after the ship is launched?
        1. dvkorn
          dvkorn 16 February 2012 01: 12
          +1
          This corridor is located above the upper deck, that is, in the superstructure. All the waterproof bulkheads you are talking about are located below the VI. So that does not interfere with the struggle for vitality.

          But in the aft part, where hangars for helicopters and armored vehicles are located - yes there, it is almost impossible to construct waterproof bulkheads constructively. Almost the same as on Ro-Ro ferries and ships. Only spaces on the sides can help, which can also be divided into waterproof ones.
    3. Krilion
      Krilion 11 February 2012 04: 20
      0
      there is an opinion what exactly will be presented and for just so ... this conclusion will be refuted or confirmed after about a couple of years of the actual operation of these toys ... the only thing in which there is no doubt that this transaction is completely implicated in politics and there is no drops of economics and military expediency ... all hopes are now built on the fact that (maybe) these troughs will still be useful to the Russian fleet .... the only positive thing in acquiring these troughs is that a fair amount of them will have to be built escort and support ships that will replenish the Russian fleet ...
  2. Strabo
    Strabo 10 February 2012 09: 23
    +2
    Most likely really money down the drain. The feeling is that they acquired him not for his fighting qualities, but for the presence of beautiful toilets. The equipment must be adapted for domestic weapons, for domestic fuel, otherwise everything will have to be purchased from the manufacturer. These are the laws of the market. I'm not sure that this "semi-steam" survives in battle.
  3. Uralm
    Uralm 10 February 2012 09: 54
    +2
    Something I, too, was disappointed, well, since they started, they can edit the campaign
  4. Col.
    Col. 10 February 2012 10: 07
    +9
    I agree with all the "calculations" of the author. In general, we rarely listen to the conclusions of specialists, especially in the last 20 years. Here is an example from personal experience: in the early 80s, someone "upstairs" came up with the idea to purchase several light French helicopters for the Navy. But not in France, but in India, which produced them under license, they were called "Chetak". Our department was instructed to prepare a reference-analysis for this machine and issue recommendations. We (more precisely, the head of the department, the most literate man, I must say!) Summed up: the helicopter is unreliable, we strongly do not recommend it! The bosses did their own thing and here's the result: soon our general, the chief of the rear of the naval aviation, along with his deputy, died in a plane crash on this "foreign car". When the decision is made by amateurs, expect trouble!
  5. lokdok
    lokdok 10 February 2012 10: 07
    +4
    An attempt once again to crap everything:
    1. Why on UTK MBT ??? Enough armored personnel carriers, BMD, etc.
    2. Under our helicopters they remake lifts, etc. Due to the meter height, the windage is seen to go nuts. It reminds you of 12 chairs - the tram will not go, the windows are not rubberized, etc.
    2. The ship is not ice class. And that we have only the Northern Fleet. And the Pacific, Black Sea?
    In general, this is a ship of projection of force and control + unlike ours, the military is comfortably placed there. Those. This is for the war with the Papuans.
    1. Santa Fe
      10 February 2012 18: 54
      +3
      And why on udk MBT ??? Enough armored personnel carriers, BMD, etc.
      This is enough for you, sitting at the monitor. Ask any soldier who has gone through a military conflict - there is no more reliable means of covering people. than heavy armored vehicles
      The capabilities of Russian armored personnel carriers and BMDs with cardboard armor (did not pay attention to how the paratroopers always travel ON armor?) Are completely insufficient. Much more heavily protected Bradley or German Marder weigh 30 tons ....

      Under our helicopters they remake lifts, etc.
      I agree. These are solvable problems. But there are unsolvable ones - the lack of suitable means for landing and ground infrastructure for servicing large ships.

      Due to the meter height, the windage is seen to go nuts.
      And you want to say that, on the contrary, the stability of the ship will increase?)))

      The ship is not ice class. And that we have only the Northern Fleet. A pacific
      Sea of ​​Okhotsk freezing

      Those. This is for the war with the Papuans.
      Russia was going to fight with the countries of the 3 world ??
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 February 2012 20: 13
        +1
        She's like ... And even nothing to argue laughing
      2. dmitreach
        dmitreach 10 February 2012 20: 50
        -1
        1 about MBT - I agree.
        2 Who said they won’t build?
        3 and windage will increase and stability will decrease. in theory. have any suggestions better? write to developers, I think they will not give up fresh ideas. and then it’s very patriotic.
        4 so they are trying to make design changes. no one will make an icebreaker out of it, their hull shape is different.
        5 An example of Syria and Kuzi do not consider?
        1. Santa Fe
          10 February 2012 21: 46
          0
          2 Who said they won’t build?
          And who said they would build it?)
          Conversations are only about Mistral and Kamov helicopters.

          and windage will increase and stability will decrease. in theory. have any suggestions better?
          I agree, low stability is not the biggest problem. But there is a place to be. And who knows, someday in a storm it will become the biggest problem

          trying to make design changes. no one will make an icebreaker out of it, their hull shape is different.
          It is true that the Russian Mistrals will only look like their French sisterships.
          You may not be an icebreaker, but you must break thin ice)))

          An example of Syria and Kuzi do not consider?
          Explain the idea. Friendly visit, diplomatic courtesy. If we continue the policy line of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, in Syria, on the contrary, we have to fight with the NATO landing, and not our own to land.
          1. dmitreach
            dmitreach 10 February 2012 22: 36
            +4
            Rogozin said, Serdyukov spoke. Or do you think they are building apartments only for the military? And the topic of Kotlin first surfaced against the background of the search for a place for the construction of Mistral in Russia, when the workload of ALL shipyards was analyzed. Don't forget this! The other day, another "astronomical sum" was announced, although this time it was not about weapons, but just about the machines on which these weapons are produced.

            A storm is a problem in general. In a 4-point storm, half of the available weapons and aviation equipment are useless. No one in the world has solved this problem until now.

            Must. True. Do not forget that for the Mistrals already under construction, the so-called "ice reinforcement of the hull" is planned. I'm more interested in something else: how will the problem of open lanzports on board the ship be solved. There, and so the windage is crazy, so also these draft holes in the hangar with helicopters will catch up.

            888 Pindos in the Black Sea, humanitarian aid, in the form of toilet paper for the proud Rodent, on which sailed?
            Russia helps third world countries. Although Syria is not one of them, this is not the point. Remember how in Cyprus they tried to detain and inspect a ship going to Syria with a cargo of weapons from Russia? Since Soviet times, the BDK has also been used as "dry cargo ships" to supply weapons to "friendly countries." Introduce Cypriots trying to inspect the Russian Mistral. A sad sight for them - funny for us. In general, military sailors swear very funny. Whole sentences, with words that are not well understood by the sailors. Like: gonorrhea octopus to Pindos, without fuel oil in a hayed hawse! It would be interesting to hear the response of the military to a timid stutter about the inspection of Mistral ... This is the case when size matters not only in terms of the useful deadweight of the vessel.
            1. Santa Fe
              10 February 2012 23: 42
              +4
              And the topic of Kotlin first surfaced amid a search for a place to build the Mistral in Russia
              O. news in the future tense ?! Okay, just kidding.
              Developing the topic - together with the Mistral, we will have to develop a new complex of landing craft and coastal infrastructure to service the ship ...
              And no one is talking about this. With this approach, the purchase of "Mistral" becomes meaningless.

              In the 4's, a ball storm is half useless weapons, and aircraft are useless.
              The use of weapons in a storm is a big problem. But we are talking about something else: a decrease in metacentric height is a threat of disaster.

              Do not forget that for the Mistrals already under construction, the so-called "ice reinforcement of the hull" is planned.
              In the previous comments, I talked about this. "Ice hull reinforcement" is a problem to be solved. The problems of basing and maintenance, as well as the development of new amphibious vehicles, remain unsolved. The problem of their application stands apart.

              I am more interested in something else: how to solve the problem of open LAN ports on board a ship.
              They will put in a forced ventilation system, brew openings. This is also a solvable problem.

              Since Soviet times, the BDK has also been used as "dry cargo ships" to supply weapons to "friendly countries"
              Since Soviet times, there are almost no such countries
              In your reasoning there is a rational grain, though for this you could use ships easier. Finally. Russia has many other unresolved issues besides the delivery of weapons to the 3 countries of the world.
              1. dmitreach
                dmitreach 11 February 2012 01: 58
                +1
                Do you need public debate, as with the law on police officers? even when it comes to the defense industry? You might think about Armata information car ... Everything has its time. Is it really bad to develop new things? no, it’s certainly better to sit exactly on * opera and not to do a damn thing.

                Ballast has not been canceled. In the end, our judgment comes down to the visual perception of Mistral. Without knowledge of the performance characteristics of the ship - a meaningless activity, akin to fortune telling "on the coffee grounds" Can you prove in numbers that it will turn over? And I don’t have precise introductions. Then we will "guess"?

                With what kind of "revelations" did the development of new types of weapons suddenly become (!) Unsolved? Maybe you should correct the thought?

                I gave application options. From the fact that you personally do not get outdated my vision of the issue does not mean that my assumptions are not true.

                Ventilation on an industrial scale is a task. The question is how to solve.

                Syria, Iran are places of humanitarian disasters ... Own, vast territory. It is not known how life will change in 36 months ...
                Russia really has a lot of problems, corresponding to the size of the country. Little Switzerland is easier to arrange. However, Mistral is "on Senka's cap". And the territory is so huge that it is time to "re-discover" their own lands.
                1. 11 February 2012 04: 51
                  +2
                  dmitreach,
                  I completely agree with you.
                2. Santa Fe
                  11 February 2012 17: 57
                  +7
                  Do you need public debate, as with the law on police officers?
                  The Law on Police is a news about the lack of news imposed on the public as a subject for discussion. Noise grenade. blende

                  even when it comes to the defense industry?
                  When it comes to the real construction of large facilities, all Kremlin and local officials try to light up there. Great PR. In this case, all the media are empty.

                  You might think about Armata information car ...
                  Armata is news in the future tense. There is no need for concrete

                  With what kind of "revelations" did the development of new types of weapons suddenly become (!) Unsolved?
                  It is not solvable, because nobody is going to solve it

                  Syria, Iran places of humanitarian disasters ...
                  For humanitarian disasters there is IL-76
                  1. dmitreach
                    dmitreach 11 February 2012 20: 58
                    0
                    I just wrote not about the law itself, but as an example of hype and pulling keyboards over the heads of opponents. I say again: everything has its time. PR - PR, but they always learned about the new products of the military-industrial complex by the fact of the last exhibition. Otherwise, these are ideas and concepts "flying in the air". True, you can sometimes "hang an ax" on them, and it is quite possible to guess the train of thought of the military. time is.

                    Armata is not hushed up because the news is "for its" time, but because the secrecy has not been canceled. And something in the design bureau, where it is impossible to pass without admission, is developing. Although, in general terms, the people are already guessing what the tank will look like. Though collecting information bit by bit.

                    "no one is going to decide" - did Putin tell you personally?

                    About IL - 76, it’s true, there must be a variety of means in the arsenal of rescuers! The French Mistral use. No, it certainly can be for propaganda purposes, but those who have been helped are indifferent.
                    1. Santa Fe
                      12 February 2012 01: 16
                      +4
                      PR - PR, but they always learned about the new products of the military-industrial complex by the fact of the last exhibition. Otherwise, these are ideas and concepts "flying in the air".
                      It's not even about the new military-industrial complex, but about the creation of the entire rear base of the fleet. Even the steep and wealthy Soviet Union could not arrange basing places for the Pacific Fleet TAVKRs. It is very expensive, long and difficult. And there is no progress in this direction now.
                      Concerning the boats - there was information about the possibility of buying French L-CATs. Not the best choice. Firstly, the Russian Navy will become even more dependent on Western supplies (spare parts, maintenance of French equipment). Secondly, the L-CAT is not the best landing craft. And the excellent Russian DKPV will generally remain out of work.

                      Armata is not hushed up because the news is "for its own" time, but because the secrecy has not been canceled
                      Armata is the same news in the future tense as the "black eagle" object or the Su-47. If someday the "Armata" MBT will be created, it will be a coincidence of the name and appearance, tk. what is now presented as a "promising tank" is just a figment of the designer's imagination.
                      Regarding secrecy: when the USSR was a really powerful state and was preparing for a big war, it kept secret its developments, special operations, and impersonated a truly peaceful state. What missiles in Cuba ?! What are you! We are for world peace.
                      Now Tu-95 deliberately flies along Japan to cause media hype, and President Medvedev (balabol) said that Russia is ready, if necessary, to use nuclear weapons. All this is very funny and speaks about one thing: Russia is absolutely not ready to wage war and these are all cheap show-offs.
                      In such conditions, even the very fact of starting work on the promising Armata tank would become widely known throughout the world. This kind of PR is vital for Putin. But there is nothing like this ...
                      1. sams
                        sams 12 February 2012 11: 41
                        +2
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        this kind of PR is vital.

                        Right.
                        And Mistral is also another large-scale money laundering project.
                        Let them accuse of criticism, defeatism, etc., but whatever you say, the facts remain facts that can be analyzed and conclusions can be drawn. Although oh how I do not want to believe all this ...
                        Your comments are objective, although they are not encouraging.
                      2. dmitreach
                        dmitreach 12 February 2012 14: 33
                        -1
                        A reference to the coolest Soviet Union, according to your arguments, is not the best argument in the dispute. Then they did not build a chamber for the mind. But they built bases in the rocks, in case of a nuclear war. And for Nuclear-powered ships too. There was enough money for this ...
                        At the expense of "no progress", the facts in the studio. Figures. Figures. Where are the numbers saying that everything was stolen? Communicating with you for the second day is time to draw a conclusion.
                        Analysis of the situation in the Russian Navy and military-industrial complex according to SWEET_SIXTEEN:
                        1 how the fleet was built poorly
                        2 and build poorly
                        3 do not invest in infrastructure
                        4 do not invest in staff training, but only reduce the best
                        5 finances do not spend rationally
                        6 money is stolen
                        7 at the helm of power miserable balabol and traitors to Russia
                        8 everything is bad in Russia
                        9 in Russia, when it was not good
                        10 in Russia it can’t be good, because by definition, Russia
                        11 in Russia only know how to breed cheap show-offs
                        12 (therefore) nothing good is to be expected
                        13 the latest technology of the Russian military-industrial complex - a figment of the designer’s imagination
                        14 there are no managers in Russia
                        15 was not
                        16 will not be
                        17 Russia is bending towards the cemetery

                        Have I forgotten anything? Supplement Your Darkest.
                        Threat forgot to ask, do you live in Russia? bully


                        Conclusion from SWEET_SIXTEEN analysis: PZHIV PZHIV all polymers **
                      3. puffnutiy
                        puffnutiy 14 February 2012 17: 00
                        +1
                        Dear, dmitreach. I understand that your soul hurts for our country. But the country is now not in such a state as to remain in euphoria from minimal progress for the better. With all due respect, in your comments there are a lot of unnecessary emotions. According to a list of 17 points, I will give only one example.

                        4 do not invest in staff training, but only reduce the best

                        As you probably know, in our army and navy there is a reduction in the officer corps. Ask any current officer what this led to. If earlier we had interchangeability of the officers (at least when leaving for a business trip, on vacation or absent due to illness), now the staff has been reduced so that in the absence of an officer on the spot there is no one to replace him and his tasks most often hang in mid-air.

                        What would you call this state of affairs? It seems to me that it should not cause delight in you. We need to look at our army and navy comprehensively, and not on the principle “I see only what I like”.
                    2. puffnutiy
                      puffnutiy 14 February 2012 16: 51
                      0
                      SWEET_SIXTEEN, thanks for the correct and clear presentation!

