Military Review

Another dispute around the "Mistral"

94
Around the middle of 2010, it became known that the Russian Ministry of Defense intends to acquire for the domestic naval fleet a number of universal landing ships of the Mistral project of French production. Already at the start of negotiations, this purchase caused a lot of controversy, affecting both the characteristics and tactical features of the French ships. Over time, all these disputes subsided, but periodically they resume with renewed vigor. So the public reacts to new messages about the progress of negotiations, the signing of contracts, etc.

Another dispute around the "Mistral"


A few days ago, the talk of the Mistrals sounded new. The reason for this was the publication of "Vedomosti", in which, with reference to some sources in the Ministry of Defense and at an unnamed defense company, more than interesting information was cited. The article stated that the first two ships for the Russian Navy would be completed, and the construction of the third and fourth, the construction of which was planned to be carried out at Russian shipbuilding enterprises, was canceled. In favor of such a decision, an argument was made concerning the negative attitude of military sailors to the very idea of ​​buying foreign landing ships.

Soon after news Other messages of a different nature have appeared on the refusal to build two ships in their shipyards. A spokesman for the United Shipbuilding Corporation A. Kravchenko said that his organization was not aware of any plans of the Ministry of Defense to abandon the construction of the third and fourth "Mistral". Contracts for the construction of these ships have not yet been concluded, however, as repeatedly stated earlier, they will be signed in the coming months. Just a few hours after the press service of the USC came new data. RIA Novosti, through its channels in the defense department, found out that no one really refused two landing ships, their construction will start later than previously planned. Bookmark the third and fourth ships moved from 2013 to 2016 of the year. The deadlines for the delivery of ready-made ships to the fleet also moved accordingly.

As a result, the situation became clearer and reports of the Vedomosti source were not confirmed. It is difficult to say whether this news was expected. After the change of the Minister of Defense, a lot of experts and people just interested began to wait for some changes in the course of the military department, primarily related to a number of controversial decisions adopted by the previous Minister A. Serdyukov. The contract for the construction of "Mistral" just belonged to this category. Nevertheless, in the end it turned out that the new landing ships would not fall under the reduction, but would simply be built several years later. As a matter of fact, it was the controversial nature of the Russian-French contract that drew the most attention to all the plans of our defense department regarding the purchase of Mistral.

This aspect of the whole stories with French ships can shed some light on the nature of the current "sensation." Since some of the public, including experts and the military, do not agree with the decision of the old leadership of the Ministry of Defense and do not see the point in buying foreign ships, it could become a “target audience” of the news. Perhaps the source of "Vedomosti" simply did not have adequate information regarding the conclusion of contracts for the construction of the third and fourth "Mistral", which affected the quality of the first news. In addition, you can not exclude the version, if I may say so, the damaged phone. One way or another, if a source in the ministry exists, then either its information did not correspond to reality, or the correct data was incorrectly interpreted later.

It is noteworthy that the resolution of the disputed situation by the official statement of the USC press service had almost no effect on the course of disputes among the interested public. The tactical and technical nuances of the Mistral, as well as the question of their necessity for our fleet, are still being discussed. As before, proponents of procurement are pushing for the possibility of obtaining modern technologies and foreign experience, which will be an obligatory consequence of the construction of ships at Russian factories. The most frequently mentioned is the transfer of technology associated with two French developments: the SENIT-9 combat information management system and the SIC-21 communication system. At the same time, an argument is made in the form of possible future cooperation. Theoretically, Russia and France in the future can create joint projects of any combat boats and ships that will be supplied to third countries. This question has already been repeatedly raised in the light of one or another class of weapons and military equipment, and almost always such cooperation has caused only a positive reaction from the officials of both countries.

No less common and expected counter-arguments against the purchase and construction of ships of the French project. First of all, the very need for such ships for the Russian Navy is criticized. The popular opinion is that the Russian fleet simply does not need such landing ships, because our marines have nowhere to conduct landing operations using such equipment. The second item in the list of objects of criticism is the transfer of technology. There are some doubts about the possibility of the transfer of any serious technologies to France, first of all concerning electronic equipment. It is also not yet clear to the general public whether the full documentation on the CICS and the means of communication will be handed over to Russia. The stated characteristics of these systems look quite high and interesting, however, a number of experts have certain concerns about concealing from the Russian shipbuilders and the military some of the specific information that has a critically important priority.

It is worth noting that after several years of disputes, opponents of the purchase of the Mistral have sometimes begun to agree with the need to equip our fleet with such ships. Indeed, today there are about a dozen large landing ships in the Russian Navy, the newest of which was commissioned in the early nineties. The number of landing boats is much larger. In addition, this technique is significantly younger. Nevertheless, in our fleet there is not a single ship belonging to the class of universal amphibious assault ships. Thus, the French Mistrals can slightly improve the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the amphibious capabilities of the Russian navy. The rest of the nuances of international contrast still remain the subject of controversy.

The main feature of all the events around Mistral is the decision of the Ministry of Defense. The contract for the construction of the first two ships, despite all the controversy and criticism, was signed and at the moment there are compelling reasons to expect to conclude agreements on the construction of the next Mistral. In other words, the Russian Ministry of Defense has already determined its needs. This decision of the leadership of the armed forces suggests that the French side agreed to the transfer of all necessary technologies, documents and equipment. Otherwise, consultations and negotiations would hardly have reached the signing of the contract. Despite the criticism of the then leadership of the Ministry of Defense, this deal does not look obviously losing for our country.

However, the timing of the construction of the third and fourth landing ships may give rise to some suspicions. Perhaps there were some problems with the transfer of technology or France decided to refuse assistance with the organization of production of Mistral in Russian factories. If this assumption is true, then perhaps in the near future there will be new messages about the future of the project. In addition, the number of amphibious assault ships may eventually be limited to only two built in France. One way or another, I would like to hope that the decision of the previous leadership of the Ministry of Defense was serious and thoughtful, and the further implementation of the conditions of the Russian-French contract will go smoothly and without sudden changes in the course.


On the materials of the sites:
http://vedomosti.ru/
http://ria.ru/
http://lenta.ru/
http://rg.ru/
Author:
94 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. erased
    erased 24 December 2012 09: 02
    +2
    Two ships will be enough to get acquainted with the technologies and principles of construction. Two more - as a training for self-creation. But is the price of such a workout too high? And the need to have ships of the class of large carriers of this particular format should be justified by documents.
    1. Rustam
      Rustam 24 December 2012 10: 29
      0
      already before vomiting am especially to those who publish
      we’ve been here for 1,5 years so sorted this Mistral on the shelves and stop publishing the same thing

      Everyone bought it and in 2014 the first one is part of the Navy - and there we’ll talk about the advantages and disadvantages

      and the last one has always been a supporter of the Mistral, but if we don’t have 2 similar ships built in the future, then really fuck it sad

      I will not comment more on these topics (topics will or will not be our happiness and who is against) I will not
    2. itr
      itr 24 December 2012 12: 33
      +8
      And what about the price for two healthy iron ships they gave the paper away (if it goes on like that, it can obviously become a toilet)
      and deadlines
      Ours with today's state of affairs would do forty years.
      1. Botanologist
        Botanologist 24 December 2012 14: 02
        +4
        Do not forget that instead of Sarkozy today, France is ruled by a socialist who is ready to lick America everything, as far as he can. Probably, he began to "adjust" the conditions for technology transfer. Yes, and ours could have taken some steps towards crushing the paddling pool, otherwise he felt too tough. In Syria he wants to fight, criticizes us at every corner. Let him think about where 20000 workers from their shipyards will go after the contract is canceled.

        In addition, our naval doctrine goes more to the Arctic, and there is not much room for the Mistral. In short, we ourselves need to decide again.

        In general, in my opinion, two or three Mistrals will not bother us. It’s not a century to sit in the Black Sea, once it will have to go out into the operational space. And there such a ship as part of the squadron will not hurt, after all, a station wagon, it has many benefits. And even two dozen helicopters above the warrant will not allow submarines to be hosted, and the coastal parts of the enemy will not be greyhound.
        1. itr
          itr 24 December 2012 14: 40
          +4
          Totally agree with you ! ships are needed. at first, I was also indignant at why they weren’t building here, but it’s modern on the site I read about the state of affairs in our industry and understood not to wait for them at all. But so far I do not agree with the country as a manufacturer, I would probably trust the Germans. all the more so under the USSR the GDR helped us. Let's just say there is experience
          1. Vadivak
            Vadivak 24 December 2012 16: 25
            +1
            Quote: itr
            But so far I do not agree with the country as a manufacturer, I would probably trust the Germans.


            I, too, am not enthusiastic about this target tub, but do the Germans have experience building universal landing ships?
            1. dmitreach
              dmitreach 24 December 2012 21: 27
              +2
              itr and Vadivak it’s not that the Germans are not talking. The fact is that France left the NADO bloc under De Gaulle. The French did not like their vassal position from the United States. They did not like what the US was ordering, putting its interests above the interests of the other members of the bloc. Proud.
              The French returned to NADO, only in OUR century, a couple of years ago.
              They, in principle, can send yusiya in an interesting azimuth, but in recent years presidents who fawned over the United States began to appear there. However, the states cannot impose their "fi" on the deal with Russian USC. But if Russia had reached an agreement with the Spaniards (Juan Carlos), then the United States would not have accepted to suspend the deal. And the maximum that we would get - empty hulls of ships ... The French are no longer dependent on "who to be friends with and against whom to be friends together." (Although they are losing ground) They can decide for themselves whether to sell the filling of the ship or not, WITHOUT demanding the blessing of W (F) Ashington. (SENIT 9 and SIC 21 communication system - French, no US involvement)
              So, with regard to the political part of the deal, these are KGB attempts to drive a wedge into the "crumbling monolith of the bloc"
        2. Vadivak
          Vadivak 24 December 2012 15: 20
          +7
          Quote: Botanologist
          In Syria, he wants to fight, criticizes us at every corner.


          Homosexual fights for same-sex marriage
        3. vyatom
          vyatom 25 December 2012 11: 08
          0
          Quote: Botanologist
          In general, in my opinion, two or three Mistrals will not bother us. It’s not a century to sit in the Black Sea, once it will have to go out into the operational space

          What kind of nonsense? What is the operational space? We have 2 fleets that have truly operational scope: SF and Pacific Fleet. And there, such ships are simply not needed. Soviet projects of the BDK are better suited to both the proposed theater and the capabilities of the country and the fleets.
          1. dmitreach
            dmitreach 25 December 2012 13: 47
            +2
            and how is the BDK 775 better for the "supposed theater"? those that are thrown ashore, under enemy fire? or can it be famous for the fact that there are "wagon and small cart" helipads there? or can he be agile and can maneuver near the coast, thanks to azipods? maybe there is a hospital there?
            Well, certainly not comfortable cabins our BDKs are famous for ....
    3. Filin
      Filin 25 December 2012 00: 38
      +3
      erased (3
      And the need to have ships of the class of large carriers of this particular format should be justified by documents.



      A ship like the Mistral is UNIVERSAL !!!
      for example, under the same situation in Syria, it may be the command center of the fleets of various fleets that are now in the Mediterranean Sea and off the coast of Syria. At the same time, it can be a floating guest with operating rooms, which is very useful for a warring country.
      Plus 16! helicopters, plus the marines. Helicopters, after entering the port - for example, you can leave for a belligerent country. Or remind you of what difficulties it was necessary to transport the modernized Syrian helicopters and how the ship "ALAED" was turned off
      Also the same evacuation if necessary.
      1. vyatom
        vyatom 25 December 2012 11: 09
        -1
        The big ship - a big torpedo.
        1. Mitek
          Mitek 9 January 2013 10: 15
          0
          the cast-iron head is a steel club.
          We need the Mistrals. Let there be 4 mistrals than nothing. Let there be a universal ship, as the Owl said. A ship like the Mistral is not needed only on the Northern Fleet. And that's because it needs an ice-class Mistral. In Vladik, such troughs are finally necessary. Is there a boom in the Kuril Islands? Or you do not need the Kurils either, like these "coffins"? On the Black Sea Fleet it is useful. who knows what will happen there. Among other things, the dimensions allow you to significantly strengthen the ship's air defense. In the future, we will have the appearance of shock UAVs in the Air Force. And you can push them on the mistral a lot. In any case, a coastal structure for basing such communities will be created under the mistral. And this is almost more valuable.
      2. dmitreach
        dmitreach 25 December 2012 13: 53
        +1
        FILIN, I’ll add that the hospital is needed in principle. And not just for humanitarian missions. If some kind of swaras happened with the participation of Russia, Our Marines will have another chance for life, and the wounded always happen when they shoot. We never had a BDK with a hospital with 70 beds, by default! But based on the tasks assigned to the ship, the number of beds can be increased!
        1. Aleksys2
          Aleksys2 25 December 2012 22: 15
          -1
          Quote: dmitreach
          We never had a BDK with a hospital with 70 beds, by default!

          What for? When there is:
          Hospital ship "Yenisei"
          TTD:
          Displacement: 11623 t.
          Dimensions: length - 152,6 m, width - 19,4 m, draft - 6,39 m.
          Full speed: 19,8 knots.
          Navigation range: 11600 miles with 16,5 nodes.
          Power plant: diesel, 15600 hp, 2 shafts.
          Passenger capacity: for patients - 100 beds, for vacationers - 200, spare - 40 places, for the wounded in the evacuation version - 450 places.
          Crew: 150 people.
          1. dmitreach
            dmitreach 25 December 2012 22: 23
            +2
            A hospital ship "in the classic" form falls under the Hague Convention and cannot be a Ship. (unlike Mistral) and Yenisei is an old man, I don't think that the medical equipment there is good.
            1. Aleksys2
              Aleksys2 25 December 2012 23: 22
              -2
              Quote: dmitreach
              A hospital ship "in the classic" form falls under the Hague Convention and cannot be a Ship.

              Delirium
              1. dmitreach
                dmitreach 26 December 2012 02: 27
                0
                Bullshit is that a ship painted white with red crosses cannot be a ship? That's bullshit? Or the fact that Russia is overexposed to international law?
                Maybe you do not distinguish a ship from a ship?
                1. Aleksys2
                  Aleksys2 26 December 2012 04: 03
                  -1
                  Quote: dmitreach
                  Bullshit is that a ship painted white with red crosses cannot be a ship? That's bullshit? Or the fact that Russia is overexposed to international law?
                  Maybe you do not distinguish a ship from a ship?

                  Bullshit is what you write.
                  What does "ship" and "ship" have to do with it. Just to provide medical assistance during hostilities, there is a special class of ships protected by the Hague conventions. An attack on such ships is considered a war crime, but an attack on the Mistral where a hospital is located, even for 1000 people, will not be considered a war crime! Now the question is, why do we need a BDK with a hospital for 70 beds if there is a hospital ship standing next to the BDK? There is an infirmary at the BDK, there is a doctor, there is a medical staff, there is a lot of things that you probably do not know about.
                  1. dmitreach
                    dmitreach 26 December 2012 14: 18
                    +2
                    Evonokak, pasib that enlightened nishebroda, Property.

                    the first time I see that my words explain to me.

                    The hospital ship "in the classic" form, falls under the Hague Convention and cannot be The ship. (military have weapons)

                    I see you rarely look in the dictionary, so I’ll explain: ship - ALWAYS military, according to international maritime law. The ship is not. (It may be listed on the Navy as an auxiliary fleet, but does not participate in hostilities - there’s nothing to shoot him with.) But it’s good that they google about the conventions. Sit down three.
                    With a minus.