                      I completely agree that you need to take a sober look at things so as not to let yourself misinform. And then it may suddenly turn out that despite the bravura statements, the missiles do not take off, the ships do not go, and the rest of the equipment is rusted. And usually all this is revealed in the process of heated hostilities. Then it will be too late to discuss and be surprised.
  • schta
    schta 10 February 2012 10: 27
    +1
    As I understand it, we will not have to land in the icing conditions. America is in a warm place laughing
    1. Arc76
      Arc76 10 February 2012 11: 38
      +10
      In a war with America, it is useless, like all non-nuclear weapons. Let's not talk nonsense, we discuss the BDK.
      1. neri73-r
        neri73-r 10 February 2012 14: 09
        -5
        It is useless so far, and when the dollar collapses, there will be nothing to pay the great and invincible professional army of the United States and private military companies, when unrest begins among the US population, then I think it will come in handy!
        1. Arc76
          Arc76 10 February 2012 14: 23
          +9
          Dear nery, let's not talk nonsense here, and so categorically. Let's discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the BDK. Regarding the collapse of the dollar, I can tell you as an economist that the strongest (at the moment) economy in the world will not have money to buy hydrocarbons (they even fluctuate with the beginning and end of the heating period in the United States) -income from export to Russia will drop sharply. In conditions when every year we export more and more food and everything else we will even have nothing to eat with you. In general, let's do it without fiction, let's discuss the dish.
          1. saruman
            saruman 10 February 2012 15: 17
            +9
            As long as we print rubles, how much oil was sold for dollars, then our business is a "pipe". And if we build our own independent financial system, then the collapse of the dollar will be a blessing for us.
            Buying Mistrals is generally an exchange of deals (courtesies) with France. We bought Mistrals from the French, and the French from us for the same amount of launch vehicles. Harasho everyone !!! For our Navy - a command center for the war with the Papuans, for "show off" (demonstration of the flag), additional orders for turntables for the military-industrial complex. Whisper !!!
            1. sams
              sams 12 February 2012 12: 00
              +1
              Quote: saruman
              Buying Mistrals is generally an exchange of deals (courtesies) with France. We bought Mistrals from the French, and the French from us for the same amount of launch vehicles. Harasho everyone !!! For our Navy - a command center for the war with the Papuans, for "show off" (demonstration of the flag), additional orders for turntables for the military-industrial complex. Whisper !!!

              This is so.
              It just turns out production for the sake of empty consumption, which means money and resources to the wind.
              Is it really impossible to create and acquire the useful and necessary?
    2. Polite Sniper
      Polite Sniper 10 February 2012 13: 34
      -8
      Well @ poo gunpowder we will fill, we will break all fascists!
      1. Arc76
        Arc76 10 February 2012 15: 22
        0
        The French themselves tried to get out of the reserve currency - the dollar, without any particular results. As long as the US economy is the strongest in the world, this is unlikely to succeed. You do not want to live in North Korea, in an absolutely closed system.
        1. saruman
          saruman 10 February 2012 18: 19
          +7
          Compare North Korea and Russia? Um ...
          The process is running. With many countries, we are already switching to national currencies. And the real reserve currency can only be gold. Humanity hasn’t come up with anything else.
          1. Arc76
            Arc76 10 February 2012 20: 25
            -2
            Friend Saruman, and in what monetary dimensions can we evaluate Windows?
          2. Arc76
            Arc76 10 February 2012 22: 46
            -1
            Invented, at the moment it is a dollar.
            1. saruman
              saruman 10 February 2012 23: 05
              +4
              Let windows be in dollars, no one is against. Only reserve currency has long been in windows, lunixes, androids and other virtual values. The bulk of bucks has long ceased to exist in the present (even in paper) form, but in the form of virtual accounts on computers. Only if you try to exchange these numbers, then there will not be enough pieces of paper with the name of the dollar, there is no gold in the world for this amount, but the worst thing is that for this amount there are no material goods created on planet earth by all mankind that could be bought.

              So, at least the mistrals were bought, and not just another "valuable" piece of paper.
              1. Arc76
                Arc76 10 February 2012 23: 09
                -1
                Yes, but we don’t have these technologies. I believe that an alternative OS should first be done, well, like linox.
                1. dmitreach
                  dmitreach 11 February 2012 02: 11
                  -2
                  Yes. but! We have mastered these technologies so much that it is time to compare them with a natural phenomenon and level the fear of "bookmarks". Here is an example of REB and radio communications. Basically. the laws of physics are an equal condition. So? But the ways of implementing ideas are multifaceted. There are domestic achievements in the field of programming. Yes, at least Kaspersky, not to mention the popularity of our hackers. This all means that the openness of the OS architecture can become a "cruel joke" for the authors themselves. Not out of nowhere in the UWB there was a body responsible for cybersecurity, and a cyber attack is equated by lawmakers with an act of armed aggression against the country. This is LJJ not from scratch. The tree will not hum.
  • Arc76
    Arc76 10 February 2012 10: 30
    +8
    There were publications in the Russian press that the second two ships that will be operated in the north will receive significant adaptation. I completely disagree with the author about the use of Mistral. Of course, it is useless with countries that have a powerful fleet with carrier-based aircraft, it’s the weapon of colonial wars. But who will say that the wars that the USSR and then Russia waged in 1945 in one form or another were not colonial. Even the construction and operation of these ships in the Russian fleet alone will provide a lot of experience and technology. The USSR was already lagging behind in the field of surface shipbuilding from the leading world powers, and over the past 20 years the gap in technology and application practice has increased even more. Now there’s a chance to fix everything. Adapting the ship to our conditions will only spur the development of technology. Naturally, we need to develop helicopters and drills so that the expeditionary group has eyes and can suppress air defense on the landing site. Maybe someone writes-in the USSR they seem to have been developed.
    1. esaul
      esaul 10 February 2012 11: 21
      +1
      Quote: arc76
      only spur the development of technology.

      Greetings, buddy, and let me supplement your comment with this information, indicating that technology will be very useful to us not only for "beautiful toilets" ------ Development of a project of a super-modern Russian aircraft carrier for the Navy should be completed in 2013. The ship itself after 2020 must enter service and begin to perform combat missions, the Internet publication Lenta.ru quotes the words of the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, Vladimir Vysotsky.

      According to him, the new ship will not be an aircraft carrier in the classical sense of the word. "It will be one step ahead. The ship will have to operate in all environments, that is, to be multimedia," Vysotsky explained.

      A modern aircraft carrier, the commander-in-chief said, operates only in two environments - "air, or, at best, the lower space orbital group." "But we want to go further - there is still space, there is an underwater part, there is a surface part with uncontrolled and controlled vehicles. That is, in other words, to make a combined launch vehicle that allows solving a whole range of tasks in almost all environments," Vysotsky said, noting that the main emphasis will be on the aerospace component capable of determining dominance at sea.

      Later, Vysotsky explained the start of construction of a new ship by the need to carefully work out the project of a new ship. If the construction of an aircraft carrier begins today, then, according to Vysotsky, it will be either an improved Admiral Kuznetsov, or a deteriorated Enterprise, or Minsk with Kiev. "This, in fact, is what we are being offered today. And we need to make a qualitative leap," the commander-in-chief summed up the results.

      For the first time, the existence of plans for the construction of aircraft carriers in mid-November of 2011 was confirmed by Minister of Defense Anatoly Serdyukov. According to him, the Ministry of Defense has ordered the development of the ship’s advance project from the United Shipbuilding Corporation, but funding for the construction of aircraft carriers by the Russian state arms program for 2011-2020 has not been provided for. As expected, the ship's preliminary design will be prepared before the end of the 2012 year.

      At present, the Russian Navy is armed with only one combat ship equal to the aircraft carrier - the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov". The ship was built in 1985 according to project 1143.5 "Krechet" and entered the fleet in 1991. The air group of the ship, assigned to the Northern Fleet, includes 12 Ka-27 helicopters and 33 Su-33 carrier-based fighters. Earlier it was reported that this year the cruiser will begin modernization work, the completion of which is scheduled for 2017.
    2. Sokol peruna
      Sokol peruna 10 February 2012 11: 28
      +8
      In 1978, the 10200 Halzan Ave was developed, but it was closed by the Aircraft Lobby.

      Link http://military.tomsk.ru/blog/topic-362.html

      And Mistral is far from the best version of UDC., Besides with a negative export history. This is just politics.
      In general, much has been said about our pre-revolutionary cooperation with the French, but it is forgotten that this experience is not too successful for Russia. There was also more politics than common sense. The only ship built in France that was really good is the screw frigate Svetlana.

      If the navy managed to kill destroyers, etc. 956, which are far from the worst ships, then I’m afraid to imagine what will happen to the French sissies in Vladik. It is very bad that the mistral has no ice reinforcement. Vladivostok is a freezing port.
      1. dmitreach
        dmitreach 10 February 2012 18: 23
        0
        Let them practice on the Mistral, and after removing from the shelf the project documentation for the Khalzans with the Khersons, they will learn something new. In the yard is a new century. And by the way, there are already shifts in the aircraft carrier ...

        You are not talking about Juanito Carlito (Juan Carlos), Spanish birth for the Australian Navy? So there will be more politics. Australia Pindos and Raptor promised. But they will sell us? At least one. Just dig deeper. France has a more independent policy than Spain. Pindos would not approve of this deal.

        Everything seemed marvelous
        Two hundred years ago. (Tortilla. Turtle. From a fairy tale.)

        And two hundred years ago we fought with France ... And that was a "generally successful" experience for Russia.
        1. Arc76
          Arc76 10 February 2012 20: 41
          0
          I do not know how it will turn out in conditions of limited conflict, but the Mistral is a lot. See the Focklands, the carrier group away from their shores won.
        2. Sokol peruna
          Sokol peruna 11 February 2012 08: 45
          +5
          Let them practice on the Mistral, and after removing from the shelf the project documentation for the Khalzans with the Khersons, they will learn something new. In the yard is a new century.

          About Halzan, I posted the info at the request of ark76, just my koment was lower than the koment of Esaul. On the basis of the fact that on the basis of Mistral they’re learning something new over the next 20 years, I doubt very much, because 4 hulls will completely cover the need for ships of this type for the Russian Navy.

          You are not talking about Juanito Carlito (Juan Carlos), Spanish birth for the Australian Navy?

          Yes, you are absolutely right. With the exception of UDC Uosp US Navy, this is the best UDK pr. To date. Juan Carlos 1 was born for the Spanish Navy and joined the Spanish Navy in 2010. Canberra and Adelaide are being built for the Australian Navy.

          So there will be more politics. But they will sell us? At least one. Just dig deeper. France has a more independent policy than Spain. Pindos would not approve of this deal.


          Yes, the Spaniards put on Amer. They are building frigates and corvettes for Chavez. And these are warships and not UDC. Here is the link http://topwar.ru/10130-venesuela-naraschivaet-voenno-morskoy-potencial.html.
          Selling Russia Mistral Sarkazi Initiative. He proposed to our government that they agreed, then they leaked the information to the Navy’s commander-in-chief, and he announced it. Prior to Sarkazi’s proposal, our commander in chief did not even think about acquiring the Mistral. If the commander-in-chief wanted to acquire UDC, a tender would be held, and the Frenchman’s chances of victory in it were slim. In general, the purchase by Russia of 4 UDCs is a super contract lucrative to love the country, including Spain
          1. dmitreach
            dmitreach 11 February 2012 21: 25
            0
            Yes. The bet was made on the French due to the fact that cooperation with them has already developed. Here politics is ahead of the deal. But I doubt the quality of the Spaniards. The fact that Australia stopped the choice on him speaks first of all about the ability of the Spaniards to agree with the Australians. Besides the fact that he (Carlos) can accommodate more troops, it does not mean that he is an order of magnitude more perfect. I would generally class it as a "light aircraft carrier". You are well aware that such transactions do not imply technical excellence in the first place. Therefore, the "Australia bought" argument is not synonymous with "we should."

            By the way, the link does not open.
            1. Sokol peruna
              Sokol peruna 13 February 2012 09: 09
              0
              dmitreach


              Yes. The bet was made on the French due to the fact that cooperation with them has already developed. Here, politics is ahead of the deal.


              I agree, especially since the French have balanced the sale of the Mistrals with the purchase of Soyuz rocket carriers from us.

              But I doubt the quality of the Spaniards. The fact that Australia stopped the choice on him speaks first of all about the ability of the Spaniards to agree with the Australians. Besides the fact that he (Carlos) can accommodate more troops, it does not mean that he is an order of magnitude more perfect. I would generally class it as a "light aircraft carrier".


              About the quality of Spanish shipbuilding, I allow myself to disagree with you.
              Navantia is a company with a worldwide reputation. Over the past 12 years, she has built 6 frigates F-100 for the Spanish Navy, 5 frigates F-310 for the Norwegian Navy, UDC Juan Carlos 1. Now she is negotiating the construction of 6 frigates for the Brazilian Navy.
              I fully agree on the ability to negotiate. When concluding a deal, Spain used the principle - It’s better to have a part with something than all of nothing.
              About the fact that Juan Carlos is an order of magnitude more perfect, I did not say. I believe that it is more universal than Mistral, i.e. can be applied more flexibly.

              You are well aware that such transactions do not imply technical excellence in the first place. Therefore, the "Australia bought" argument is not synonymous with "we should."


              I agree. Moreover, the deal has already taken place. And about cooperation with the Spaniards, I can add that Rosoboronexport and Navantia are negotiating a joint venture.

              http://news.mail.ru/economics/7838842/
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 February 2012 20: 16
        +1
        Quote: Sokol Peruna
        In 1978, the 10200 Halzan Ave was developed, but it was closed by the Aircraft Lobby.

        And thank God ! Disgusting was the ship
        Quote: Sokol Peruna
        The only ship built in France that really was good is a screw frigate Svetlana.

        Come on ! And what about the Tsarevich you did not please?
        Quote: Sokol Peruna
        If the navy managed to kill the destroyers of the 956 Ave which are far from the worst ships

        Ships are not bad. Power disgusting
        Quote: Sokol Peruna
        And Mistral is not the best option UDC.,

        Here it is. I agree
        1. dmitreach
          dmitreach 10 February 2012 20: 54
          0
          and what is the project of pr.10200 "Khalzan" not like? belay (for his era)
        2. Sokol peruna
          Sokol peruna 11 February 2012 09: 03
          +2
          Tsesarevich is a fatal ship for Russia in the sense that he was chosen as a model for the construction of battleships of the Borodino type. They were difficult to manufacture, which affected the timing of their construction. If Retvisan, which has a simpler design, were taken as the basis, then it would take approximately 6 months less to produce them, i.e. 4 battleships Borodino and Oslyabya would have arrived on the theater of operations before the battle in the Yellow Sea. In addition, according to the results of the war, Retvisan turned out to be the best battleship of Russia.
  • newvidimka
    newvidimka 10 February 2012 11: 13
    +2
    Barge + Tug = Best Helicopter Carrier.

    Cheap and cheerful.
    1. desava
      desava 10 February 2012 18: 54
      +1
      The best - the best, but "has no analogues !!!" good
  • ivan79
    ivan79 10 February 2012 11: 26
    +1
    Of course they were (see mat. part), but they were not lucky due to the lack of capacities of the military industrial complex (the slipways were occupied by other projects).

    And of course, they are needed at the expense of the UDC. Due to the purchase of the Mistral, we will have more than the latest achievements of the Navy. And do not forget what tonnage of the ships we are currently building, and what would build a cruiser in 20 tons. or an aircraft carrier for 80 t.t.-need ... shorter than dofiga what you need-a lot to list, and the Mistral is just the connecting link on it and we will train (those that we will build at home)
    1. Santa Fe
      10 February 2012 18: 30
      -1
      And what would build a cruiser for 20t.t.
      You are too bent. Cruisers don't need to be so huge
      1. dmitreach
        dmitreach 10 February 2012 18: 39
        +1
        de facto there are 1144 CRUISERS Eagle ... 25 tons. there is also the concept of "gunship" that is rarely mentioned. but I feel those eagles that are in conservation will be reanimated in this vein. (a huge ship in displacement with hundreds of cruise missiles on board)
        1. Santa Fe
          10 February 2012 19: 05
          +2
          de facto there is 1144 CRUISER eagle ... 25 000 tons.
          Yes, there are some. Their creation was a serious miscalculation of the Soviet command

          a huge ship with hundreds of pieces of cruise missiles on board)
          Look at the tyconderoga - 122 VPU and total 10 000 tons

          The cruiser does not need to have 20 000 tons of displacement
          1. dmitreach
            dmitreach 10 February 2012 20: 03
            0
            miscalculation? I think no. rather, because of technology and the nomenclature of weapons, he became so.

            I know about the URO cruiser. I talked about something else. there was such an idea after the wars in Yugoslavia and Iraq, where high-precision weapons were abundantly used, the creation of combat platforms with a larger number of tomahawks than was available on URO cruisers. Once upon a time gunships were battleships (not to be confused with the Vietnam War, there gunship is an airplane), and by analogy with battleships the idea of ​​a ship “armed to the teeth with missiles” arose. The idea was not developed further.
            1. Santa Fe
              10 February 2012 21: 53
              +1
              miscalculation? I think no. rather, because of technology and the nomenclature of weapons, he became so.
              There was no point in building 1144 if his tasks were duplicated by the submarines of pr.949A. The boat, in comparison with the cruiser, has greater stealth and security, greater ammunition and the likelihood of completing a task is higher by an order of magnitude.