                    Now the answer: Mistral has an ADDITIONAL function, because the FRENCH considered it necessary, who laid down on the USSR classification in our Navy, but in the course of the Geneva Convention. (Definition of the word Ship, in international law, they know, literate) And they did, they are shipbased on their political ambitions. I hope that Mistral & associates participate in the humanitarian expeditions of the French (in the manner of their own Ministry of Emergencies), is not news for you? If the news is Google help you, but the French are very proud of this circumstance.

                    The Hague Convention has been repeatedly violated. If the Russian marines happened to fight in "some Trasiland with Nagonia", I would not be surprised to see the Pirates of the Caribbean on "floating carts with TNT". Further on the thought to chew, or are you an adult? I personally don’t care who will operate on the Russian sailor (even though there were amers), if there’s a need, but if his “native Ship"a Russian doctor will treat - it will be good. We are not Americans, we do not have 1001 bases in the world to quickly evacuate the wounded.

                    I'm so glad that the French honor the conventions (which place in history), but know how to "interpret them for their own benefit." Do you recall the number of sunk Gospetals PROTECTED EXCLUSIVELY by the Hague Convention, in the First and Second World Wars?

                    And by the way, a series of hospital ships, with river names, were put into operation in the 80s, if not a "replacement" for them, then they will "help". But I don’t even remember that they would have walked around the akeyans today.

                    And on the sweet side: when boatmen with TNT (like on Amers) attack the Russian Mistral, performing a "humanitarian mission in Nagonia, to eliminate mass dysentery among the local tribe," I will be glad that this Ship not castrated by the Dumb Conventions, and on board, and in the guard vigilant Angry Russian Marine with Cord. (which on the Yenisei is not possible in principle, because the Convention does not allow)
                    1. Aleksys2
                      Aleksys2 26 December 2012 15: 44
                      -5
                      Quote: dmitreach
                      I see you rarely look in the dictionary, for that I will explain: the ship is ALWAYS a military, in accordance with international maritime law. The ship is not. (It may be listed on the Navy as an auxiliary fleet, but does not participate in hostilities - there’s nothing to shoot him with.) But it’s good that they google about conventions. Sit down three.
                      With a minus.

                      Clearly, baby is not a reader, baby is a writer.
                      I do not consider it necessary and useful to debate with you, because stubborn and limited sheep can hardly be convinced of anything. A flag in your hands and a drum around your neck, God forbid you not to be on the Mistral during "If the Russian marines happened to fight in" some Trasiland with the Nagonia ", I would not be surprised to see the Pirates of the Caribbean on" waterfowl carts with TNT "."
                      1. dmitreach
                        dmitreach 26 December 2012 16: 12
                        +2
                        Aleksys2, well, you, as a muzshinka, turn to personalities, if only that in fact answered. what a sissy you are. the three offended? laughing
                        I do not consider it necessary and useful to discuss with you, for to tell you nothing but to call me a stubborn ram. Cool man, Brave! Strong argument in the Internet dispute.
                        Do not set off. Sit ignoramus - two. laughing
                      2. Aleksys2
                        Aleksys2 26 December 2012 17: 23
                        0
                        Have I explained to you the difference between a warship and a hospital ship? Explained. You are starting to rub in on me about the differences between "ship" and "ship". Answer one question: How does the Mistral differ from the Yenisei (not counting that one boat, and the other ship, and color)? Armament? To guard Mistral, we need an escort that we will collect in all our fleets, because the ships of the oceanic zone of the 1st and 2nd rank can be counted on our fingers. Mistral is not capable of defending itself, and anyone can attack him. Next, name how many hospital ships, not military transports, were sunk during World War 2. The Yenisei is protected by international conventions, once, alone, without an escort, he will not be allowed anywhere. And in this context, why is the Mistral hospital better than the Yenisei hospital ship? Equipment? It is possible, but how? No equipment can replace the head and hands of doctors, all equipment is to help doctors, not to replace them. So it turns out that they are Mistrals to us for what? We are not planning amphibious operations, we are reducing the marines. How does the carp control? Controlling what? five ships? Is it too bold? and to control a dozen ships (and we don't have any more), one Mistral is enough. And this is what we have in the remainder:
                        1. It is not planned to use the Mistral as a landing drift, for we do not plan landing operations.
                        2. How is the floating hospital? We have ships specially tailored for this and meeting all international standards.
                        3. How to ship control? Management of what?
                        4. Military transport? For this, our BDKs would fit perfectly.
                        5. Yacht of the Minister of Defense? There is nothing to argue with.

                        And believe me, it’s extremely not interesting to argue with you about how a ship differs from a ship.
                      3. dmitreach
                        dmitreach 26 December 2012 17: 28
                        0
                        already worthy. I will read the answer.
                      4. dmitreach
                        dmitreach 26 December 2012 18: 40
                        +1
                        welcome
                        Your emotions sometimes prevent you from perceiving information. This, eloquently, testifies to your "laconic post", written yesterday, 23:22. Why bother yourself with such a "valuable" information message? Show your emotions? Couldn't resist the comment that outraged you? Don't care. Do you believe?

                        The fact that the Yenisei vessel falls under the Convention, we both know. Like the fact that it cannot be armed. Only in my answer did you see something close to you and began to argue from scratch, proving to me my very statement.
                        However, a hospital ship cannot be a ship and this fact, for some reason you began to prove to me, even though I wrote about it first ...

                        for medical assistance during hostilities there is a special class of ships protected by the Hague conventions. and this "ship" is called in Russian - "hospital ship".
                        For in the international law of the sea there is such a class of floating pelvis as the Ship and this word refers EXCLUSIVELY to military, armed pelvis.

                        You will decide whether we are discussing "the future fleet of the Great Country" (at least within the framework of 2020) or we are leaving for today's article: "About how ships were cut in the 90s."
                        http://topwar.ru/22510-o-tom-kak-rezali-korabli-v-90-h.html
                        And there, in the comments, sprinkle ashes on the head.
                        The Mistral hasn't even been built yet! What is the point in complaining that TODAY he has no escort ships? Why "count on the fingers" what is now for the BUILDING NAVY? Or do you undertake to assert that the acre of Misral is not doing anything?

                        Mistral is not able to defend himself, and anyone can attack him.
                        Again, who are we talking about? About the states, NECESSARY? Or about pirates on a motorboat with a hundred or two explosives? (destroyer "Cole" in 2000)
                        You read at least here on the website of the Ministry of Defense of Russia
                        http://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/navy.htm
                        Is it just about the nuclear use of the Navy said? Or should we be honest and admit that the Russian Navy has other functions besides scaring the Americans? Well you all in one heap then bring down! Based on your logic: WHY in the Navy the "auxiliary ships" assigned to it, if they are AT ALL unarmed?

                        During the Second World War, Wilhelm Gustav was sunk. (as they need it) Hospital ship "Armenia". this is not the whole list ...
                        http://topwar.ru/17872-titaniki-vremen-vtoroy-mirovoy.html

                        Why is the Mistral hospital better than the Yenisei hospital ship? Equipment Sami and answered. (also 30 years for medical technology - an era!)

                        Watson, I'm a bloodhound! (From the movie). In my opinion it’s obvious that the fleet is being built. Maybe crooked, maybe debatable, but they build.

                        what we have in the balance:
                        1. UDC is a universal tool, not for atomic confrontation, but without that there are many tasks for the Navy.
                        2. Yes, because this is one of the tasks set for the Navy in peacetime.
                        3. Fleet management and fleet formations in the foreseeable future.
                        For "today", read about the grouping of ships of the three fleets in the Mediterranean.
                        GRKR "Moscow" - Black Sea Fleet
                        BOD "Severomorsk" - SF
                        TFR "Yaroslav the Wise" - BF
                        TFR "Shrewd" - Black Sea Fleet
                        BDK "Alexander Shabalin" - BF
                        BDK Kaliningrad - BF
                        tanker "Ivan Bubnov" - Black Sea Fleet
                        tanker Iman - Black Sea Fleet
                        tanker Lena - BF
                        Tregat "Dubna" - SF
                        tugboat MB-304 - Black Sea Fleet
                        tug "SB-921" - BF
                        SS "Altai" - SF
                        PM-56 - Black Sea Fleet (in Tartus)
                        TODAY there Mistral would not be out of place ...

                        4. BDK 775 what year of construction? Is there an opportunity to receive transport helicopters? How many BDK775 are now in the Mediterranean?

                        5. I think Shoigu has something to ride, but this is his personal life. Has the right to.
                      5. Aleksys2
                        Aleksys2 26 December 2012 19: 00
                        -1
                        Quote: dmitreach
                        However, a hospital ship cannot be a ship and this fact, for some reason you began to prove to me, even though I wrote about it first ...

                        I have never proved this fact to you, it was you who tried to prove this fact. I still don’t understand why Yenisei needs to be a cobal; you still haven’t bothered to explain your idea.
                        Quote: dmitreach
                        Or do you undertake to assert that the acre of Misral is not doing anything?

                        What is being done?
                        6 warships, why is there Mistral? If we follow your logic, then "Admiral Kuznetsov" would look much better there.
                        Large landing craft "Alexander Shabalin" - built in Gdansk (Poland) in 1985, entered the fleet in 1986.
                        Large landing craft "Kaliningrad" - built in Poland at the Midnight shipyard in Gdansk. Commissioned on December 9, 1984.
                        BDK project 11711 according to NATO classification - Ivan Gren - The first landing ship, laid down on December 23, 2004 at the Yantar shipyard in Kaliningrad, received the name Ivan Gren. In 2008, he was supposed to be transferred to the fleet. But due to unstable funding[and problems at the plant itself, construction was frozen. In fact, over 4 years only individual sections of the ship were assembled. And only in 2008 the work on the paratrooper revived. May 18, 2012 the ship was launched. In autumn 2010, the Yantar plant received a contract for the construction of another BDK of project 11711. Was it not better to spend money on this project?
                      6. dmitreach
                        dmitreach 26 December 2012 20: 32
                        0
                        The position of the debater "for the sake of the process" of the argument is boring. Commercials you will not believe me if I call white - white. Because you have to argue with me.

                        I gave an example from reality where you need a control ship. Which is not TARK Kuznetsov. Specific example.
                        The fact that the "national fleet" squadron is in Mediterranean? If the Mistral is built and how staff ship, it belongs there? Do we have an analogue of Mistral in his "headquarters function"? Chezh You argue for the sake of a catchphrase?
                        Kuznetsov has no staff functions, in the modern sense. Do you know why? Because in Soviet times, the headquarters was located on the shore. In Moscow. And the Soviet naval commanders did not consider such a type of ships (staff) as necessary. Because, once again, they were preparing for war with the states. Of course, on Kuz, is it possible to physically place a hundred admirals and operators, with other tablet players, just the point?
                        Let me remind you that the headquarters function involves taxiing gigabytes of information, with the ability to connect to a military network, and a lot of specific equipment. (Local "web", on a separate floating headquarters, with the possibility of printing and the Ostankino tower body, in one bottle.) There is no trace of this on Kuza. Zenith-9, very interested in our staff. Not just like that. Not because we have a TAVRK ... But because it does not have a system superior in capabilities to Zenit-9.

                        Thanks, I can use reference books. It was a joke, you do not need to literally lay out the biography of the ships. The question was in context: how old are they? And what will come to replace? They themselves indicated that the 80s.
                        You complain that the fleet is small and old, I'm telling you to come ... to replace BDK775 - Mistral is being clicked. This is reality! Not in Polland, but in France.
                        Just don’t tell me that they know how to throw a whale ashore, unlike the Frenchman.

                        BDK project 11711. Wasn’t it better to spend money on this project?
                        Young man ... This example is why? To our showdown between Moscow region and Amber? Or to the fact that MO over the past eleven years, often changed my mind?

                        http://vpk.name/news/81534_desantnyii_korabl_ivan_gren_ispyitayut_v_sleduyushem_
                        godu.html
                        read, do not be lazy.


                        What is being done?

                        there is a lot of interesting
                        http://flot.com/news/navy/?f_pf[cat][]=337&set_filter=Y
                        or here
                        http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/25865/
                      7. Aleksys2
                        Aleksys2 26 December 2012 22: 00
                        -1
                        Quote: dmitreach
                        Young man...

                        I was pleased. wink
                        Okay, believe what you believe. I remain of my opinion. Time will judge us.
                      8. dmitreach
                        dmitreach 26 December 2012 22: 28
                        0
                        This is a quote from a movie of some kind.
                        will judge. wait is not long.
                      9. Aleksys2
                        Aleksys2 26 December 2012 17: 54
                        0
                        Quote: dmitreach
                        at least that essentially answered.

                        I basically answered you, but now you started to be a fool:
                        I see you rarely look in the dictionary, for that I will explain: the ship is ALWAYS a military, in accordance with international maritime law. The ship is not. (It may be listed on the Navy as an auxiliary fleet, but does not participate in hostilities - there’s nothing to shoot him with.) But it’s good that they google about conventions. Sit down three.
                        With a minus.

                        What is the difference between a ship and a ship, I already know, explain, in normal, human language, what does it have to do with this: "Hospital ship" in the classic "form, falls under the Hague Convention and cannot be a ship. "? And why should the Yenisei be a Ship? Why ??
                      10. dmitreach
                        dmitreach 26 December 2012 19: 15
                        -1
                        The fact of the matter is that Yenisei does not need to, if you believe in the conventions that the militants (more precisely, their masters) in MODERN conflicts, turned on the causal place. But a hospital capable of protecting itself from motorboats with suicide bombers may be needed. The reality today is. Remind about Budenovsk? Or in the Middle East. (Well, or in Africa with UN Mi8) In Syria, from day to day they can use chemical weapons, for the amusement of the Western media. And you're talking about conventions .... there are people who spoil them from a high bell tower. Will you continue to pretend to be a lawyer and human rights activist? I am not interested.
                        Only initially the question was that UDC may be a hospital tooif circumstances favor it. I’ll go watch a movie about Siyu in Russia24, later I’ll answer the previous post
                      11. Aleksys2
                        Aleksys2 26 December 2012 22: 07
                        0
                        Quote: dmitreach
                        But a hospital capable of protecting itself from motorboats with suicide bombers may be needed.

                        The Mistral is unable to protect anyone from anything, for it does not have the weapons necessary for this! If you put this weapon on it, then taking into account the increase in height (the height of the hangar is increased), this will inevitably result in a decrease in metacentric height and lead to a deterioration in stability.
                        So, that Mistral, that Yenisei, both need to be protected.
                      12. dmitreach
                        dmitreach 26 December 2012 22: 32
                        0
                        there is not the height of the hangar but the opening in the elevator area.
                        calculate the metacentric height (and other stability criteria) from photographs, somehow not ice. plus or minus kilometer get
                  2. Misantrop
                    Misantrop 26 December 2012 19: 37
                    +2
                    But the absolute majority of attackers at these conventions do not care from a high tower. Most often because either they have a mighty "roof" (which can easily be covered), or they already have three life-longs hanging on them, so that another fact of robbery will not add ANYTHING to the existing one. What, there were few cases when German pilots pointed their weapons at the red cross? Or the punks from Somalia take into account the difference between the types of ships? Maybe this is a discovery? The last time the knightly "rules of war" were observed as early as 1905, but then Japan LIFELY needed to prove to the whole planet that it at least looked like a civilized state. In order not to get against yourself "war without rules". What building was seized in Budennovsk by Chechen fighters? And what, at least one creature of the patented human rights defenders reproached them for this? Pink glasses are a cool glamorous thing, but in real life they are not very useful. wink
                    1. dmitreach
                      dmitreach 26 December 2012 20: 40
                      0
                      Who do you answer to?
                      In Budenovsk, at 95m, the Imratshi, just the same hospital with doctors and patients, was taken hostage.
  2. KDM-219
    KDM-219 24 December 2012 09: 14
    +1
    I think that everyone has already heard about these Mistral, and I think that every week I should write about Mistral under different headings and monotonous articles. Somehow it’s annoying to read the same thing every time.
    1. Smirnov Vadim
      Smirnov Vadim 24 December 2012 09: 28
      +6
      If you read past articles, you would see that this article was written on new developments ... Or do you think that you need to post only two news - signed a contract and got ships and everything?