              The idea was not further developed.
              Right. This is a dead end branch in shipbuilding. Deck aviation carries tens of tons of ammunition in one takeoff. Warhead Tomahawk - 227 ... 450 kg. Accuracy is worse. Can you imagine how many Tomahawks are needed for a similar strike? It is much simpler and more efficient to use deck aircraft (which is what actually happens)
              1. dmitreach
                dmitreach 10 February 2012 23: 48
                +2
                Today we can judge and laugh at the history of the birth of 1144, but not in those years when there was no definite answer. Projects were developed and built almost simultaneously. On the one hand, based on the experience of the Second World War, super ships - dinosaurs, the Pindos realized this back in the 60s. But on the other hand, the dimensions of the nuclear power plant (there are 2 of them and reserve PPU) plus the armament of those years affected the displacement of the vessel. Yes, the boat has an advantage. But Olan was not a miscalculation, he was a whim. The desire to have a military atamokhod. As a design, it is successful.
                Pros:
                Military-industrial.
                Military-technical.
                Moral and political.
                What was inherited and thanks for that.
                New MPLATRK Ash plans 10. New 1144 - 0. (only modernization)

                The idea did not receive further development, in my opinion, due to the fact that the Pindos have and without such a class of ships, like mud cruisers URO and supply bases around the world. However, analyzing how they shot Yugoslavia, they came up with the idea of ​​"ships - arsenals" with a number of missiles of half a thousand or more. (I don’t remember exactly) Considering the dimensions of the tomahawk (almost 6m) and its weight of one and a half tons .... Here is something similar and the Eagles will look like after modernization. We have URO cruisers, as a class in the manner of an American one. Our missile cruisers are anti-ship. (all sorts of "killers of aircraft carriers") except for the Pindos air defense systems also against the coast. Sarych was sharpened against the shore. At the time, this difference was significant. Such a floating arsenal with several hundred missiles is not a pleasant thing.
                Well, if you also have an AB with a hundred airplanes ... Against the identity?

                Here on the face the need for a clear concept for the domestic Navy, and as you know, it is only being realized. (on the remnants of the motley fleet of the USSR-Russia.)
                1. Santa Fe
                  11 February 2012 00: 04
                  -1
                  But Orlan was not a miscalculation, he was a whim
                  Well said. But this project ate funds comparable to the construction of a nuclear carrier and its wing. Not the most rational use of funds.

                  But on the other hand, the dimensions of the nuclear power plant
                  Whim. The cruiser does not need YaSu.

                  Such a floating arsenal with several hundred rockets is not a pleasant thing. Well, if you also have an AB with a hundred airplanes ... Against the identity?
                  The economy is against. With this approach, the population will receive bread and matches on cards. You need to build only the most necessary. no frills.

                  Moreover, why one huge ship for 500 KR, if modest-sized cruisers, carrying 100-120 KR, have already been built. Modernization of "Orlans" for an arsenal ship is another attempt to find a task for a senseless ship
                  1. dmitreach
                    dmitreach 11 February 2012 01: 12
                    +4
                    in the Soviets there were many things that were not rational. Well, I’m saying a whim, what would be like a Yankee and cooler. sometimes the heads of the USSR remind children in an effort to measure a member
                    however, at the time of construction in 1144, the USSR was in the prime of life and was not going to bend. so the eagle is an indicator of a strong country.

                    at that time this topic was being worked out by both the Pindos and the USSR. it was then realized that in addition to the advantage in fuel, food is also needed ... well, and similar nuances. at the time of the appearance of such ships, everything was not unambiguous. blaming them for what they were looking for is like saying "all polymers are demand ***"
                    Let's admit that the N1 launch vehicle and the Buran program are sabotage and sabotage. only meaning?

                    economy versus 12 atomic AB plus kueva a cloud of helicopter carriers and other rubbish with a gold destroyer. and for us an AB with hundreds of planes and 4 Orllans is a necessity.

                    we had a country of advice. Do you know why you can’t fuck on Red Square?
                    But the ship is needed. the intelligible concept of fleet development is only needed. Do you need such an arsenal with a range of a thousand kilometers? how many blocked air defense / missile defense areas do we have beyond the Arctic Circle? Murmansk region alone is not enough. A mobile floating arsenal is not only valuable fur ... it is also thousands of kilometers of the Russian border along the coastline. And if they also implement C500 in it ... Given the upcoming section of the Arctic, a weighty argument.
                    1. Santa Fe
                      11 February 2012 18: 17
                      0
                      then they comprehended that in addition to the fuel advantage, food is also needed ....
                      There is no point in nuclear cruisers. Of all types of surface ships, YSU is needed only for aircraft carriers. And not because of the "fuel advantage". You are new to this topic

                      Let's admit that the N1 launch vehicle and the Buran program are sabotage and sabotage.
                      Incorrect example. The space shuttle was needed. In the case of "Orlan", its functions were duplicated by the nuclear submarine of pr.949A. Moreover, the cruiser had no advantages over the submarine. Some disadvantages.

                      economy versus 12 atomic AB plus kueva a cloud of helicopter carriers and other rubbish with a gold destroyer. and for us an AB with hundreds of planes and 4 Orllans is a necessity.
                      This is an illusion. To counteract 12 AB, the following were built:
                      - 11 nuclear submarine ave. 949А (underwater displacement of each - 24 000 tons)
                      - 4 TARKR Ave 1144 (full displacement - 26 000 tons)
                      - 3 RKR pr. 1164
                      - missile systems П-6, П-70, П-500, П-700, П-1000
                      - sea space reconnaissance and target designation system (MKRTS) "Legend-M"
                      - T-4 bomber (did not go into the series)
                      - PKR X-22
                      - dozens of airfields of sea-launched missile aviation, with Tu-16, Tu-22М2 and Tu-22М3 based on them
                      - EK "Lun" (!)
                      - Titanium submarine pr 661 "Anchar"
                      - 45 DPL Ave 651 and submarine Ave 675, armed with anti-ship missiles P-6

                      This technique cost more. than all the US aircraft carrier groups, and performed only one goal - to fight the AUG. She did not know how to do anything else in the interests of her country. A prime example of "effective use of funds"

                      A mobile floating arsenal is not only valuable fur ... it is also thousands of kilometers of the Russian border along the coastline. And if they also implement C500 in it ...
                      It has been known for 70 years that carrier-based aviation sinks any "mobile amphibious arsenal" in a short time, almost without losses on its part.
                      1. Insurgent
                        Insurgent 11 February 2012 19: 55
                        +1
                        only in modern Russia, all aveanosci sold china to Minsk, there was only one left that would go to repair for 5 years in the best case, but they don’t think about building a new one
                      2. dmitreach
                        dmitreach 11 February 2012 23: 52
                        0
                        I know enough about the topic. Although there is no wrong, well, enlighten, dark soul, human encyclopedia. ))) Icebreakers with nuclear power plants, by the way, in case of mobilization, are also warships.
                        By this example, I urge you not to go to extremes. The fact that the concept of the development of the USSR Navy sometimes looks delusional, and is not always clear, is not a reason for indiscriminate criticism. And even more so for defeatism. I was always amused by people who admired the technologies of fallen empires (Third Reich, Japan), but at the same time did not hate the achievements of the USSR. Where does this selective logic come from? Or do you want to say that the aforementioned allies in terms of technology "were eating soup with bast shoes?"
                        The fleet was, the country was. We research, learn, in working order.
                        The USSR collapsed. But the country's defense was varied. Russia has no such desire to spend money. During this period, there is a clear desire for the unification of weapons. It is reasonable to consider Project 1144 as a platform. The Pindos wrote off their mastodons for objective reasons. They are building more new things than the rest of the world. It would not have been written off otherwise. By the way, the B52 still flies with them, although this is not related to the topic. You are constantly repeating about "they built it in vain", but I tell you "once it was built, you shouldn't write it off on needles", it has not rotted yet. In the end, Mistral and AB are also a big target, but this is not a reason to exclude them from the concept of fleet development. In support of my words, Rogozin's statement that even the Sharks may undergo modernization. It would seem: why are water carriers? However, 10 pieces 955 and 10 pieces 855 do not exist yet, but are needed. And these are already there. If people who own Real Numbers believe that it is expedient to restore in the current economic conditions, then the flag is in hand. Extensive reasoning about the high cost takes its own niche - chatter on Internet forums, as it is now. Similar to the dispute about the seaworthiness of the Mistral, without specific numbers.
                        How many Japanese kamikaze sank UWB ships in World War II? And the ratio of losses to success? Kamikaze is an effective weapon? Then why did America, even without nuclear bombs, bend Japan to the sea? They did not give up battleships during the Second World War, because of the danger of being sunk in principle. Not to mention the danger of Kamikaze and submarines with mines and torpedoes (and even trifles - reefs and shoals!) And moreover, some of them were written off half a century later. For half a century, some of the battleships of the Second World War kept watch in the Cold War. They were written off due to the high cost of maintenance, and not because, as a platform, the weapons are unsuitable.
                        1144 acquired such dimensions largely due to two nuclear power plants. Based on your logic: EVERYTHING is drowning, even Kursk. By the way, also with design flaws. However, is this an occasion to become a land power and stop building ships? 1144 is very ambiguous, but scattering what it is is even worse.
                      3. Santa Fe
                        12 February 2012 01: 52
                        +1
                        Why is YSU necessary for an aircraft carrier? Only a nuclear steam generating installation is capable of providing the catapults with the required amount of steam. The nuclear "Enterprise" immediately gagged its non-nuclear "colleagues" in terms of the number of sorties per day (160 and more).

                        Pindos wrote off their mastodons for objective reasons
                        What do you mean?

                        I tell you "once they've built it, you shouldn't write it off on needles", it hasn't rotted yet
                        I didn't say that. you invented it yourself. "Peter" walks all over the ball and let it continue until the resource is used up. But there is no point in restoring the other two Orlans. This is not a platform for new weapons, this is a common corruption project

                        In my words, in confirmation of Rogozin’s statement that even the Sharks may undergo modernization.
                        Typical "news in the future tense"

                        How many Japanese kamikaze sank UWB ships in World War II?
                        Quite a bit. Mostly light forces - destroyers, transports, landing craft. They did not manage to sink any shock AV or battleship.
                        But decked aircraft burned from either side - I once tried to count - 80% of all losses of the Pacific theater of operations on her account

                        For half a century, some of the battleships of the Second World War kept watch in the Cold War.
                        "Iowa", however, like the Soviet cruisers pr. 68-bis, were decommissioned in the mid-90s due to physical wear and tear.

                        They were written off due to the high cost of maintenance, and not because, as an armament platform, they are not suitable
                        Oil is oil))) Too high a cost with not the highest combat efficiency - it turns out that the weapons platform is not suitable
                      4. dmitreach
                        dmitreach 12 February 2012 12: 27
                        0
                        You mentioned one aspect. There are aircraft carriers with a springboard. Linking the need for an AEU, first of all, with a catapult is funny. )))) This resembles the logic: "the truck has big wheels, because the engine is powerful" ... good
                        I would link the dimensions of AB and its displacement. There, energy consumption is higher in size and the catapult costs 4, just the same that the AEU allows, and not vice versa. Not on the ACS set that 4 jumps wanted!
                        Atomic Power:
                        Allows larger vessel size, which in turn allows carrying
                        Larger wing
                        a large amount of fuel and lubricants and fuel for the wing, (the AB itself does not need fuel, and this is a huge released weight, affecting the displacement and deadweight of the vessel)
                        A large number of suspended weapons to aircraft.
                        the ability to go at maximum speed for a long time.

                        Yes, and walking in a pair with a tanker-zaparvshik - bad manners. AED is not in competition when it comes to Size. But there are "multipurpose AB" "small AB", not atomic.

                        The battleships were written off, because they did a lot of new things. The Americans already have a huge ballast of ships mothballed for a rainy day. It's easier to explain with the example of bombers: if B2 Spirit were riveted like hamburgers and at the price of fast food, then B52 would be in a museum, and not on modernization. With battleships, it turned out that way, there the modernization aisle rested not on seaworthiness (everything is in order with this), and new weapons systems, but on controversial main-caliber guns. They were even used in the Persian Gulf. Probably in the warehouses there was a huge amount of ammunition, which is too expensive to dispose of peacefully. Pindos know how to count their candy wrappers. By the way, I could be wrong, but several battleships in the UWB are still on storage and may be "called up" for service! Here is an example of a CAREFUL attitude towards the existing weapons platforms.

                        I say that you and I have a different approach. Seeing corruption rollback in everything is bad for health. "A cheerful heart is wholesome, like medicine, but a dull spirit dries up bones." - says eastern wisdom. (Proverbs 17:22)

                        The news in the future is the presence of a strong fleet of the country. And Rogozin's words (confirmed by deeds) are a step towards making this time "the past".

                        So, the Americans did not abandon large-tonnage ships in the most active war, because of their excessive vulnerability, because of their size ... What do we see? Balanced fleet. You know, tanks, as a military unit, are also "buried" from year to year. With the same argument about the ATGM and the helicopter. This I mean that the dispute from a number of culinary addictions is not quite objective. They did not fight only with submarines, as well as only in the air.

                        That is not your truth. )))))) Not written off, but withdrawn to the reserve. And with regards to Iowa, again called up for service after the end of the Cold War. They fought (in the 90s), and now they are not divided into needles, but in reserve. (It seems 2, I do not remember exactly) We have 1144 preserved due to non-use. This time has moved to the near future. If they (the cruisers) fought like Pindos in the 90s, then now talk about modernization probably would not have stood.

                        About butter-butter, you explain to the Washington Abkom party in their Senate.))))) It may be possible to convince them to write off the old abrams, bombers and battleships.
                      5. Santa Fe
                        12 February 2012 15: 09
                        +1
                        There are aircraft carriers with a springboard.
                        A springboard is a necessary measure; aircraft with low thrust-weight ratio cannot fly from it. The air group loses AWACS aircraft, tankers, anti-submarine, transport, etc. The springboard cannot provide a confident take-off in bad weather conditions, imposes a limit on the combat load of the aircraft ...

                        Linking the need for a nuclear power plant primarily with a catapult is fun.
                        Nevertheless, it is so. Simultaneously with the Enterprise, a non-nuclear series Kitty Hawk was being built, identical to it in size and displacement, ... according to the experience of the Vietnam War, amers were so disappointed in Kitty Hawks that even the last unit of the series - John F. Kennedy - was planned rebuild into atomic. But by that time the Nimitz project was already ready. Still, 100 and 160 flights a day - there is a difference. YSU does not provide other advantages.

                        in turn, this allows you to carry a larger wing, a large amount of fuel and lubricants and fuel for the wing
                        Not true. The Enterprise had no advantages over Kitty Hawk in terms of the number of aircraft in its aircraft wing and the reserves of aviation fuel.

                        AB itself does not need fuel, and this is a huge released weight
                        The dimensions of the YSU eat up all the supposedly "vacated" space. In addition to reactors, their several circuits and biological shielding, steam generators and turbines, a nuclear power plant requires a whole plant for the production of bidistillate, and a much larger number of people to service ...

                        Seeing a corruption rollback in everything is bad for your health
                        I do not care. I am only stating a fact.

                        By the way, I could be wrong, but several battleships in the UWB are still on storage and may be "called up" for service! Here is an example of a CAREFUL attitude towards the existing weapons platforms.
                        Come on))) "Missouri" is a museum in Pearl Harbor. "New Jersey" - is forever a joke in Trenton. The ship is incapable of combat, modern weapons and RTS have been removed, except for the museum's main caliber barrels and 5-inch artillery, the vehicle provides a three-node passage, the interior has been rebuilt as a museum ...
                        The other two battleships are stationed at the Reserve Fleet in California. They are even worse off. "Iowa" - generally finished, without a tug can not crawl a meter. The reserve fleet is a bunch of rusty troughs that they don't have time to send for disposal.

                        They were written off for two reasons - physical deterioration (after all, 50 years in service) and the inefficiency of their weapons in the 21st century
                      6. dmitreach
                        dmitreach 12 February 2012 19: 51
                        0
                        the springboard is not a panacea, but a solution to the problem for its class. for example "small AV" or our TAVKR. it is difficult to talk about catapults, because our technology has not been implemented. in bad weather and amers do not fly. In general, the entire range of weapons has restrictions on use in a storm.