      And yet, the last article that dealt with the Metrales was on "VO" on October 10 - The main competitor of Mistral, and before that 3 August 2012 The infrastructure under the "Mistral" will cost Russia 3 billion rubles. So every week, as you say, we will not load you with information about these projects ...
    2. sniper
      sniper 24 December 2012 16: 48
      +4
      Quote: KDM-219
      Somehow it’s annoying to read the same thing every time.

      Well, firstly, if the information is not of interest, then you can simply skip it and not bother reading, well, and secondly, the situation around this contract has changed dramatically lately and I personally wonder how events are developing. Thanks to the author, plus article.
  3. erix-xnumx
    erix-xnumx 24 December 2012 09: 14
    +6
    There is a feeling that the information about the postponement of the construction of the Mistrals at our shipyards is simply a disguised refusal to build them. They will postpone, postpone, otmazyvayutsya until the topic with these stereotypes dries up by itself. We will not be able to refuse to build the first two ships, since the work is being carried out by the French side and the refusal of the signed contracts is a serious scandal. But the next pair of "menstruals" is already an internal affair of Russia - we want to build, but we don't want to - let's put a bolt on this project.
    1. kopar
      kopar 24 December 2012 09: 35
      +3
      I agree. The postponement of the deadline by as much as three years is essentially a soft refusal to build. Do not forget that France is a NATO member, and they will not transfer their modern developments to us. I think this is the meaning of "fading" in the construction of these ships.
      1. lelikas
        lelikas 24 December 2012 11: 29
        -5
        Rather, we are simply ashamed to admit - we can’t build it ourselves, and so we went ahead of time with the transfers and the rest.
        The last time we were a great sea power in the year 17, now we just have a coastal fleet and we don’t have any more shine until 2020–2030 or after.
        1. Civil
          Civil 24 December 2012 12: 20
          +2
          Mistral * Rach) will begin right now))
          1. AK-47
            AK-47 24 December 2012 13: 52
            +1
            Quote: Civil
            Mistral * Rach) will begin right now))
        2. vyatom
          vyatom 25 December 2012 11: 11
          +2
          Quote: lelikas
          The last time we were a great sea power in the year 17

          Delirium Delirium and once again delirium. The most powerful and really operating fleet (unlike the Russian empire) was precisely the Soviet Navy.
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 25 December 2012 11: 33
            +4
            Quote: vyatom
            The most powerful and really operating fleet (unlike the Russian empire) was precisely the Soviet Navy.

            Not at all nonsense. The USSR had no fleet at all. It is the fleet, as a single organism, capable of solving the tasks assigned to it. And the best proof of this is ... the ships themselves were then in service. Take a closer look at their performance characteristics, each (almost regardless of destination) is armed and equipped like a Japanese ninja for all occasions. Those. Initially, it is understood that he will have to act ONE against the various forces and means of the enemy ONE, without support from anyone. There was no single concept of application, timid attempts at joint actions of diverse forces were made only occasionally and in the lower ranks. But such alloyed compounds, such as those interacting with the clarity of a Kalashnikov assault rifle AUG of the US Navy, I personally do not recall as part of our fleets ...
            1. dmitreach
              dmitreach 25 December 2012 17: 32
              0
              Atrina for example. But that is not the point.
              The USSR had no fleet at all. It is the fleet, as a single organism,
              this can only be said by a committed adherent of the democracy. Faith is Faith ... I understand, I sympathize.

              Hence the question: what criteria and characteristics of the fleet ("as a single organism") should be taken into account when studying the history of the confrontation between empires (US Navy vs USSR Navy)? Enlighten me if you can make such assessments.
          2. lelikas
            lelikas 25 December 2012 17: 23
            +1
            Quote: vyatom
            Delirium Delirium and once again delirium. The most powerful and realistically operating fleet (unlike the Russian empire) was precisely the Soviet Navy
            - And you, my friend saw him? Do you know his main task? Qualitatively / quantitative composition was considered? Misantrop’s colleague has already explained, but our fleet had one main task - a massive nuclear strike with nuclear submarines, their cover, all the rest came down to cover their terra.vod from AUG and other enemy ships.
            The flag demonstration by the same Mediterranean squadron was constant, kept the Yankees anus in good shape, but nothing more.
            The USSR did not have a real goal of achieving naval dominance (in contrast to the Yankees),
            Yes, minus you feel sorry.
    2. silver_roman
      silver_roman 24 December 2012 12: 20
      +9
      most likely it is. maybe the military just wants to understand if an additional 2 ships are needed. just when the first pair goes into operation, then another year floats, and then it becomes clear whether there is a need for a second pair. as for me everything is so logical.
      Who knows, suddenly by that time we will decide to attack Japan in order to protect the unfortunate citizens of Peru (who did not understand, this is an association with the struggle for democracy and peace in the world against "Syrian murderers and barbarians" by valiant friends and partners from the American states of the AI) soldier
      1. alex86
        alex86 24 December 2012 21: 16
        +3
        You know, in construction there is such a term - "full-scale modeling" - this is when the customer does not understand what he needs, you build for him, he comes in and says - (for example) "but somehow I did not imagine it all like that" well, or " what the hell are you fucking here ... "- so when it comes to the ship (the ship - it is a good city." Peter the First ", Tolstoy A.N.) - I somehow do not agree to build for my money first, and then begin to understand, was it necessary and why? ...
        1. silver_roman
          silver_roman 25 December 2012 14: 47
          +1
          I agree. but first of all, we are not buying a ship, but a technology, which then, taking into account our own modifications or refining, will be used. and besides, given that France is a NATO MEMBER, and therefore our enemy, they were pressured against them because of this deal. so 2 ships might not be of interest to them, but 4 is a solid jackpot. so I even had to send everyone for profit.

          and if you charge this in a deal for billions of euros, like oh. and we fools, then this is a serious disgrace to the image of the state. then in general it will be possible to forget about the import of weapons (although this may be for the better) wink
  4. Hey
    Hey 24 December 2012 09: 38
    +1
    Time will judge.
  5. common man
    common man 24 December 2012 09: 49
    +7
    The postponement of the construction of the second pair of Mistrals may mean a desire to see them in operation. Can tweak something in the design. Or maybe completely refuse. In principle, the decision is justified.
    1. MilaPhone
      MilaPhone 24 December 2012 10: 01
      +1
      I hope so.
      And then it may turn out that this is just a revision of the Priderdyukovsky treaties.
      Or maybe Shoigu wants out of habit save people, in this case from the mistral.
    2. baltika-18
      baltika-18 24 December 2012 10: 42
      +1
      Quote: man in the street
      The postponement of the construction of the second pair of Mistrals may mean a desire to see them in operation. Can tweak something in the design. Or maybe completely refuse. In principle, the decision is justified.

      A very costly desire of more than 40 billion rubles.
    3. Misantrop
      Misantrop 24 December 2012 21: 29
      +1
      Quote: man in the street
      Maybe something to fix in the design

      For example, make them ice-breaking. Not even for war itself, but to ensure the development of the North, such a floating base with a bunch of helicopters would be very useful
      1. dmitreach
        dmitreach 24 December 2012 21: 36
        +3
        This, perhaps, is associated with a revision of the terms for 3 and 4 ships. I foresee that 3 and 4 Mistral will be designed together with the French from scratch. And it will be performed in the ice class Icebreaker9 (LL9). What would Mistral So redo, you need to redesign it.
  6. nic
    nic 24 December 2012 10: 00
    +2
    Mr. Medvedev drank, as Mr. Makienko hints, Mr. Medvedev, Sarkozy is no longer the president, and you can reconsider. (Mr. - not from the word Mr.)
    1. MilaPhone
      MilaPhone 24 December 2012 10: 32
      +4
      You want to say that it is disposable?
      1. nic
        nic 24 December 2012 14: 50
        +1
        or darned lol
  7. Gecko
    Gecko 24 December 2012 10: 04
    0
    If the Mistral’s purpose is to project power, and in connection with the president’s recent theses that the priority is the CIS space, then they will be in full demand.
    1. plotnikov561956
      plotnikov561956 24 December 2012 12: 42
      +2
      Quote: gecko
      If the Mistral’s purpose is to project power, and in connection with the president’s recent theses that the priority is the CIS space, then they will be in full demand.

      Sorry ... what projection and Mistral ... one place where to attach them is the Caspian or in other words absolutely unnecessary toys, neither in terms of strategy nor in terms of the power of the Navy ...
  8. Sober
    Sober 24 December 2012 10: 20
    0
    In any case, the purchase is successful! for bought some pretty cool technology! to which we ourselves would still have to go a long time, because many design bureaus are destroyed! again, these are military transport ships, sea transport is very good .. for us, any transport and transporting equipment is very good and very necessary thing .. from cars to planes and ships .. there will also be an opportunity landing several attack helicopters and reconnaissance, which is also a plus .. although of course these ships themselves were not bought successfully, we had to build all four!
    1. Zlyden.Zlo
      Zlyden.Zlo 25 December 2012 06: 05
      +1
      Are you so sure that the technology will be transferred?
  9. Asgard
    Asgard 24 December 2012 10: 28
    +13
    Let us recall the purchase of the Opel plant there simply no technology, but they haven't sold it ...
    With the "mistrals" will be too, the vessels will drive (a billion each)) and instead of communication, cell phones ...
    Sarkozy is a Jew-Sephardim, here the cool thing and the main task is to withdraw money from Russia, about the transfer of technology to a country that pumps oil (you can forget))

    Speaking of oil! Wells, to increase production, are torn by hydraulic fracturing, this gives an increase and significant, but then the well quickly bends ....
    A new exploration, drilling is unacceptably small, so that soon (2-3 years)) and the level of production will fall at times ....
    Moreover, both state and private companies are pursuing such a policy, it seems that nobody will need oil soon ???? Here's what's interesting ....
    Yes, and much is being done and promised is impossible with a delay for the distant and I suspect an impossible future ...

    And the Mistral contract, unnecessary for our Navy, because we do not have banana colonies outside the country where one ship with three companies of paratroopers will restore order.
    We do not have Ocean-ships-formations (do we want to be a superpower or not?)) Mistral is what? application for leadership at sea ....
    And what is interesting, we have (or were) such ships of this class, for example "Moscow" and "Leningrad", they were recently destroyed, and the adopted large landing craft "Ivan ROGOV" is in reserve ... And in general, the use of only helicopters possible only when conducting special operations against the Papuans and groups of bandits. This is a fight against a frivolous enemy.
    But the large landing craft is another matter, where there are both light and heavy weapons, there is an opportunity to stick to the unequipped shore and unload combat-ready and mobile units ...... HELICOPTER "MOSCOW"
    BDK "IVAN ROGOV" PROJECT 1174
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 24 December 2012 21: 35
      +3
      Quote: Asgard
      we have (or were) ships of this class for example "Moscow" and "Leningrad"

      Unfortunately, these ships (precisely as helicopter carriers) turned out to be extremely unsuccessful. More than once I heard from the helicopter pilots who were based on them that the landing conditions were simply horrible. The hefty superstructure, even with a slight wind, gave a bunch of lateral "drafts", literally blowing the landing cars past the deck ...
    2. Papakiko
      Papakiko 25 December 2012 18: 03
      +1
      From Ivan Rogov they wanted to make a fishing trawler initially, but it turned out to be a "wunderwaffle". The helicopter carrier "moskva" is also a "gift" ship from KOMPROMISOV. UDC full-fledged alas in the USSR was not built. belay feel
  10. AndreyAB
    AndreyAB 24 December 2012 10: 45
    +2
    And to invest the money that went to the Mistrals into their own projects and build on their shipyards, because it is more profitable, maybe I don’t understand what, because frank squandering of money.
    1. Gecko
      Gecko 24 December 2012 11: 25
      +6
      Are you out of touch with reality? You can see how fast warships and boats are being built in Russia at this stage. Wake up, an analogue of Mistral would appear in 10 years and to the detriment of the construction of warships. During the modernization of the aircraft carrier "Vikramaditya" there were not enough workers, etc. etc.
    2. Nickname
      Nickname 24 December 2012 11: 29
      +1
      Andrei, I was also against the purchase of the Mistrals, but since it started spinning, I had to finish it.
      After all, we have absolutely trouble with the fleet! And their plants are in decline.
      And these could take on different functions in the warrant of ships.
      And in Syria, the Mistral would have looked more appropriate than Moscow now.
      1. Asgard
        Asgard 24 December 2012 13: 34
        +4
        "Peter" would have looked more appropriate there ...
        The helicopter carrier is intended for landing and fire support .... against tribal tribes armed only with small arms. Or for landing mobile groups in the state for sabotage and subversive activities .... only in this case we should be on the side of the West and Mujahideen ..... and fight against Syria and Assad ....

        Now, regarding the construction of ships here (in Russia), we have capacities, Baltic, Northern Dvina shipyard, Shipyard in Zaporozhye (Leningrad region) Zvezda in Vladik. People-specialists haven’t died yet, be happy to go to sharashki and left-wing businesses (this is a lie that there are no specialists left)) - there is no political will to start all this ... By the way, there are ready-made projects, though they are from the 70s, but nothing of the kind Wait doesn’t float .... you should remember _ WE ARE DEGRADING, since we buy "mistrals" against the Papuans ....

        It was not enough to recall Stalin, he dragged the factories beyond the Urals and in a year they gave products that the feat of the people (and already for the money) could no longer be repeated ....?
        Again there is no political will!
        That’s the root of the misfortune, Mistral, together with technology, costs 400 lemons of greens ... And we pay ..... NRE with something. This is the only way to spend money (its development)) and this approach has nothing to do with the country's defense capability ......
        And the truth is, why pay Russian Engineers and workers inside the country YARD of greenery, we'd better bring it to Paris and please the local beauties and "handsome" there, that's the message and the real reason for buying these two "COAT" and judging by the press and comments from the government in Russia will not build anything, not the remaining two (under the contract)) - then there will definitely be no specialists, nor any other .......
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 24 December 2012 13: 58
          +3
          Quote: Asgard
          that the feat of the people (and already for the money) can no longer be repeated ....?

          That is the problem, Asgard, that feats are not performed for money. As for the laying of the Mistrals in Russia, there are many alternative projects, including domestic ones.
          1. Sokol peruna
            Sokol peruna 24 December 2012 17: 17
            +6
            Per se.
            there are many alternative projects, including domestic ones.