                        A comparative analysis of Kitty Hawk and Enterprise did not. However, with the stated number of departures, the aircraft are probably not solar-powered.
                        Nuclear power plants will allow an emergency transition at high speed to the area of ​​destination. (if other systems can withstand it.) This is one of the most important advantages of nuclear power plants over other types of power plants. For Americans, this is important, they go around the world a lot ....

                        Battleships were actually operated for less than a dozen and a half years, despite their venerable age, and the rest of the time were in reserve. (similar to 1144) Americans seriously considered, in the 80s, their modernization and extension of their service life far beyond the 2000s. And they planned to attach them to the reinforcement of AUG (SAG - Surface Action Group). The simple, American accounting pragmatist prevented this.
                        A small number of units suitable for modernization.
                        The number of crew as three cruisers URO.
                        The need for escort ships. Even after modernization, they had a problem with anti-submarine and anti-aircraft defense. (Orlan didn’t work out of them ..)
                        The cost of operation per year equal to the cost of a new frigate. (big ships thing dear)
                      7. Santa Fe
                        12 February 2012 22: 57
                        +1
                        the springboard is not a panacea, but a solution to the problem for its class. for example "small AV" or our TAVKR
                        Then why did you give it as an example? We talked about classic nuclear carriers with a solid deck and catapults.

                        A comparative analysis of Kitty Hawk and Enterprise did not.
                        Then where did you get this: "Nuclear Power: Allows a larger vessel, in turn it allows you to carry a larger wing, a larger volume of fuel and lubricants and fuel for the wing"? )))

                        Nuclear power plants will allow an emergency transition at high speed to the destination area
                        These are your fantasies. I named the real reason above.

                        Battleships actually operated less than a dozen and a half years, despite the venerable age
                        This is not so. Some have aft 1 000 000 miles.
                        For example, "Iowa" was twice withdrawn to the reserve, until it was completely written off., And "New Jersey", on the contrary, went without stopping: Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon ... constant transitions from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean and back ... annual exercises until 1989 of the year.

                        The Americans seriously considered, in the 80's, their modernization and extension of their life far beyond the 2000's.
                        That's right, it was. "New Jersey" generally wanted to remove the aft tower and put on the VPU Mk41. But ... by the beginning of the 90s it turned out to be more profitable to build new URO cruisers.
                        The same thing happens in 2012 with the Eagles put into reserve. How not to upgrade them - it is more profitable to build new ships.
                      8. Col.
                        Col. 13 February 2012 13: 54
                        -1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        We talked about classic nuclear carriers with a solid deck and catapults.

                        Friendly tip: professionals call the deck on "classic" aircraft carriers (with an "island") not "solid", but "corner".
                      9. dmitreach
                        dmitreach 13 February 2012 21: 51
                        0
                        the springboard is not a panacea, but a solution to the problem for its class. for example "small AV" or our TAVKR.

                        Kitty Hawk and Enterprise life does not end. If there were no obvious advantages, modern ABs under 90 would not be atomic. However, I do not know the case that for an AV of such a displacement of a displacement, designers would consider an alternative to a nuclear power plant.


                        about fantasies.
                        The name of Admiral Hyman G. Rickover is your name, what does it say? Well, YOU know that without condition, but for those who are not familiar I will explain: this American-Polish Jew and an outstanding UWB naval commander is credited with the title of "father" of the American nuclear fleet.
                        So this man, speaking in defense of the idea of ​​using nuclear power plants in the Navy UWB, considered one of the undeniable advantages, just the same: the ability to make the transition at high speed to the destination area, without affecting the resource of the main mechanisms.
                        Here is such a dreamer, however.
                        And Captain 1st rank Yu. Petrov, in the article "Nuclear cruisers URO", published in the Foreign Military Review, 1988. (I cite as an example because of the mention of the advantages of nuclear power plants) writes: due to the presence of a nuclear power plant (NPP) on board, they have practically unlimited cruising range at high speed, which increases their combat capabilities, significantly expands the areas of operations and increases the time spent in them. KRA are better suited for operations in the context of the use of weapons of mass destruction, since nuclear power plants do not require atmospheric oxygen for their work, and the ship can be better sealed.
                        But this is ours, a Soviet dreamer, and of course you can not believe him, because of personal addictions.

                        I do not argue with the fact that they used them to the fullest. It was just somehow imprinted in my head that they, at their advanced (by ship's standards) age, were quite worn out. For their age, they were in excellent condition. This is one of the reasons Pindos was so sorry to write them off. And bear hard and quit sorry, won pragmatism.

                        No one argues with this. The operation of battleships a year was equal to the construction of a new cruiser! I just draw your attention once again that we have a shift of more than a decade and a half. Ours, though not in a "warm garage, were parked", were still not exhausting the resource in the roadstead.

                        Of course, I do not have the information as of 2012, but I read that several Aievs were brought into some kind of reserve category. Maybe this is due to the need to finance the "ship-museum" at the state expense, or maybe with "any fire incident." I do not know this, I "did not hold a candle" over the Pentagon. And I don’t know the classification of the UWB fleet reserve categories.
                      10. Santa Fe
                        14 February 2012 23: 24
                        +1
                        However, I do not know the case that for an AV of such a displacement of a displacement, designers would consider an alternative to a nuclear power plant
                        Almost simultaneously with atomic AB, a series of shock AB Forrestal (4 units) and Kitty Hawk (4 units) appeared. All 8 units were operated for the planned 40-50 years side by side with nuclear aircraft carriers. The head "Kitty Hawk" is still in reserve (well, you remember, yes - rusty troughs with a depleted resource) ... All 8 non-nuclear attack aircraft carriers had the same displacement and wing as the "Enterprise" and "Nimitz", all were constantly on the move and regularly made transoceanic crossings. The difference appeared only during the operation of the air wing - the Kitii Hoki were seriously inferior in the number of sorties.

                        What is the name of Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, what does it say?
                        He was a submariner, and we are talking about the surface fleet

                        the ability to transfer at high speed to the destination area, without affecting the resource of the main mechanisms.
                        This is again about submarines. Any surface cruiser is capable of passing 1000 miles at full speed without any problems. Moreover, this is usually not required.

                        Yes, once after WWII, Admiral Arly Burke complained about it, but he meant destroyers. which constantly lacked range. With the increase in the size of escort ships, the problem disappeared by itself.

                        It was just somehow imprinted in my head that they, at their advanced (by ship's standards) age, were quite worn out
                        Perhaps only the hull and armor plates have survived. But all machines and mechanisms have exhausted their resource. 50 years all the same. "Iowa" even from a place cannot move - it was towed, "Big J", aka "New Jersey" - the same thing.

                        Of course, I do not own the information as of 2012, but I read that several Ayev are put into some kind of reserve category
                        Only "Wisconsin" is rotting as part of the "reserve fleet", there will soon be another museum.

                        The operation of battleships per year equaled the construction of a new cruiser!
                        You overstate. But upgrading the battleship was more expensive than building a new Aegis cruiser. Moreover, the battleship, even modernized, lost to the cruiser in terms of firepower.
                        Something similar is observed with the rusting "Orlans" - it is too expensive to upgrade them, and the modernized "Orlan" is inferior in capabilities to modern destroyers.
  • SkiF_RnD
    SkiF_RnD 22 October 2013 20: 43
    0
    I do not agree with the uselessness of "Orlan". Yes, the cruisers 1164 Atlant were created, not least as an alternative to the overly expensive 1144. But both ships were created within the framework of the doctrine of the late USSR fleet. Air defense was assigned to the "Sushki" aircraft carriers, strike functions were carried out by large surface ships, primarily 1144 and 1164. Only cover from a powerful grouping of surface forces of the fleet would allow the full deployment of our nuclear submarines, most of which, of course, were in the bases of the fleet, and not on duty at sea. In such conditions, the Project 949A submarines could in no way replace the Orlan Project ships. A replacement for them could have been 1164, but, as we remember, we were not able to commission all aircraft carriers, and in the absence of air cover, Kirov has a serious advantage in air defense force. One can argue about the expediency of just such a ship, with all the features of the layout, with its nuclear power plant, but it was definitely not useless.
    Today, it has even become relevant, if we compare two facts.
    First, we have 4 ships, they can be upgraded, but you can leave to rot further.
    And secondly, looking inside, you can see that the ship is equipped excellently even from the point of view of medicine. ("two baths, one sauna with a 6x2,5 m swimming pool, a two-tier medical block with infirmaries-isolators, a pharmacy, an X-ray room, an outpatient clinic, a dentist's office and an operating room. The power plant of the project 1144 cruiser could provide electricity and heat a city with a population of 100-150 thousand inhabitants. ") It can become an excellent flagship, in the absence of distant naval bases. And there are just four of them. At least for two fleets - Northern and Pacific Fleet. Someone doesn't like it. Someone will say that it will be too expensive. And, nevertheless, these nuclear-powered cruisers should reach operational readiness in a few years. At least one of them actually started modernization last year. In 2015, they should end, after which the fate of the other 3 cruisers will be decided.
  • Arc76
    Arc76 10 February 2012 22: 35
    0
    Personally, I believe that the aircraft carrier is unparalleled precisely because the tactics of application, the tactics of long arms and detection have been worked out. The airborne formations of Halsey and Nimitz did not have an overwhelming advantage
    on airplanes, intelligence decided everything.
  • Arc76
    Arc76 10 February 2012 21: 50
    0
    Ganship is good at the beginning of the Second World War, the fights of Scharnhorst-e-Ekadra and Bismarck torpedo bombers revealed the advantage of deck-based naval aviation.
  • Jaguar
    Jaguar 10 February 2012 12: 09
    +5
    "In connection with the basing of Russian helicopters with coaxial propellers on Mistral, the height of the under-deck hangar will have to be increased by at least one meter compared to the original project," the height of the NH90 helicopter is 5.23 m. The height of the Ka-52 is 4,9 m, the height of the Ka- 29 5,44 m. As we can see, only 21 cm above the Ka-29
    1. Tatars
      Tatars 10 February 2012 12: 30
      -2
      So you need to increase by 21 cm, not 1 m
  • dmitreach
    dmitreach 10 February 2012 12: 47
    +15
    Comrades, maybe there will be enough articles in the spirit of "vsepolymerspro ****"?
    The fleet is not being built - the guard, treason! Under construction - the same picture.
    Even this site is full of articles with vivid reviews of the situation in the military-industrial complex. From which it follows unequivocal: the patient is alive!
    So, why is Russia Sevastopol? Arguments for:

    1. Russia is not the USSR - the world is not going to throw caps over it. For people keen on the topic of the fleet, it is well known that there is no rational spending of funds on the Soviet fleet. On the motley types of ships, insanely expensive to maintain, and sometimes without a home - a marina. (TAVKR in the raid) Yes, and machines for the production of certain types of submarines were purchased in Japan. (separate spy theme)
    2. Domestic shipyards are loaded with orders for the very gateway. There are currently no slipways for the Mistral bookmark.
    3. Build their own BDK, NATO project 11711 - Ivan Gren. It is planned 6 in a series, but 2 to master - hard. In addition to these ships, much more is being built at domestic shipyards. WORKERS (qualified) are not enough!
    4. In connection with the procurement program of the French DVKD, the idea of ​​building a shipyard on the island of Kotlin is considered. In any case, the government has pledged huge funds for the re-equipment of the shipbuilding industry. What the other day told Dmitry Rogozin.
    5. Created on the fragments of the USC industry. Who will say that this is bad?
    6. Mutually beneficial cooperation with France, as a member of NATO, and even in the military sphere, undermines the bloc, makes it not monolithic. Not only a factory for the production of thermal imagers in fr. Licenses built in Russia. Avionics for export SU and MIG - French. Kura is a multi-billion dollar project. Verdict - to be friends with the French, to develop joint projects.
    7. The next two ships will be built with the great participation of specialists from Russia, with the involvement of Russian production facilities.

    Is such a ship needed at the level of the concept of fleet development? A lot of keyboards are pulled over the monitor in the process of a dispute ... However, in my opinion the question is children's. For Needed.
    1. There were projects of such a ship. (Ivan Rogov - 3 ships, Kherson- "Ivan Tarrava") "Similar" - it is said with a stretch, because the concept of DKVD with azipods is a new topic, not 70-80s of the last century. You need to develop an idea.
    The number of countries with ships of this class is growing, how many Empires with colonies are among them?
    2. Russia does not conduct colonial wars - speculation on the topic, hysteria about anything. Let me explain. Has Russia decreased to the borders of Muscovy? In past years, the 775 project was not used as a dry cargo ship for the needs of the Pacific Fleet, to supply Sakhalin Kamchatka, the Kuril Islands? Maybe bridges were built there to supply auto transport? He did not evacuate ambassadors with their families from "countries with a friendly regime". "Friends" did not supply military-industrial complex products? Pindos have already merged as the world's gendarme? Did the Cypriot authorities detain a ship going to Syria with Russian weapons? France does not use its DVKD in humanitarian missions for the country's prestige? Therefore, this is a separate topic; because sometimes it seems to me that more than half of its life "Sevastopol" will spend "under the flag of the Ministry of Emergencies," in places of humanitarian disasters.
    3. Trolling NATO mongrels is very pleasant. It is not an easy task "Sevastopol" - the second in the series for Russia. Who just from the "*** ram on the fan" is not thrown into the circle of this deal. politics is a delicate thing, you need to be able to troll.
    4. The infrastructure for basing these ships will be built. No one says that they will exhaust the resource in the raid. And this again, jobs.
    5. Any specialized KB will increase intellectual work on adapting ship systems to the existing range of weapons of domestic production. By the way, and the construction of new vehicles for the DVKD camera dock. Who said that only the French will build? Who said that Eurofighters and Cougars have already been purchased? Who claims that the equipment and means of landing will be only French? All this is a miserable drive and hysteria!
    6. I have long wanted to throw a stone at our military-industrial complex because it is far from holy. Yes, they steal there. Yes, the attempt to be the "navel of the earth" for the MO has failed. Already ray Taburetkin, poking with a stick, in the growing asses, schemers from the military-industrial complex, than another Hitler. Anyone willing to argue? Under the rule of Taburetkin, the fleet began to resemble the only submarine in Ukraine? Does the shipbuilding industry resemble the Nikolaev shipyard? Let's judge honestly, by deeds. There is not an unambiguous attitude towards Taburetkin, but if it does not become that he is the best in recent decades ...
    7. Loading of the Kamov enterprise by additional orders.
    8. Staff training by NATO experts. If you can’t steal, buy it.
    9. I foresee a competition among young officers for serving in these pelvis. Curiosity is a tasty dish.
    10. Why do they usually talk about ferries, relegating Zenith-9 and SIC-21 to the background? If you can’t steal, buy it. Who believes that Russia has succeeded in communications technology? I don’t want to remember about 888. Do you think the fleet is better?
    11. Azipods Vrtsil we certainly do better than the Finns. And in general we have no problems with ship engines and never had. Kuzya, who goes with a tug according to the principle: "Tamara and I go as a couple" is a vivid evidence of this. The rescue tug, project 5757, "FOTIY KRYLOV", "NIKOLAY CHIKER", was also built by us, without the participation of the Finns. And most importantly, they built them so that they would simply get rid of the extra dough.
    12. Who else lives in a thermonuclear conflict? Is there a cellar in the garden area from nuclear bombs? I will tell you a secret: the Pindos in the middle of the last century, on the Bikini Atoll (Marshall Islands), conducted many nuclear tests. I remember July 1, 46, when an atomic bomb was dropped on 73 decommissioned warships. Or Operation Crossroads and the 27-ton Battleship Arkansas, which stood up as a "candle", i.e. VERTICAL, from the explosion. If you want, you can google on YouTube and watch a newsreel. By the way, ironically, the bomb was next to the landing ship, the remains of which were not found AT ALL! Do you still think that a ship must withstand an atomic explosion? By the way, the other day there was an interesting article "Kamikaze and P-000" Granite ". I will add a thought to the article: nowadays battleships are not being built. After several incidents at sea, they decided to limit themselves to strengthening the casemates and vital compartments of the ship, but not at the expense of" tank armor " ...
    12. The fleet is the greatness of the power of the state. An interesting article "Our ships were better", which provides research by American experts on the topic: "the projection of force into the surrounding space." Simply put, a warship is not always needed for its intended purpose, and even more so for a nuclear war! For there are more political movements than wars, and words need to be backed up by the fleet. Although, in real life, there are a lot of situations in which the military fleet carries out humanitarian missions. Do you seriously believe that Sevastopol will be fired upon with rockets? If this happens, other types of weapons will start talking and then Bikini Atoll will be on a different scale. Until this happens, the Russian Navy has other tasks besides being part of the strategic nuclear forces.

    "Sevastopol" - to be Russian!
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 10 February 2012 13: 12
      +4
      Our icebreakers of the "Arktika" type have technological niches in case of mobilization, for the installation of weapons. Although they are not on the balance sheet of the Navy, as far as I remember. But they turn into warships.
      And the tugs of Project 5757, included in the book of records, have no weapons at all, although they are listed on the balance of the Navy. The navy is very diverse, especially the military. To consider all ships from the position: "how quickly it will sink if it arrives at it" is amateurishness.
      1. Kyrgyz
        Kyrgyz 10 February 2012 15: 05
        0
        dmitreach,
        I will duplicate the question here it is more appropriate and more people how to technically drop 40 tanks from the UDC? are 4 boats going to drive here all day? tanks will be able to enter the coastal soil, not get bogged down?
        1. dmitreach
          dmitreach 10 February 2012 15: 25
          +3
          First: 40 MBT will not fit there. This is a race at the level that T72 is only 1001 reincarnation of T34.
          Secondly: the tank deck has limitations not only in size but also in weight.
          Thirdly: Mistral can carry 60 Jeep vehicles, not 40 MBTs or 13 Leclerc vehicles, which are actually French MBTs. About 40 MBT, regarding the Mistral, we are not talking.
          For the transport of 40 MBTs, there are, in NATO-Pindos terminology, LST-ships (Tank landing ships). Mistral does not apply to them.
          For landing equipment through the lastpforte to the water, the Russian marines have not MBT, but BMP and armored personnel carriers of various modifications.
          About "get bogged down". Not if you don't have to climb rocks. There is another arch problem! All over the world, the length of the coastline for the possibility of landing from the sea is 15% (I could be wrong).
          1. Kyrgyz
            Kyrgyz 10 February 2012 16: 21
            -4
            dmitreach,
            in the next branch about ka52 in video # 2 the presentation of the mistral, there are 40 tanks indicated
            1. dmitreach
              dmitreach 10 February 2012 16: 32
              +4
              yeah, it’s said. however, I graduated from the faculty of advertising, directing in advertising. you can’t fool me at mikin. bully
              funnier another: as 4 "light ships" there almost pr.1241 "lightning" is shown. they would have shoved 4 more aircraft carriers there. wink
              about tanks somewhere in the same series. and then for the 3d designer who made this video, the difference between MBT and BMP-3f may not be known. In any case, by the standards of the Second World War, BMP3f is also a tank.
              1. dmitreach
                dmitreach 10 February 2012 16: 54
                +2
                It seems to me that the confusion has arisen due to the peculiarities of the translation of the French advertising booklet. And ours passed off "wishful thinking" as "real". Let me explain: only we, Russian speakers, understand the word "tank" as "multi-ton, armored, military" and no one else in the world. In NATO countries, as a rule, abbreviations denoting a class of equipment, in the manner of our infantry fighting vehicles or armored personnel carriers. From here it turned out 40 T72, which initially never happened. IMHO.
                And the French themselves only talk about 13 MBT. Although some even doubt it, for a couple of tanks will be on inclined decks leading to the top. Plus the length of the guns. Although this is an approximate calculation. If you drive up the deck with so many tanks, they will not be able to maneuver, not where the apple will not fall. This will lead to the fact that from the upper decks it will not be possible to unload the equipment without cleaning the lower deck from the tanks. And all this through the side lanzport. That is, only in the equipped port!
              2. dmitreach
                dmitreach 10 February 2012 17: 24
                0
                Yes, and as a helicopter there’s generally mi8, judging by the silhouette ... is it worth saying that 8 pieces mi 8 might fit there, but probably in an unassembled form ...
                1. Jaguar
                  Jaguar 10 February 2012 18: 32
                  0
                  this is a french-german helicopter NH90
                  1. dmitreach
                    dmitreach 10 February 2012 18: 43
                    0
                    We talked about the commercial in the next article. Well, the silhouette, especially the tail, never looks like a puma.
                    and the silhouettes of tanks there are never French. and even more so on the German NH90. he generally has a chopped silhouette.
                  2. Punch 2011
                    Punch 2011 10 February 2012 19: 18
                    0
                    In my opinion, this is SA 330 "Puma", and in the background 365 Panther
                    1. dmitreach
                      dmitreach 10 February 2012 19: 30
                      0
                      Nope. Cougar so does not sit on the ass like a mi8
                      the puma's tail is not so delicately thin
                      tail rotor blades - 5
                      engine air intakes protrude beyond the cockpit, not shifted back
                      Yes, you just google the photos of both helicopters and see for yourself!
                      And Punch, we are talking about the second promotional video to the next article about the KA52k ("Sea helicopter Ka-52K").
                      1. Punch 2011
                        Punch 2011 10 February 2012 22: 25
                        0
                        I remain in my opinion! Raised reference books. The NH90 has the tail rotor on the left side (in motion), the Puma has the right one on the right and the entire fuselage is licked
                      2. dmitreach
                        dmitreach 11 February 2012 00: 20
                        -1
                        Kamrad, are we exactly talking about the same thing? 50th second, Mistral's promotional video, adapted, i.e. with Russian captions?
                        posted here http://topwar.ru/11082-morskoy-vertolet-ka-52k.html after the article "Marine helicopter Ka-52K".
                        If about this, then there is the silhouette of MI 8.
                        Moreover, I fully admit that the original video had French titles, which can be indirectly evidenced by a solid yellow background under the Russian title. You can stupidly overlay on top of the original if the French have no "source" video left. Fragments of the "manifestation of technology" are made on a static frame (stop or stillframe), silhouettes in the "Russian version", it is reasonable to assume that the Russian technology. Especially when you consider the "clumsy" realized perspective of tanks and helicopters. (it seems that another person made them, pasted it "by eye" and "fast"), they are overwhelmed. Tanks inside, helicopters ... from this angle, there should be more bottom. Although the whole video may be done by a Russian person and this is the original and not an adaptation, but be that as it may: a thin tail, a three-bladed stern propeller and a squat on the ass - a typical mi8! Puma has a different ass.
    2. dvkorn
      dvkorn 16 February 2012 01: 20
      0
      Not only icebreakers have such "technological niches" ... Even river barges of old projects (Soviet times) have local reinforcements in their hulls for the installation of at least machine guns, if not artillery installations, and in a short time could become a "river military fleet" of a fairly large quantities ... :)
      1. desava
        desava 16 February 2012 01: 26
        0
        dvkorn
        I believe that you are in the know. Do such ships have ballast tanks in the stern to fill the camera dock? What is their relative volume and what kind of trim is formed? I will be grateful.
        1. dvkorn
          dvkorn 16 February 2012 20: 55
          0
          You think in vain. I have only the education of "shipbuilding engineer", and only for this reason I am expressing something here.

          Unfortunately, I have no information about this project. And I'm not at all sure that filling the docking chamber is required. Didn't look closely at this topic. It is not at all necessary to sink the ship in order to enter the boats. It is possible that a simple slip is enough. Especially for hovercraft - they will crawl "anywhere" by themselves.

          And in any case, there should not be a trim. Ideally, even if the ship is stuck, it is still "on an even keel". The trim will interfere with the normal functioning of the helicopter deck, and is undesirable for air defense systems.
  • Arc76
    Arc76 10 February 2012 13: 43
    +4
    I agree almost completely. I want to say on my own that the civilian minister of defense is a good stick for fat burners, and the domestic modern fleet, which will rest on Soviet laurels, is a new modern fleet, too, the Mistral. Speaking of skilled workers, a relative works as a welder in the Admiralty shipyards, he insisted on Caterpiller, I didn’t like the discipline it’s cruel, for being late for a smoke break of 10 minutes at the end of every hour, in general, like in the west, he returned to his native shipyards again, there he also receives a salary of not less than 60-80 thousand. So, there are personnel, they just got used to work in Soviet (he is 55 years old), they don’t want a girlfriend for any money - (words of a relative)
  • estonian
    estonian 10 February 2012 17: 24
    -5
    dmitreach, Properly laid out catch plus fellow
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 10 February 2012 17: 28
      +1
      pasibo smile I would like that more people looked more objective. and from MO for more intelligible explanations.
      1. Esso
        Esso 10 February 2012 18: 21
        -3
        Only Rogozin is better than Serdyukov. He does at least something. By the way, they steal not only in the military-industrial complex, but also in the defense itself, which does not work well. Until Uncle Vova Putin pokes Serdyukov. Serdyukov has developed management, but in organizing the military-industrial complex he doesn’t understand military units. Putin put him as a confidant. Here you can see, and Rogozin began to trust. So we will see everything after March 4 will remove Serdyukov or not.
        1. dmitreach
          dmitreach 10 February 2012 18: 28
          +2
          after the 4th we'll see, but everything seems obvious to me. And Serdyukov and Rogozin are Putin's team. You can also add Korotchenko, who recently headed the "public council at the Ministry of Defense." I don’t think that anything will change drastically from the change of the places of the terms. I see a really functioning team. And you?
  • Santa Fe
    10 February 2012 18: 38
    +7
    the Russian Navy has other tasks besides being part of the strategic nuclear forces.
    True thought!
    1. Arc76
      Arc76 10 February 2012 22: 01
      +2
      The purchase of the Mistral shows that the Russian Navy is preparing to act outside of the conflicts associated with the use of nuclear weapons, even on limited TVDs.
  • Krilion
    Krilion 11 February 2012 04: 39
    -3
    I read your post with pleasure ... optimism pleases ... but the Russian people are so much ushat by the authorities that, taught by bitter experience, although hoping for the best, but always preparing for the terrible ...
  • ivan79
    ivan79 10 February 2012 13: 08
    +1
    dmitrch-YOUNG! I completely agree ! Of course, what aspects of "FOR" come to my mind, I will share later smile
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 10 February 2012 13: 20
      +1
      Thank you. I look forward to. I pressed more on the politician nuances. but it is possible to conduct a comparative analysis of the BDK projects.
  • Arc76
    Arc76 10 February 2012 14: 40
    0
    There is such a term as susceptibility to military losses. In such countries as the USSR in 1941-45 and present-day Iran, it is very low. Iran’s only chance is that it is extremely high in the United States. After a surge of patriotism at the beginning of the war in the United States, GDP usually falls. If Iran manages to drag out the war and, moreover, the US President doesn’t act passively, will end the war, there will be strong indignation within the country, you only need to give a chance to save his face. You can sink one of the warships, but not the terrorist method, it will only harden them , but as a result of sea battle. Although I can’t imagine how Iran can do this. To be honest, I personally do not think there will be an attack on Iran, at least until the US presidential election. But this is my personal opinion.
  • vostok
    vostok 10 February 2012 16: 15
    +2
    To buy the unnecessary Mistrals in order to take possession of Western technologies (which is not a secret) and threaten this with 4 billion or maybe more, this is possible only with us.

    And where is our intelligence, which can give everything for free?
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 10 February 2012 18: 51
      0
      free - cheese in a mousetrap. Or do you think the FSB heir to the Holy Spirit feeds on the Holy Spirit? This I mean that "steal" is not synonymous with "saving".
    2. Grenader
      Grenader 10 February 2012 18: 59
      0
      I agree. It is not clear exactly what technologies they want to receive and why they need to buy four little troughs that need to be finalized with a file. At the expense of intelligence is also true.
      1. dmitreach
        dmitreach 10 February 2012 20: 37
        0
        If it’s not clear, ask. Why immediately drain the water?
        Zenith-9
        SIC-21
        Azipod company Vrtsil. (By the way with the Finns, with regard to shipbuilding, love has long been with us since the times of the USSR) The company is building very solid engines. World leader. It's like a ferrari among the ships!
  • woland05
    woland05 10 February 2012 17: 33
    +3
    Thanks to the author. Fully and informatively ...
  • ivan79
    ivan79 10 February 2012 17: 46
    0
    Suvat MBT in the UDC ... what for? There are special vessels for this (have already noticed) .If you are considering a landing operation, then in this version the UDC is needed by its helicopters (landing and support of marines on the bridgehead) and from beyond the horizon only then with BMP and BTR boats delivering current and having cleared the place, having fixed (and having done a lot of other things), there is the turn of the MBT with the other means of funds. This is one of the options for using the UDC, there are many options!
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 10 February 2012 18: 30
      +1
      I agree. that’s its value, that multifunctional toolbox ....
  • Antibrim
    Antibrim 10 February 2012 18: 46
    0
    I generally think that we do not need such ships. what you need to buy your own from France, otherwise it will be half of the machines of the 30s at our enterprises, there will be no electronics either. But why develop it yourself if you can buy? probably think so. And there were helicopter carriers with us, I think the project was more successful than the Mistral, it would be better if they were built with us, modified a little, and we don’t depend on anyone, and they already know what such ships are capable of. and this is an incomprehensible waste of money on French garbage.
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 10 February 2012 18: 53
      +1
      Sorry, but you are not in the subject.
      1. Antibrim
        Antibrim 10 February 2012 19: 02
        +2
        Speak specifically in what?
        1. dmitreach
          dmitreach 10 February 2012 19: 19
          0
          Soviet projects are more successful than Mistral - the development of 30 years ago. In fact. By the way, they are not implemented in metal.
          Buying from France - we develop our own. Don't you think so? Or having opened Renault plants in Russia, closed domestic? And if you recall the story, the same Lada - a Soviet project? (there are many such examples) By the way, my favorite example is from Tales Optronic in Vologda. Quote:
          "Cooperation with Thales until 2011 means contracts worth hundreds of millions of euros." "In a year and a half, we intend to start production of thermal imagers in Vologda, - said Mr. Jean-Jacques Guittard. - Here I saw the same service center that I see every day in France." (Published on VPKname, article: "Katrin" Vologodskaya) And this is on the machines of the 30s ???
          1. Antibrim
            Antibrim 10 February 2012 19: 42
            0
            VAZ-2116 is a concept car of the front-wheel drive sedan on the Project C platform, demonstrated at the Moscow Automobile Show in 2005. It is alleged that the VAZ-2116 is planned to be launched in series in 2012, but in connection with the purchase of a portion of AvtoVAZ shares by Renault, the implementation of the project is in question. Representatives of the concern insist on closing the project, trying to prevent competition between VAZ and Renault models. Crash tests of the prototype have been carried out at present, showing 13 out of 16 possible on the Euro NCAP system. This is about AvtoVAZ and we don’t have our own engineers to develop ideas all by ourselves, Russia is not a small country and I think it’s not difficult to find someone who can develop it, but nobody wants to do anything with us!
            I’m talking about personal machines for 30 years, I’m not talking about military-industrial complex, but in general, we have a 30-year-old German machine in our shipyard, of course it works, but it’s not that they need to spend a lot of time and do something strength! Everything rests on the experience of the workers!