            This prodigy is definitely an alternative. The universal assault assault landing anti-submarine cruiser of Kherson-2 ave. possessing a unique, unparalleled in the world ability to land an assault point-blank through the nose ramp. laughing

            UDC "Kherson" pr.11780

        2. Nickname
          Nickname 24 December 2012 16: 07
          +1
          Asgard, and you yourself believe that these our "capacities" are capable now (not in theory, but right now) to build a large tonnage. Yes, no one will remember when the last frigate was launched. And earlier on this topic there was already debate about the descents of the rooks and the Dagestans
    3. itkul
      itkul 24 December 2012 15: 02
      0
      And who will build that, Tajiks, we have a country of economists, lawyers, accountants, security guards
    4. itkul
      itkul 24 December 2012 15: 12
      0
      And who will build the Tajiks? We have a country of economists, lawyers, accountants, security guards
      . Remember the Soviet Union, when the people fell from the through factories in any city, and now what.

      And who will build it, Tajiks? We have a country of economists, lawyers, accountants, security guards. Remember the Soviet Union, when people threw ramshackles in any city, and now what.
    5. Civil
      Civil 24 December 2012 18: 07
      0
      AndreyAB,

      Are you sure that we don’t spread will master?
  11. old rocket man
    old rocket man 24 December 2012 10: 59
    +1
    Quote: gecko
    If the Mistral has a purpose, projection of force

    Quote: Sober
    these ships themselves were not bought well, we had to build all four!


    1. Not if, but this is their main purpose, and not only projection, but also the possibility of its application. In the same Syria, and elsewhere, at present, our capabilities are extremely limited, the reaction time to situations remote from our borders are unacceptably large, and we cannot afford to hold any significant forces in all probable places of conflict, too expensive, and the size of the armed forces does not allow.
    2. It would be necessary, but who will sell under such conditions, there is no charity in such matters, and then it is simply impossible to buy technology on such a scale, it is transferred during joint production, when specialists from both sides work side by side. In this option, the corresponding production facilities and equipment can be prepared quietly, without haste, and this business is not quick and troublesome.
  12. bigf
    bigf 24 December 2012 11: 54
    +1
    There is no one to build ships of this class in Russia, all plants are loaded, and if they start to build, they will be 10 or 20 years
  13. F-22
    F-22 24 December 2012 14: 39
    -4
    Russia would build such a ship for about 25 years. Therefore, I propose to build all ships for the fleet at foreign shipyards.
  14. knn54
    knn54 24 December 2012 14: 41
    +3
    It is possible to build in Nikolaev — cheaper and more reliable. It is impossible to buy weapons from NATO countries — at any time, automation / electronics will be blocked (which has been repeatedly) and the equipment will turn into a pile of metal.
  15. dmitreach
    dmitreach 24 December 2012 14: 45
    +1
    http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/26173/
    The combat service of the ships of the Russian Navy in the Mediterranean continues.

    A detachment of ships of the Black Sea Fleet consisting of the Moscow guards missile cruiser, the Smetlivy patrol ship (Project 61 ... is still handsome, even smokes on the floor of the sky), the large sea tanker Ivan Bubnov and the sea tug MB-304 continues to fulfill its tasks in the Mediterranean Sea.

    BDK "Novocherkassk" and "Saratov", from 21 November included in the detachment, December 11th returned to Novorossiysk. It is planned that after a short rest of the crews and replenishment of fuel and food supplies of the BDK accompanied by the patrol ship Pytlivy will return to the Mediterranean Sea again.

    On December 15, the medium sea tanker Iman left Sevastopol for the Mediterranean Sea.

    On December 17, a detachment of ships of the Baltic Fleet, consisting of the patrol ship Yaroslav the Wise, left Baltiysk for military service in the Mediterranean Sea, BDK Kaliningrad, Alexander Shabalin, the Lena tanker and the rescue tug SB-921.

    On December 18, a detachment of ships of the Northern Fleet left Severomorsk as part of the BPC Severomorsk, the medium sea tanker Dubna and the rescue and towing vessel Altai.

    need Mistral ... yesterday NEEDED!
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 24 December 2012 15: 36
      +9
      it is certainly more expedient to drive "Sharp-witted" (pr61) ...

      Some "constructive criticism"

      Here tell me; Gorshkov India can not pass. Fact?
      It is now fashionable to say the Indians themselves are to blame, our sages did not obey ...
      But. If our shipbuilders are "seven spans in the forehead", why haven't the Indians been convinced of the erroneous decision? Is the customer always right? (even if they demanded to paint it pink, according to religion?) Or "everything worked at the stand", but it broke in the sea? Eh no! Here either they calculated correctly, understanding everything, but they also wanted money. Or they don't know how to count. The floating cost of work indicates the latter. I'd rather surrender it sooner, otherwise it's a shame for the State. Seal also brought money to the treasury, surrendering for 4 years?
      Have you already decided on the value of Boreev and Ash-tree of USC with the military-industrial complex? I’m silent about Yekaterinburg. Or on Serdyukov, traditionally, write off?
      How many years would the "native" functionaries feed themselves on budget pilling on the subject of Ivan Tarrawa (if not for Mistral)? And this is not a landing ship. How much can you say?
      I agree that there are adherents of the sect of secrecy who believe that the Russian Navy is needed only and exclusively in the context of an atomic war with the United States. But it’s not difficult to read the military doctrine. at least on a wiki. or here http://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/navy.htm

      You don't need such a ship you say? And how many times did the BOD 775 go there during the Syrian conflict? "Why" they ran there in open sources, no one will indicate. But a military BDK is much better than an unarmed ship with military cargo. We are not Ukraine, we do not sell tanks on civilian ships on the sly. (Faina) A 61 BOD, who is over forty, drags along the sea ... And why does the sea tug MB-304 accompany him ?! ... Here is the secret of Polishenel ...

      Amer "toilet paper and ties" in 888 on what brought to gnawing? Of all the types of warships, the UDC is the most suitable for the "modestly-MChS" flag, with the support of allies with material assets. And it seems to me we do not carry ties to Syria ... Mistrals are needed yesterday.
      And those that will be "tomorrow", domestic projects, let them feed the numerous relatives of the rulers of estimates. But at a time when the need for such ships will cease to be acute.

      Well, for dessert.
      They shouted that there are no piers in Vladik, that they will kill the resource on the raid? here:
      http://www.sdelanounas.ru/blogs/25983/
      They shouted that there was no air wing? Google what is there with the theme Ka52 ....
      http://www.sdelanounas.ru/blogs/20314/
      Is it better to spend money on a "native" USC? By what percentage are the first two UDCs Russian? (20% + 40%? For the hull, not to mention the aircraft wing and weapons)

      How much can I sort through empty? Mistral was FAVORABLE for Russia. (maybe not 4, but the latter should be 80% collected from us).
  16. The comment was deleted.
  17. toguns
    toguns 24 December 2012 15: 18
    +2
    feel what disputes Called cargo, climb into the back.
    in fact, the construction of ships has not yet been debugged, and this takes 6-8 years or even more, but the ships need to be right now and you have to get out.
  18. zmey
    zmey 24 December 2012 15: 59
    +2
    if our country wants (maybe) to become a world power, then we need to have at least 10-15 aircraft carrier groups and as many landing groups. But the current economy does not pull even one carrier group. it is necessary to restore the entire technological and intellectual process, and this is at least the restoration of 90% of production and economic relations between the republics of the USSR + the acquisition or development of their latest technologies in microelectronics, materials science, etc.
    so the acquisition of Mistrals is without a doubt a step in front, the main thing is that it does not become two steps back !!!!
    The whole question is how this interesting undertaking will end and how ??? (the next farce or will our enterprises receive a powerful investment of technology and knowledge?)
  19. radio operator
    radio operator 24 December 2012 16: 10
    0
    I hope that the department led by Shoigu will pursue a more balanced policy regarding the procurement of foreign equipment.
    In my opinion, it’s worth buying a unique technique.
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 24 December 2012 16: 46
      -1
      Shoigu has already shown to the airborne troops that we need to take an example from the Ministry of Emergencies in terms of robotics ...)))
      That will be megatrolling for NADO and their minions, if the Russian UDC is under the flag of the Ministry of Emergencies))))
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 24 December 2012 19: 24
        +2
        Quote: dmitreach
        if the Russian UDC will be under the flag of the Ministry of Emergencies))))
        "Mistral" ... In the absence of fish, as they say, and cancer is a fish. The French will build faster, even if there is something, it's better than nothing at all. But why build these pelvis in Russia? Yes, it also has a hospital, a command center, however, it is rather a universal military transport than a battleship, attempts to "pre-arm" it in our version will not lead to good. Narrow, high-sided, with construction overload and deterioration in metacentric height, a candidate for capsizing in a storm. We need to build other helicopter carriers. If you really need to, you can right now start converting two nuclear-powered "Eagles" into light aircraft carriers-helicopter carriers. Anyway, only the "Admiral Nakhimov" is going to modernize, as a cruiser, the other two ships are in question. Of course, this is just my opinion, which may be wrong.
        1. dmitreach
          dmitreach 24 December 2012 20: 55
          +1
          not! like this! flagship MOE!
          1. dmitreach
            dmitreach 24 December 2012 20: 56
            0
            I can’t insert two pictures ... (((
  20. Optimist
    Optimist 24 December 2012 16: 41
    +1
    I believe this is certainly a rational decision !, the capacities that will be freed up at the shipyards (for the 3rd and 4th. Mistral) can be occupied with priority projects 22350 or spent 1135.6 - ships that are needed NOW !!!
  21. holding
    holding 24 December 2012 20: 10
    +1
    We’re not spending the money there. On x .. Russia, these Mistrals? Serdyukoff dubbed soap for the rest. In my opinion, this direction needs to be developed.
  22. Megatron
    Megatron 24 December 2012 23: 03
    +2
    It’s time to stop building ships for other people's Navy and it’s time to arm your own.
    I still do not see the tasks that the Mistrals should carry out, we are not at war with the natives.
  23. 123dv
    123dv 24 December 2012 23: 22
    0
    MORE SHIPS GOOD AND DIFFERENT !!!
    wink
  24. adolph1
    adolph1 25 December 2012 00: 15
    +1
    It is painful and insulting, only tears sometimes come! How is it that our country is not able to build a ship ?????? And where are our technologies, where are our engineers? Shame and shame!
  25. Misantrop
    Misantrop 25 December 2012 00: 40
    +5
    Quote: adolph1
    And where are our technologies, where are our engineers?

    Where is the technology? Where they offered at least a penny. They were unnecessarily tagged and drunk. And engineers, ask the next time in the market from sellers about their pre-perestroika specialties, be very surprised ...
  26. Zlyden.Zlo
    Zlyden.Zlo 25 December 2012 06: 16
    +1
    I do not understand the maritime industry. But 1) I'm not sure that any technologies will be transferred to us. (Maybe only those that are considered completely outdated) 2) Do we have an info structure for servicing these ships? Will every part and consumables be sent to us from France? (then in truth there will be gold ships.) 3) We are so sure that our sworn friends will not go to their bookmarks more embedded in the ship system (I pressed a button from the other side of the world and this machinery turned into a piece of iron with open kingtones)
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 25 December 2012 14: 30
      +1
      1) Already transmit. True, due to the timing of the assembly, WE DO NOT HAVE TO IMPLEMENT it. For example, it is known that the feed of the first UDC is collected in Russia. The technical documentation had to be adapted to our realities. I don’t remember the exact footage right away, but the bottom line is: roughly speaking, ours can cut sheet of ship steel 6X8 meters, and the French 8X12 ... These are machines with more technological tables, on which lies a sheet (future part) weighing a lot . Technologies? Dual purpose?
      I am not an engineer, I can’t say what is better, what is worse. But the stern of the first Russian Mistral, 30 percent commercials, will have more welds.
      And our brain engineers threw an interesting task: to adapt the product in a short time to the technological capabilities of the plant, without changing the design. That is: them, French patterns, under Russian scissors))))) (there they cut with a laser)

      2) Infrastructure is and is being built. Google to help you.
      Based on the contract:
      The first Mistral, by hull, is 20% MADE in Russia.
      The second Mistral, by hull, is 40% MADE in Russia.
      It was planned on the 3rd and 4th ship to bring the localization to 60% and 80%, respectively. French ship self-defense systems cost a penny in comparison with those of domestic systems that they plan to place on the UDC. Plus fire control systems. (for Russian weapons)
      The wing is not included in the transaction price. (16 Ka-52K + 16 Ka-29)

      3) You shouldn't think so badly about our engineers. All the same, the piano in the bushes is difficult to hide. If you want to say that the "magic button" in Nadovsky's paws will remove the vessel's engines from the working state, then this is a myth.
      Enough in warhead 5 of a conscripted sailor.
  27. Alekseev
    Alekseev 25 December 2012 13: 14
    0
    It is believed that "Mistrals" are useful only when fighting a weak enemy. Type of operations in Africa, colonies.
    Considering the "absence" of such adversaries in Russia at sea, the great vulnerability of these ships without solid cover (the Russian fleet does not currently have a corresponding escort) and the high price of 1,5 billion euros, the conclusion suggests itself that the Russian Navy does not need them. ...
    I would like to hear the opinion of experts, military sailors.
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 25 December 2012 13: 59
      0
      it is believed that the "mosquito fleet" - kamikaze in Russian. and what?
  28. Andrey77
    Andrey77 25 December 2012 15: 24
    0
    Mistrals need to be bought, because we ourselves are not able to build. I would also buy a couple of pieces from the states of the Los Angeles nuclear submarine.

    knn54: You can build in Nikolaev-cheaper and more reliable.

    Ogh, thanks. Swam, we know. Then you will begin to divide the boat. Stomp your way.
  29. I think so
    I think so 25 December 2012 17: 27
    +4
    The Russian leadership in its role - we will not order it, we will order it to the French (i.e. our potential enemies) ... And there they will make two troughs they will not install any serious systems, and even if they do, it is even worse, because during the conflict they (these systems) most likely will not work; they will be turned off (as has happened more than once in the history of sold weapons). But those holding power are what benefits
    1. Medvedev has most likely received a rollback therefore and is impudent not by the day, but by the clock right before our eyes.
    2. Military chiefs will go on business trips to their heart's content - "to receive equipment."
    3. Money will go abroad, and there no one will ever calculate who they got from the Russian leadership.

    And what Russia as a whole of problems will be added is to spit IM.
    1. Money (jobs) will go abroad.
    2. Local designers bend down and will never be able to do anything at all.
    3. The military will receive an order of magnitude (!) Worse weapons than their projects.
    4. Arms do not fit into any local doctrines.
    5. The exploitation of these troughs will result in a pretty penny and complete dependence on a potential enemy.
    6. Arms systems in the event of a conflict with NATO will not work.

    "As for the rest, beautiful marquise, everything is good, everything is good!"
    Another little step in mitigating the drowning is done ... So soon you need to wait for a very big trouble ...
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 25 December 2012 17: 40
      +1
      Diligently written comment. It's nice to see when a person has an opinion. Besides this article, have you read anything else about Mistral?
  30. Kurchan.70
    Kurchan.70 25 December 2012 19: 10
    +3
    The purchase of the Mistral is a transfer of taxpayer money to gov ... but
  31. Crang
    Crang 25 December 2012 21: 32
    +2
    What is it about these Mistrals is not clear. A box with funny weapons. Back in the 70s, we had aircraft carriers much better than the Mistral. It would be better if "Ivan Rogov" was repaired.