            and I wrote what to modify! make changes and do it yourself rather than buying from someone for that kind of money!
            1. dmitreach
              dmitreach 10 February 2012 20: 18
              +2
              When I was doing my internship at the Tupolev Design Bureau, I also saw the machines taken out from the Third Reich. I only saw them in the mid-90s. and I also saw the decline of the aviation industry, when on the same design bureau, driven by the wind, like a "percatipole", rotten blueprints with a purple stamp "secret" were flying. A depressing sight! Time goes by, everything changes.
              I'm just talking about the general picture of what is happening in the military-industrial complex today. It is necessary to rejoice, and you mean the machines of the 30s. remembered. Later I had occasion to touch upon the topic of "nanotechnology" at work. Believe it or not, we not only have high-tech equipment, but Russia is also a leader in the production of specific equipment. (NT-MDT in Zelenograd)
              1. Antibrim
                Antibrim 10 February 2012 21: 26
                +5
                In Russia, not 1 shipyard, but equipment is updated only where there are orders, while others are bent, I would be glad if all enterprises were 100% loaded!
                And what I want to say is that the leader is good, but these machines are probably going abroad, it’s good to go to Russia if 40% of the machines go, and again, if Russia does such machines, that they themselves can’t make a thermal imager and various optics?
                And I’m very glad that they’re building at least something now, you can’t argue, but I’m saying that we must do everything ourselves and not buy from potential opponents, NATO!
                All the same, I hope that Russia itself will provide itself to everyone, and not depend on anyone!
                1. dmitreach
                  dmitreach 10 February 2012 21: 58
                  -1
                  Quote: AntiBrim
                  I would be glad

                  to the identity argues !?
                  but these machines probably go abroad

                  in the majority - yes. these are scanning probe and tunneling microscopes. science, education and production are their sphere.
                  Quote: AntiBrim
                  a thermal imager and various optics can not do

                  optics just can and what! but with matrices it’s not very ... not all the same and immediately be leaders ...
                  It is NECESSARY - breathes frankly, the sooner we pump it out, the more chances are Pindos from Europe to move.
                  the truth is somewhere in the middle. why not buy if possible?
                  Russia was already isolated within the Warsaw Pact .... I don't want to in that era. But in order not to depend on "tomorrow", it is necessary to acquire Mistrals "yesterday", this is a component of success.
              2. Arc76
                Arc76 10 February 2012 21: 33
                +1
                I saw a German stamp in St. Petersburg at LMZ made in 1943.
  • ivan79
    ivan79 10 February 2012 18: 55
    0
    yeah ... and some consider it as a multifunctional landing carrier (with various variations) but what about: a floating hospital, a boat to help the Ministry of Emergencies or the United Nations, a control ship (although it’s slow-moving, but I think it’ll be possible to fix it later), well, a helicopter carrier e.g. Spark Vladivostok (PLO) + Kuzya (instead of helicopters, strengthen the air group)

    ksati yes ... maybe a helicopter carrier sharpened by a PLO will come up with it?
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 10 February 2012 18: 56
      +1
      some live in the last century. in the era of "nuclear wars" that never happened (fortunately), such and such people just remind me of the proverb: "generals are preparing for past wars"
      1. dmitreach
        dmitreach 10 February 2012 19: 24
        0
        to the one who set the minus: convince me that Russia has no threats other than nuclear.
    2. Arc76
      Arc76 10 February 2012 22: 19
      0
      they think that they will have to fight with NATO on a European TVD, huge masses of tanks and motorized infantry, Soviet officers are preparing for a war which was not
  • Strashila
    Strashila 10 February 2012 19: 03
    +5
    What deceived our warriors .... UNIVERSALISM ... all in one, and the hospital, and the command center, and the helicopter carrier, and the landing ship ... i.e. all in one, only the bottle is flimsy. complete crap, and besides, a weapon in the arsenal, like a falcon. It can actually build four different ships, but ground specific tasks for our real operating conditions.
    1. ars_pro
      ars_pro 11 February 2012 00: 44
      +1
      You can bring this car to mind, you can erase more than one file, only it’s necessary to invest a lot anyway, our MO is the greatest mystery =)
  • ivan79
    ivan79 10 February 2012 19: 14
    0
    damn time is not enough! tomorrow afternoon we can discuss here: for what, why and with what this animal is eaten.
  • grizzlir
    grizzlir 10 February 2012 19: 21
    +3
    All this reminds me of an old joke when popuars armed with spears bought an anti-aircraft missile. As a result, they were devoured by neighbors armed with flintlock guns.
    Having so many holes in the ground army, in the air force, in the fleet, we spend huge amounts on it is not clear what. Someone can clearly answer such a question to me. By the way, even our ministry of defense cannot answer this difficult question, maybe one of the local specialists will enlighten:
    For what purposes will we use this overseas product, on which fronts? By children’s comments like we will drop an assault in America, please do not disturb.
    1. Igor
      Igor 10 February 2012 19: 44
      +2
      Quote: grizzlir
      By the way, even our Ministry of Defense cannot answer this difficult question, maybe one of the local specialists will enlighten:


      They cut through with this the window to Europe, like Peter the Great, only he went after the Mistrals to Holland, and these to France.
      1. grizzlir
        grizzlir 10 February 2012 19: 52
        -1
        There is a suspicion that this will be the favorite personal watercraft of Minister Taburetkin.
        1. Viking
          Viking 12 February 2012 16: 39
          +1
          Whose opinion is this? Will all four be used as personal? This is actually not a question, so a statement of uh, delirium.
      2. dmitreach
        dmitreach 10 February 2012 20: 20
        0
        excellent parallel good and Peter was accused of "aiding foreigners". and there was a riot.
        1. Santa Fe
          10 February 2012 22: 01
          +1
          But Peter bought not only 4 Dutch ship. Peter I bought literally everything: Navy, Army, Industry, Science, Culture. He laid a huge city on the European model, won the war with Sweden and Turkey, expanded the country ... Peter really MODERNIZED Russia.

          What is happening now is a parody of modernization. In vain Putin and Medved amuse themselves by comparison with Peter, a miserable sight
          1. dmitreach
            dmitreach 11 February 2012 00: 28
            0
            no, the only difference is that Putin had at least some remnant and fragments of the Empire.
            the article is not about Putin's achievements. although it could be compared.
    2. dmitreach
      dmitreach 10 February 2012 20: 40
      0
      For what purposes will we use this overseas product, on which fronts? By children’s comments like we will drop an assault in America, please do not disturb.

      grizzlir, I will not copy-paste, look at my comment above there is an answer to your question. (The one that is posted: today, 12:47)
    3. Viking
      Viking 12 February 2012 16: 37
      +1
      Quote: grizzlir
      For what purposes will we use this overseas product, on which fronts? By children’s comments like we will drop an assault in America, please do not disturb.

      And on what fronts is the use of the same "Admiral Kuznetsov" considered ?. Since there are no plans for its combat use for the near foreseeable future, maybe on this basis it is worth sending it to the scrap yard? some kind of logic.
  • ivan79
    ivan79 10 February 2012 19: 26
    0
    The main tasks are described above.
    1. grizzlir
      grizzlir 10 February 2012 19: 34
      +1
      Yes, I would like to hear your opinion tomorrow as helicopters, to crack even the most advanced coastal air defense system beyond the horizon, to further clear up the bridgehead and landings. Even if you consider that the enemy is not near the Air Force, if there are then even helicopters they will not get to the air defense.
      A very long time ago, in the days of the USSR, in the magazine Military Review, I read that France created these ships to transfer troops to their colonies, such large military transports. He approached the ship to its shore, landed troops for reinforcement, helicopters for military operations and sailed for a new batch. these ships were not originally intended for real combat landing operations. Tell me to which overseas colony of Russia we will transfer troops. One thought, to Cuba.
      1. Igor
        Igor 10 February 2012 19: 53
        +2
        Such a barge will be needed only if our aircraft can reach the enemy from our territory and suppress the enemy’s air defense (although we have problems with this), as in Georgia or Japan, but such a barge is useless for long-distance travel, we also need aircraft carriers. .z. in Georgia, our helicopters flew without any Mistral.
        1. Region71
          Region71 10 February 2012 20: 08
          +4
          I suspect that several escort ships will still be needed. Now I’m thinking about the issue, I’m not special in the Navy, but it always seemed to me that in Russia there is not such a large number of marines. And then there are several ships for them at once. It will be possible to transfer ground forces, but it’s not clear where. For the last 20 years, the Caucasus has been the most tense region for Russia, troops can be transferred there by helicopter carrier only through the Black Sea. Only a very long way is obtained, faster by air from Severomorsk via Brazil
      2. dmitreach
        dmitreach 10 February 2012 20: 26
        +1
        There is also Kamchatka, Sakhalin and the Kuriles. And if you look at the northern coastline of Eurasia, then there are generally distances, as "on another planet" You judge everything, standing at the political map. Like: "here" solid land "there" across the ocean distances in nautical miles .... You need to swim across the Atlantic river ... Well, well ... But in Russia, it's much easier to get to places with water. And this is a fact. So in a figurative sense, we have enough of our "colonies". When was the BAM completed? Is the northern delivery (here the Mistral will not work, in principle, I am) by atoban? It's time to "colonize" your land anew.
      3. dmitreach
        dmitreach 10 February 2012 21: 02
        0
        grizzlir
        Quote: grizzlir
        like by helicopters, to break into the horizon not even the most modern coastal air defense system


        name at least one Soviet project that went into the series, BDK, where was it implemented?
        1. grizzlir
          grizzlir 10 February 2012 21: 24
          +2
          Quote: ivan79
          Suvat MBT in the UDC ... what for? There are special vessels for this (have already noticed) .If you are considering a landing operation, then in this version the UDC is needed by its helicopters (landing and support of marines on the bridgehead) and from beyond the horizon only then with BMP and BTR boats delivering current and having cleared the place, having fixed (and having done a lot of other things), there is the turn of the MBT with the other means of funds. This is one of the options for using the UDC, there are many options!

          I wrote about this comment. It is possible to suppress the coastal air defense system only if accompanied by a powerful strike force and preferably an aircraft carrier. If there are not enough support ships, it is only possible to land troops in local conflicts with militarily very backward countries.
          1. dmitreach
            dmitreach 10 February 2012 22: 03
            0
            I won’t argue, for the written truth is written. but the mistral has to do with it? Do you seriously think that in 36 months they will be the only vessels in the Russian Navy?
          2. Arc76
            Arc76 10 February 2012 23: 02
            0
            A reb helicopter is provided.
      4. Arc76
        Arc76 10 February 2012 22: 56
        0
        Georgia however
  • Veteran
    Veteran 10 February 2012 20: 48
    +4
    I completely agree with the judgments of dmitreach on Mistral.
    Here it is not clear from our already built and in service DVKD type I. Rogov. Of course, they are more specialized in BP and less than Mistral, but still: 14 thousand tons of displacement, 565 paratroopers + 80 armored personnel carriers + 3 KVP Lebed (100-ton aircraft), there is an air defense missile system and an automatic unit for short-range air defense, MLRS, 4 Ka-29 ... And as many as 3 ships! (It was). Why were they written off? "Nikolaev" built in 1982, "Moskalenko" in general in 1990. We use large landing craft built in the 70s with might and main!
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 10 February 2012 21: 12
      -1
      psb.
      Quote: Veteran
      It is incomprehensible for our already built

      Think so:
      The story with Rogov and Kherson, which did not go into the series (there was a lot of things), from the same opera as the "10th spree" of "Krylov" and "Chiker" or an even more sad story with the sea transport "Anadr" (Built in 1988 at the shipyard "Wrtsil" in Finland by order of the Soviet Navy) and written off "on Asian needles" series 1143 "Krechet" ("Varyag" now "Shi Lang") ALL THIS are the consequences of the collapse of the Country.
    2. Jaguar
      Jaguar 10 February 2012 22: 38
      0
      Quote: Veteran
      80 BTR + 3 KVP
      not +, but or. 80 armored personnel carrier will be if to remove boats from the docking chamber
    3. dmitreach
      dmitreach 14 February 2012 00: 17
      0
      Rogov was a good ship. As I understand it, 6 pieces of pr.11711 - IVAN GREN are being prepared for a replacement (http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/index-1-0.html photo) But still Rogov is a typical LST, in Pindos terminology. IMHO.
      He is a ship of a different class. Tank-landing transport is needed, as is the need for the DVKD.
  • Arc76
    Arc76 10 February 2012 21: 31
    0
    If the Mistral does not rise, the whole industry does not rise, where to build multi-tonnage ships, if the Mistral section is not built.
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 10 February 2012 21: 44
      +2
      here I do not agree in principle! we archi a lot of things are being built over 10 tons.
      1. Antibrim
        Antibrim 10 February 2012 21: 56
        +2
        here I completely agree with you! they can and they know how to build! the main thing that the order was! and they’ll build everything you want!
        1. dmitreach
          dmitreach 10 February 2012 22: 05
          +1
          yes, "Lefties" are not extinct. that would be more "managers" not thieving!
          1. Antibrim
            Antibrim 10 February 2012 22: 36
            0
            need responsibility as in china! caught on theft from the treasury the death penalty! there, therefore, the whole family is afraid of it, it may be cruelly but effective! but as we were told, in Japan, if they caught a bribe, then public censure is such that you won’t find work later and will affect your family so that you regret it 10 times (well, of course, someone who steals in millions and billions, probably doesn’t and they’re on the drum) and they steal everywhere, but under such conditions less!
            1. Arc76
              Arc76 10 February 2012 23: 04
              0
              Our sections are smaller, the only carrier shipyard in ruin.
              1. spirin199
                spirin199 11 February 2012 10: 54
                0
                Aviation carrier Seichas can only be built on ukroin in Nikolaev
                1. dmitreach
                  dmitreach 11 February 2012 11: 47
                  -1
                  and Vikramaditya at the Nikolaev shipyards?
                  1. Antibrim
                    Antibrim 11 February 2012 11: 49
                    0
                    Well, his case was ready, and they were already doing what was available, but in order to rebuild, unfortunately, we have problems, there is no infrastructure, but if you want, you can build
                    1. dmitreach
                      dmitreach 11 February 2012 15: 27
                      -1
                      What do you mean "was ready"? Are you aware of the percentage of hull rework? Did they make them on the high seas? Or at least afloat?
                      1. Antibrim
                        Antibrim 11 February 2012 19: 16
                        0
                        the ship is ready to drive into the dock simply, there is a dock, but not a slipway on which to do it from scratch, these are different things!
                      2. dmitreach
                        dmitreach 11 February 2012 19: 42
                        0
                        how many slipways in SevMash on which more than 50 vessels can be laid?

                        Sevmash General Director Nikolai Kalistratov told RIA Novosti that the plant is ready to build the latest aircraft carriers with a displacement of 70-80 thousand tons. At the same time, he stressed that in order to improve production efficiency, it is necessary to re-equip the enterprise and introduce new technologies. As an example, he said that "Sevmash" had already installed a new slipway for the aircraft carrier "Admiral Gorshkov" at its own expense. This plate can also be used in the construction of new Russian aircraft carriers.

                        http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20090227/163391834.html только это тема 2009года
                      3. Antibrim
                        Antibrim 11 February 2012 19: 48
                        0
                        Thanks for that, I didn’t know! just when I read it said that in terms of size new aircraft carriers can’t be built, they don’t pass in width.
                      4. dmitreach
                        dmitreach 11 February 2012 20: 04
                        0
                        always welcome! drinks
                        and more than that:
                        http://www.rusarmy.com/forum/topic1844-420.html
                        see the photo of the future "new line" in Yeisk.
  • Veteran
    Veteran 10 February 2012 21: 43
    +4
    Quote: dmitreach
    ALL THIS is the consequences of the collapse of the country.

    Probably, but "Nikolaev" and "Moskalenko" were written off not so long ago - in 2006.
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 10 February 2012 22: 07
      0
      .... Well, the Eagles were decommissioned .... now the documentation for them is being prepared, for an upgrade. for all three written off. here the topic slipped through the Sharks too. and also were written off ...
      1. Antibrim
        Antibrim 12 February 2012 20: 03
        0
        But there is no information on the Sharks? will upgrade?)
  • IrOqUoIs
    IrOqUoIs 10 February 2012 21: 59
    +1
    Joke.
    The most modern carpentry machine from Japan was brought to the carpentry factory in the USSR, which produced finished products at the exit. Gathered hard-working men look, they are surprised. We decided to try. We threw 2 logs at the exit of 2 ready-made stools, 4 logs-3 stools and a table. They all laugh at the outlandishness. And suddenly one man says, “Let’s say they put a crowbar there ... It’s said, done. The machine naturally covered, unable to withstand such a rough treatment. The men sighed disappointedly, said x @ nya and dispersed ....
    Wouldn't that be the case on the Mistral?
  • Veteran
    Veteran 10 February 2012 22: 34
    +4
    Quote: dmitreach
    .... Well, the Eagles were decommissioned .... now the documentation for them is being prepared, for an upgrade. for all three written off. here the topic slipped through the Sharks too. and also were written off ...

    Only Ushakov (in 2004) was decommissioned, three Sharks are also all in service, Vysotsky even said that they still have some stock of RSM-52 missiles. I don’t know how much this stock is, but its life is likely to be critical. Therefore, if you keep Arkhangelsk and Severstal in order, you need to think about their rearmament. Donskoy will remain a test boat for various tests.
    Nakhimov will be modernized according to the results of the ROC, starting in 2012, but money must be found on Lazarev and Ushakov.
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 11 February 2012 00: 39
      0
      Until 20, it is planned to commission all 4 Orlans. although MO has seven Fridays in a week.
      941, "thanks" to the Pindos 3 on needles translated like? the topic of life extension arose only a couple of months ago, while it is too early to talk about something global. wait and see...
      1. spirin199
        spirin199 11 February 2012 10: 55
        0
        eagles need weapons
  • 37dmds
    37dmds 10 February 2012 22: 49
    +2
    1 1 7 4 …… Nikolaev rusts. M. Moskalenko was put into reserve and if I am not mistaken has on board the minimum required crew. It is striking that the Mistral is presented as an unprecedented combat complex for command and control and support for landing operations. Fuck what already happened. Pr ... wounds three landing ships with a displacement of 8260 (1460) tons. Capacity, a reinforced marine battalion. 4 KA-29. 79 units technology. 6 landing boats of Project 1785 or Project 1176 "Akula", or 3 landing craft on air cushion Project 1206t Kalmar or Project 11770 "Serna, etc.
    Do not forget that Moskal has a full-fledged warhead-2
    Bl ..., yes, we all ran to the physical crew in stormy weather. charge in the morning in a tank hold. Ha, there is still a doc camera.
    There was a case when, in December, a des.cater was put into a dock for minor repairs. His crew of several people lived on his trough while in the dock with his life, and only a week later Starp remembered them and pulled them out for construction on the bow helipad.
    Yes, Moskalenko gave up hastily. There were problems with gas turbines. But I believe that the reserve for the modernization of these ships has not been exhausted.
    True, most likely there is nothing to modernize.
    1. Makl
      Makl 11 February 2012 00: 47
      +1
      Exactly so, from them horns and legs remained, Nikolaev saw live, and even wandered along its decks.
  • Artur09-75
    Artur09-75 10 February 2012 22: 55
    +2
    I don’t understand at all what the hell to give billions of budgetary funds to a faithful enemy. After all, the French are one of the NATO activists, trying to run into Russia because of Iran and Syria. As some comrades pointed out in their comments, there would be an ORDER, and ours would both design and build. OUR engineering school has not died yet. And if these "Mistrals" are so awesome, then why, fellow NATO members did not line up for them?
  • Veteran
    Veteran 10 February 2012 22: 58
    +6
    The Ministry of Defense announced that Moskalenko and Nikolaev were included in the list of boats planned for sale at auctions.
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 11 February 2012 13: 39
      0
      if at auctions, then on needles ... sad
  • 37dmds
    37dmds 10 February 2012 23: 12
    0
    In St. Petersburg, near the Admiralty stands in the form of a slurred sailboat. This is a restaurant. Last year, it was exponentially (in the news) closed and transferred to put it more simply ... into the category of dangerous objects. He has no parking permissions, no customer service permissions. In short, they covered the bench.
    Let us follow the path of the fraternal Chinese people. Let's put "Unicorn" in return.
    The crew is in the service staff, and if anything, then at hand to the commandant's office.
    This is so off topic.
    Thinking out loud.
  • viruskvartirus
    viruskvartirus 11 February 2012 00: 15
    0
    I recall the history of the creation of tanks in the USSR ... remember how BT appeared and then T-34 ... we calm down at the expense of Mistral and think that this can lead to the appearance of something that we will talk about with admiration ...
  • Makl
    Makl 11 February 2012 00: 45
    +1
    For the author’s information, at the Pacific Fleet there is where to haul Mistral.
  • ivan79
    ivan79 11 February 2012 11: 51
    0
    that everyone ran away already?
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 11 February 2012 12: 00
      0
      No, they’re probably sleeping, but I'm here. smile
  • ivan79
    ivan79 11 February 2012 12: 25
    0
    I watched "hugu" there, it's a pity yesterday I didn't have something to argue with some, if there is time after lunch, come here or there (huga) and now, unfortunately, busy, eh ... distracting!
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 11 February 2012 12: 55
      0
      write offline, there is always someone to answer. discussion of articles, it is "timeless" if you pay attention to the "time of publication" of the comment.
  • Rustam
    Rustam 11 February 2012 15: 31
    0
    I’m not even going to engage in polemics-CORRECTLY, WRONGLY, BARGE STEAM, WHY BOUGHT ????
    The fact is that we purchased it and is a worthy option only time will show ??
    here are some of my personal thoughts

    плюсы
    a) the first in 30 years, the purchase of a ship for our Navy and the first ship of this class in our Navy
    b) a record construction speed of 21000 tons in 3 years !!!
    c) obtaining information command systems ZENIT9, etc.
    d) European quality (it sounds naive but the crew has excellent conditions of service - only 160 people of the team this shows the level of automation of the ship
    e) in connection with the purchase of the Mistral, the purchase and development of the Ka-52 marine helicopter, as well as the purchase of new transport Ka-29s and sentinel 31s, are also a plus for progress and kumerat
    f) the construction of 2 ships on our lines and these are new technology machines and re-equipment of the enterprise

    Cons
    a) dependence on imported spare parts and components
    b) we need the construction of a modern base station according to international standards (and on the other hand, this is a plus, although a normal parking spot will be made for technical services)
    c) purchase of additional hovercraft (moray eels do not fit in size)
    d) possible (possibly) laying bookmarks and shutting down ship systems in case of conflict with NATO
    e) the absence at the moment of escort ships (frigates and corvettes) - the Pacific Fleet is currently incapacitated, naturally without the protection of a helicopter carrier it is an excellent target

    RESULT, I don’t even know, but wait and see !!! I’m already interested
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 11 February 2012 16: 20
      0
      but in vain that they did not enter, there is something to see.
      about the cons:
      What kind of "miracle spare parts" are we talking about?
      point "b" is rather a plus
      "in" - I have not heard that the French will buy platforms. domestic design bureaus, let them hurry up, there is an incentive. why minus?
      "g" about this magic and incomprehensible word! Let's develop an analogy. Where did you make Windows and other operating systems? What is the Pentagon using? Did the UWB declare that it equates cyberattacks with an act of military aggression? Why are they so alarmed if they have power over the "magic tabs"? Declaring one country in power over ALL IT technologies, with a variety of OS architectures (there are not so many of the latter), is like recognizing the power of UWB over the laws of physics. No one is talking about AFAR or electronic warfare. It is more fair to blame China, because most of the production of shmatritsa and other things is on their territory.
      "d" Do you seriously think that in 36 months one ship will enter the Navy?

      about the pros:
      "a" About the first DVD, I agree, about the first in 30 years, I do not understand.
      "b" about speed in 36 months, the same FOR
      "g" nishtyaki Zenith-9, SIC-21, Azipod of Vrtsil, ship architecture, ship control systems, digital bus for the command post (in fact, a multimedia hall), hospital equipment and something else there - YES YES and again YES!
      "d" kamovs, and even ship ones! super!
      "z" is also true.
      1. Rustam
        Rustam 11 February 2012 18: 55
        -3
        point in minus
        news feed
        According to available information, for the two Mistral type landing ships ordered in France for the Russian Navy, it is also possible that four new French L-CAT (EDA-R) type high-speed catamaran landing boats will be ordered.
        1. dmitreach
          dmitreach 11 February 2012 21: 05
          0
          At various times, information was received that ship art systems would also be purchased from NADO. There were even "revelatory" articles. With a detailed analysis of competitors and native gun mounts. Agent 007 would have given a kidney for any such article.
          So I'm pretty skeptical about such statements. Example Iveco (Lynx), revealed a lot.
  • ivan79
    ivan79 11 February 2012 16: 36
    0
    more pluses! OUT OF MINUSES, perhaps adequate "g" the rest when it will be decided

    about "g" - do you think it is not realistic to solder in such a colossus some little nasty thing that will attack at the most crucial moment?
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 11 February 2012 16: 39
      0
      It seems to me that this "minus" is from the field of conspiracy theories. This is not a ship that needs a bookmark, of such a level that it would make it useless. This is not a strategic nuclear ship. The case with the "worm", who was "accelerating" the centrifuges for uranium enrichment (in Iran, it seems), such technologies are a more realistic target for the "bugs".
      Let our shipbuilders dig the earth in these French systems. More benefit from being provided with documentation. Understanding the essence of "how to assemble-disassemble" (a virus program), you can build protection.
  • ivan79
    ivan79 11 February 2012 16: 47
    0
    almost some pluses of minuses only "g" suspicious
  • Wolkin
    Wolkin 11 February 2012 17: 18
    0
    I did not serve in the Navy, I gave aviation for 20 years. Therefore, I want to ask those who gave the fleet more than one or two years of life. What can you say about the words of Admiral Komoyedov?
    He is still an admiral.
    http://www.nr2.ru/sevas/291711.html
    Hello, Vladimir Petrovich. I would like to know your position on the actions of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation to purchase foreign equipment and load our plants with their production on the territory of the Russian Federation. In particular, according to the RF Black Sea Fleet on the purchase of Mistral.

    Vladimir Komoedov: Not only is the Minister of Defense here, there is a small front at a great height, led by the Prime Minister, who is announcing the purchase. I believe that it is a tremendous insult to all the shipbuilders of our country who built ships such as the Peter the Great - an atomic missile cruiser, submarines of the Typhoon type - unique submarines and ships that no country will repeat, and was capable of make only the Soviet Union. “Mistral” is like a tin can, not armed with anything, one merit is a diesel-electric ship installation. She is good because it takes up little space. This is a small engine room, and in a place freed from large engine rooms you can base, store, store, maintain helicopters and personnel. Unfortunately, this type of ships is not able to act independently, it is always necessary to ensure its combat stability, both under water and above water, as well as in the air. And in order to transfer some forces to the Kuril and other islands ... they just need to be there formally in the support system. Once again I will say that the decision to purchase Mistral is a slap in the face to our shipbuilders. It doesn't matter what condition they are in. This indicates the inability of Russia to build even such a “trough” as the Mistral. We do not need any technology. We have no worse assembly technologies and case robots than France and other countries.

    To resume production at the shipyards, a clear program, rhythmic financing and the iron state will are needed.
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 11 February 2012 17: 42
      0
      With all due respect to the gray hair of the admiral, he is friends with the Communist Party. I do not think his opinion is objective enough, I give reasons below.
      "Speech by the Chief Prosecutor V. Ilyukhin at the trial of the military tribunal of the All-Russian Officers' Assembly in the case of V. Putin's illegal and destructive activities."
      Moscow February 10, 2011
      published here: http://kprf.ru/dep/88074.html
      In his speech, Comrade Ilyukhin, refers to Kamoyedov as: "a professional, intelligent and moral, authoritative" person in the galaxy of his kind, but offended by the authorities. I would like to ask: WHAT **** you, dear, comrade. Kamoyedov, have you organized the fleet before? When they performed their direct duties! And the authorities began to scold from the "warm sofa" of their pension?
      This I mean that there are really a LOT of abusers of the authorities retired. They certainly have experience and knowledge, but the feeling of "offended child" does not leave when you read their opinions.
      Komoedov is undoubtedly a good officer, who rose to the rank of Admiral (!), But no matter how it turns out that he is the "son" of those caps that promoted Prospect 1144 "Orlan", very controversial in nature and for his era.
      1. Wolkin
        Wolkin 12 February 2012 09: 06
        0
        dmitreach Yesterday, 17:42
        Loved your answer. And if he was friends with United Russia? What would you answer?

        I give a full paragraph on your link: http://kprf.ru/dep/88074.html

        ... Like all amateurs, S. Ivanov, A. Serdyukov could not and do not want to put up with professionals, smart and moral people around them. Therefore, they expel the best, most authoritative, talented military leaders from the armed forces. Among them, the commander of the Army Aviation, Colonel-General Vitaly Pavlov, the commander of Long-Range Aviation, Lieutenant-General Mikhail Oparin, the commander of the Black Sea Fleet, Admiral Vladimir Komoyedov, the chief of the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff, Colonel-General Alexander Rukshin ...


        I would also be offended in his place, if me, some corporal, were “a week without a year”
        who didn’t understand anything in military affairs, he drove out only because I know him more.

        ... but no matter how it happens that he is the "son" of those hats ...

        And this is not the answer.
        1. dmitreach
          dmitreach 12 February 2012 10: 33
          0
          I didn’t mean so much his political sympathies as the manner of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation “populist attrition” in the style of “vpolemerypro *****” “where will the fsbnasledniakgb look. To me, such Almist-populist hysterics remind me of a grandmother in a bazaar, but not rational criticism. And even more so politics. And even more, it is not worthy of "wise experience, men of the nation." In short, hysteria in the manner of Zhirinovsky (tm) is deeply disgusting to me, no matter who it comes from. There are a lot of people who have been moved from the ranks of the armed forces in recent years. I admit that there are professionals among them, but knowing the psychology of a person, I am sure that there are more "offended and redeemed from the mind" there are more. If this is not so, then why were they formerly political impotent, when they had the levers of power in their hands? Or do we have a positive trend in relation to the Armed Forces under the EBN? "Shapkozakidateli" is my verdict to those who tirelessly shout at all corners that we are "ourselves with a mustache", in spite of the existing failure in the industry. This inappropriate attempt to play on national pride has more than once brought Russia to the edge. And it is ALWAYS easier to criticize. At least in view of the fact that there is no ideally functioning system, in any area of ​​human life. But even in the "rich" Soviet times, the Soviet Navy collaborated with Finland, the GDR, Poland, Bulgaria and even Japan (!), Not considering it shameful. To live on the basis of the principle "The West is not our friend, because it can throw" is absolutely reasonable. However, industrial espionage is not only on the shoulders of intelligence, but also in printed candy wrappers. If you can't steal, buy a capitalist with a loss. You compare facts, no extremes. I would understand the position of Komoedov if we tried to buy nuclear power for SSBNs from the Americans. They even grudgingly sold it to the closest allies of the Nagolsax, imposing a limit of 1001. Now we are talking about an automated ferry, with medical equipment and IT technologies, then why panic? Don't look at the size of the Mistral, focus on the filling. WHO is building in Russia? At least one firm? French Thales Optronic, on the territory of Vologda? Even the avionics on export fighters are not domestic. Will Komoedov say this? A reference to the example with the purchase of "an elite foreign car, for the sake of a car radio" - LOL. All the same, let's be fair, we will master the case ourselves, but we are not buying a blank! The Korean Dokdo was abandoned precisely because it is just a saucepan. And the French do not sell IT technologies in parts. Also not stupid. Have you read how many companies are represented in the super modern Sukhoi Superjet 100? I recommend. Spacecraft Phobos-ground, flying to Mars, see the list of countries participating in the project. Not formal, but technology provided. This line of unpleasant examples can be continued. And honestly, we are not the first in everything, not a tragedy. It is a tragedy when respected people, the same Komoedov, substituting for concepts, arrange an emotional throwing "ram on the fan." To whom is it easier from their "fair criticism"? Industries? I doubt it.
          1. Punch 2011
            Punch 2011 15 February 2012 21: 37
            -1
            The main purpose of the Mistral acquisition is the evacuation of Russians (most likely hostages) from hot spots, and soon there will be a lot of them: both from the former republics and from the countries of Asia and the Middle East
  • ivan79
    ivan79 11 February 2012 17: 53
    -1
    and what 1144 did not please?
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 11 February 2012 17: 54
      0
      I'll find the link. then the spears of lamal in a circle need / do not need AB, AUG and the like. very instructive story, how NOT to make decisions.

      Article of Captain 1 rank, Candidate of Military Sciences, Professor V.P. Kuzin
      Military-technical almanac "Typhoon" No. 4'1999

      Part 1. "There are three totally useless things in the world ..."
      Part 2. "You have not yet penetrated the consciousness of what is happening ..."
      Part 3. Syndrome of white elephants.

      http://russianarms.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=732

      I agree with the conclusions of the officer. I’ll add from myself that all 4 (!) Ships must be returned to service, having undergone a deep modernization.
  • dmitreach
    dmitreach 11 February 2012 18: 36
    +1
    Let me explain why I still FOR THE Eagles.

    New century. New technologies. New types of weapons. New visions of war. A network-centric war doctrine would seem to be a product of modern times.
    However, one should not forget that the USSR naval commanders had a similar vision of the confrontation space. It is through their efforts that programs have been implemented, the fruits of which we are just beginning to reap. Who remembers now that GLONASS is the legacy of the Soviet Navy? There was a "mega problem" with the positioning of ballistic missiles in northern latitudes. (there the meridians converge for the North Pole.) In order to teach intercontinental missiles not to stray off course, on the way to shitty Pindos, they were taught to tie to the starry sky. And warships in the World Ocean need coordinates. The lighthouses of the time of Dr. Greece are not a panacea ... This required a constellation of satellites. This is just how the result of those developments became, a modern, not brought to mind, but existing in real life - the GLONASS system.
    In the same period, an interesting concept of anti-ship missiles, attacking "in a flock", received practical development. In this case, repeating the terrain or walking at an altitude of several tens of meters above sea level. Where is the "command" missile, gives the target indication to its "subordinates", being able to distinguish between the AB from secondary targets and going in a different echelon. If the "leader" was destroyed, another missile from the order would take his place. Such "artificial intelligence" guaranteed sufficient defeat for the AB and his escort. The interconnection of 3 elements: target designation means (satellite), carrier and anti-ship missiles was first implemented in the world in the USSR.
    That was in the past. What today?
    Today "our probable friend" (UWB) spends millions of printed candy wrappers on the development of combat, flying machines with artificial intelligence. This is due not so much to the seeming concern for the life of the pilot, but to the fact that such machines can experience overloads, when maneuvering, not accessible to a living organism. Again, weight is released due to the life support systems of the pilot, the pilot himself.
    What is it about the Eagles? AV with cars scaring the audience in science fiction cinema is already real. The Americans are already using similar devices. There was a case when a robotic, artillery system (it seems in the UAE) attacked "its own", there are dead. But I'm not talking about something. The size of a carrier platform for such weapons does not necessarily have to have the dimensions and deck of a modern Nimitz class, such weapons systems are already on Peter the Great (if we are talking about the P700 anti-ship missiles), what will happen tomorrow when the intelligence of these missiles is qualitatively increased?
    Here for such, it would seem fantastic platforms in the past, the Eagles are very welcome! With the development of the topic C500, P800, the creators make space closer, and the future - the past.
    1. viruskvartirus
      viruskvartirus 11 February 2012 18: 46
      0
      Yes 300 missiles are a force to be reckoned with ....
  • Veteran
    Veteran 11 February 2012 18: 56
    +8
    Quote: Wolkin
    Therefore, I want to ask those who gave the fleet more than one or two years of life. What can you say about the words of Admiral Komoyedov?

    Okay, I will squeeze out my patriotism for a while and, reluctantly, I will express objective things.
    1. Project 1144 is far from optimal, you can not be proud of the large displacement and "stuffed" all the models of the USSR naval weapons on the cruiser. Firstly, one of the reasons for its large displacement is the great lag of our defense industry at that time in terms of the mass-dimensional characteristics of weapons and military equipment from the United States. The second reason is the presence of nuclear power plants, the need for which is a controversial issue today, although for our large NKs, in contrast to the Yusov ones, this is perhaps the preferred option, but only in a more perfect (less frequently serviced) and compact version. The lack of versatility of the launchers of different types of RO is also a big minus of this cruiser. Because of this, it is also limited in its strike potential - no more than 20 strike missiles (compare with the Ticonderoga-122 UPU missiles, which in the strike version can all be filled with the same Tomahawks). So Orlan, provided that they all return to service a radical modernization is needed, at least in radio electronics and the main KKK.
    2. To be proud of Sharks (pr. 941), too, must be careful - only as an amazing achievement of domestic engineering in difficult objective conditions and worthy of the Guinness Book. Such an underwater "Titanic" was not made because of the good conditions. Could not make ICBMs with solid propellants with a mass of less than 90 tons, and the ammunition had to be at least as in Ohio. Taking into account the aforementioned lag, in order to get a hull with at least 20 mines, it was necessary to make a catamaran from two hulls. The result is a huge "water carrier" (compare its underwater displacement of 49800 tons and surface displacement - 28500 tons). True, such a buoyancy reserve (31,3%), combined with powerful reinforcements of a light hull and deckhouse, provided this submarine with the ability to surface in continuous ice up to 2,5 m thick.And, of course, it has an amazing impact potential - 200 warheads per 100 kt with a range of> 10 thousand km. But a full-fledged infrastructure for the maintenance and service of the Sharks was never created even by the forces of the USSR and only in the Northern Fleet. They are too expensive in their version of creation. And now there are no RSM-52 missiles and will never be. So the uniqueness is the uniqueness, but nevertheless it is better to be guided by expediency, optimality in solving the assigned tasks and the possibilities for the maintenance and servicing of ships, so that they serve longer as effective tools in solving problems.
    3. "Mistral" is not a panacea, it is one of the elements of a balanced Navy, which should be built by the country. Our "defense industry" is in some ways also "obsolete", allows itself to build "lead" ships, which are essentially floating stands for testing new types of weapons and new technologies (Guarding, Lada, God forbid Gorshkov). This is too wasteful for us in my opinion. As for the fact that "we do not need any technologies" - this is a "hap-hack", which more than once painfully responded to us already during the database. How much needed! Or will we look for unique manual welders for a strip of 150 m?
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 11 February 2012 19: 26
      0
      I subscribe to every word! good One needs to learn from mistakes. After all, they are our legacy.

      and what about the new Gorshkov wrong, I missed something?
  • ivan79
    ivan79 11 February 2012 19: 07
    -1
    and what about satellites for n 700 as much as anything else is left or is it all gone
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 11 February 2012 19: 22
      0
      no one has canceled glonass. there satellites - there will be a dozen three!
      1. Santa Fe
        11 February 2012 19: 43
        0
        GLONASS is not affiliated with P-700
        Target designation and guidance is carried out by the Marine Space Survey of Targets (MRKTs) "Legenda-M"
        1. dmitreach
          dmitreach 11 February 2012 20: 25
          0
          It seems to me that it was not for nothing that they created VKO ... there are both "Celina" and "Legend" and "Liana" ..... - all this is the basis and development of the satellite constellation. To reliably understand which of this "worked", and what else is dangling, you must either have a "permit" or be a CIA officer (again, with a tolerance in the form of times)
  • ivan79
    ivan79 11 February 2012 19: 33
    0
    I read your link there 2 types of reconnaissance vehicles with them, then I suspect that the resource has been exhausted (and for a long time) and they are hanging out with garbage and is there anything new for the n-700?
  • ivan79
    ivan79 11 February 2012 20: 28
    +2
    I have found NOT ALL IS LOST ... On November 20, 2009, the combat crews of the Russian Space Forces from the Plesetsk cosmodrome launched a Soyuz-U rocket with the Lotus-S satellite. The spacecraft was successfully launched into orbit, it was assigned the serial number "Kosmos-2455".

    There is every reason to believe that the launched device is the first satellite of the new Liana radio-technical reconnaissance system (RTR). The Liana system was conceived back in the early 90s to replace the Legend marine space reconnaissance system. And along with it, the Celina-2 satellites, which were part of the RTR GRU system, whose name is still classified.

    The Legend has been the main detection system for American aircraft carriers for many years. It transmitted data to submarines and missile cruisers for firing long-range supersonic anti-ship missiles. The Legend satellites first showed themselves during the Falklands War, revealing the actions of the British squadron. This allowed our headquarters to accurately predict the time of the landing of the British landing. In the mid-80s "Legend" gave a signal that two US aircraft carriers with an escort were secretly moving towards Vladivostok. All other means of reconnaissance and flotilla in Kamchatka and Sakhalin "slept through" them.

    But the time has come when the satellites of the Celina-2 series became obsolete. In addition, they are manufactured at the Ukrainian Yuzhmash plant. In connection with Ukraine's aspirations to NATO, Russia is forced to abandon cooperation with it and, accordingly, from the Ukrainian carrier "Zenith". However, we will purchase Tselina-2 satellites until 2012. Thus, according to the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine N 1163 of November 27, 2008, signed by Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, by January 1, 2012, four Tselina devices will be sent to Russia (11F644 ) "with a set of spare parts and devices".

    The design of "Liana" was started in the Russian Federation back in 1993, but it was repeatedly out of schedule, and not only because of financial reasons. In 1996, the developers were required to adapt the new satellites to the Russian Soyuz launch vehicle, abandoning the Ukrainian Zenit missile originally planned in this capacity. And in 2002 - to unify the devices themselves according to the "platform" with Samara satellites of the "Cobalt-Resource" photo reconnaissance. With the launch of the first "Lotus" (aka "Kosmos-2455"), the Russian military was finally able to start testing elements of the new orbital system.

    The launched spacecraft "Lotos-S" was created by the Central Scientific Research Radio Engineering Institute (Moscow), the Arsenal Machine Building Plant (St. Petersburg) and the TsSKB-Progress Rocket and Space Center (Samara) within the framework of the project of a new generation electronic intelligence system. Liana ". If the tests are successful, then the improved "Lotuses" will go into space. And then the Pion-NKS spacecraft. They will replace both the Legend satellites and the RTR of the Main Intelligence Directorate. http://ruscosmos.narod.ru/KA/KA.htm
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 11 February 2012 20: 33
      0
      good offset! do not sit straight! not from scratch the troops of the East Kazakhstan region organized!
  • Veteran
    Veteran 11 February 2012 20: 30
    +6
    The work of the Legend is based on the work of two types of satellites - passive US-P and active US-A. Passive powered by solar panels. The last launch of US-P (Cosmos-2421) was in 2006, then its fate is contradictory, according to some reports it was destroyed in 2007, according to others it was decommissioned and is in orbit.
    Active ones work from a compact nuclear power plant. The last time US-A was used was in 1982 to "illuminate" the tactical situation in the Falklands conflict. The last launch was in 1988, therefore, if the estimated operating time of the nuclear power plant is a year, then we can say that the system is not working.
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 11 February 2012 20: 36
      0
      old satellites served. the system itself is up to date. Well, her name is different ...
  • ivan79
    ivan79 11 February 2012 21: 33
    +1
    I suspect the spacecraft group is small, but I hope that it will be restored to a healthy state (at any time, record the movement of enemies in the oceans and take countermeasures)
  • Wolkin
    Wolkin 12 February 2012 09: 39
    0
    Dear sailors, I have not received an answer to my question. Some hints.
    The question, as far as I understand Komoedov’s answer, is that - could our industry build its Mistral without the help of the French?
    Is it more difficult to build than pr. 1144 or pr. 941? French technology in shipbuilding higher than ours? Or we have already lost them during this time or our technologies are outdated, i.e. did not improve? Can we still create our own technologies that will be better than the world?

    As for the fact that "we do not need any technologies" - this is a "shapkozakidatelstvo", which more than once hurt us already during the DB. How much needed!

    And exactly, will we get these unique foreign technologies? Or, as always, the West will throw us? They really do not like to share something good, especially with us.

    Or will we look for unique hand welders on a strip of 150 m?


    Those. we had such welders, but now?

    The Mistral is not a panacea, it is one of the elements of a balanced navy that the country should build.


    I understand that at present, we do not have a balanced fleet. What is there?


    As a result, Komoyedov is still right?

    This indicates the inability of Russia to build even such a “trough” as the Mistral.
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 12 February 2012 11: 25
      0
      To create your own technologies, it will not hurt to spy on the "probable friend".
      About a "specialist" who knows how to cook a seam of 150 meters by hand - a sad joke. Very close in meaning to "they do not clean guns with bricks." Damn technology!
      Invalid comparison. In Fr. The ferry is not equipped with communication devices that can withstand almost 100g in case of an explosion. Their logistics and timing are also know-how. Even in the "advanced for its era", Soviet times, 1144 was built for an ugly long time. Read the history of creation. There are many sad pages. If at the faculties of management, "Apple" and "McDonald's" become textbook examples in terms of the management and logistics system, then the Soviet military-industrial complex is an opposite example. I understand that the comparison is provocative, but at the time of construction of 1144 "Ipatyev's methods" and "Stalin's sharazhki" were not used. Maybe in vain. technologies and work organization. "Again, Vikramoditya with Nerpa. Our carabeli saw a lot of useful things in joint projects with foreigners. Mistral is not a pioneer.

      Because the West does not like to share and does not sell as "discounted", you have to buy Mistral "wholesale".

      There is no balanced fleet for 20 years already! Although it is difficult to say about the Soviet fleet that it was "balanced" There were fatal diseases - a wagon. All the more so today. We have fragments inherited from the USSR, whose fleet was powerful, but not rational. With its positive and negative characteristics.

      No, not right. http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/index-1-0.html - TO DEVELOP AND INCREASE! Mistral is not superfluous.
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 12 February 2012 14: 00
        +1
        Quote: dmitreach
        941 "water carrier" is generally a great example of what Russia should avoid.
        And if you remember why this project has four times more buoyancy than the same "Ohio"? One of two things: when creating infrastructure, either build berths taking into account the very deep draft of a heavy boat, or the boat must have greater buoyancy, which means a lower draft. We considered the second option preferable. The new "Borey" has a draft of 10 meters, the huge "Typhoon" - 11,2 m. In addition, the survival of the submarine, not least of all, depends on the buoyancy reserve.

        Quote: dmitreach
        Pride in the Navy is not enough when it comes to "technology and work organization"

        The shipyards where the first 2 Mistrals will be built belong to the Koreans. By the way, they offered us an alternative version of the Mistral, which was no worse in terms of the ship, but much cheaper. And they would have received absolutely the same technologies for building a ship.
        In this forum http://www.popmech.ru/blogs/post/807-mistral-v-litso/scoreid/1137/ quite a lot rubbed over the "Mistral"
        1. dmitreach
          dmitreach 12 February 2012 14: 59
          0
          French shipbuilding company "DCNS"
          Alstom a large French engineering company
          or our USC
          which of them belongs to the Koreans? maybe I missed something ....
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 12 February 2012 15: 10
            0
            Quote: dmitreach
            French shipbuilding company "DCNS"
            Alstom a large French engineering company
            or our USC
            which of them belongs to the Koreans?

            Found a quote, the source, where it came from - not yet:
            "..... Earlier, Sechin repeatedly spoke out against the direct purchase of Mistral from France, insisting on the direct construction of an analogue of such a ship at the facilities of the United Shipbuilding Corporation, of which he is the chairman of the board of directors. Thanks to this, USC expects to receive contracts from the Ministry of Defense. At the same time, USC started negotiations with the Korean company STX, which developed the Mistral. This company owns the STX France shipyard, which will become an exporter of the helicopter carrier to Russia if the finished ship is purchased ... "
            1. dmitreach
              dmitreach 12 February 2012 16: 11
              0
              dokdo is more like an empty pan.
              STX Corporation is one of the largest ship manufacturers, with shipyards around the world, as I understand it. Like our Gazprom, on a Russian scale. But do they own the technology supplied with Mistral (Zenith-9 SIC-21)? Wrtsil does not seem to be part of the STX holding, or will the azipodes come from Alstom? By the way, is he also in STX? It is interesting to know the cooperation of brands. Who has the rights to the same Ztnit9?
              By the way, we have been cooperating with Koreans for a long time http://www.korabel.ru/news/comments/na_verfi_stx_shipbuilding_company_ltd_koreya
              _spushchen_na_vodu_tanker_dlya_oao_primorskoe_morskoe_parohodstvo.html

              well, if we order from the best of the best, it’s very cool.
              1. dmitreach
                dmitreach 12 February 2012 16: 44
                0
                http://www.dp.ru/a/2011/06/16/Novaja_zhizn_Admiraltejski/

                Oh how! It turns out that Koreans also have something to do with the shipyard in Kotlin!
  • ivan79
    ivan79 12 February 2012 13: 00
    0
    I read today all the comments on this topic, the impression is that some (quite a lot of them) have the true use of UDC current in landing operations (landing: infantry + tanks (!!!) smile and helicopters are needed to suppress air defense smile and fighting with enemy tanks) and alone (there will be enough money only for the mistral and support groups will not be, they will plunder the money and old boats will be written off soon) smile and it is obligatory for a prepared area of ​​defense-type as in "saving a private area" and behind the pillboxes in the depths of the defense instead of "88", a Patriot is necessarily hidden smile
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 12 February 2012 14: 52
      0
      also noticed laughing
  • ivan79
    ivan79 12 February 2012 13: 34
    0
    Attention! You do not have permission to view hidden text.
    ... I recently read an article about the choice of an aircraft carrier for Russia. There’s just a parallel between the nuclear power plant and the catapults. As an example, they set the situation — when the catapults are used intensively (all the energy goes to them), the UWB carrier carrier practically stops — there are no screws to twist. read well and put forward a theory!
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 12 February 2012 14: 51
      0
      Well, I guess I don’t get it. All this once again emphasizes the need for balance. The most juicy example is MBT, in which the contradiction between: harrow / mobility / firepower / fuel /
      If the AEU really gives so much to catapults, then this indicates unresolved design problems. Which are not a reason to close the research topic. The Americans did not decide on this to limit themselves to 11 ABs with AEUs.

      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 12 February 2012 15: 15
        0
        On promising aircraft carriers, it is planned to install not steam catapults, but electric ones. Now the principle of electric catapults is used on "American" ("Russian") roller coasters to accelerate a train with trailers. One of the advantages of electric ones is that you can adjust the launch parameters of the aircraft based on its weight.