Military Review

Absurdity and amphibious landings. The next turn of the epic with the "Mistral"

471
Interesting flow continues News, in one way or another connected with the change of leadership of the Russian Ministry of Defense. Recent reports concern the long-suffering Russian-French contract for the purchase of two and, possibly, two more universal landing ships of the Mistral project. Over the past few years, this topic has been one of the most discussed and now a new reason for debate has appeared.

A few days ago, at a meeting of the League of Assistance to Defense Enterprises, I. Kharchenko, a member of the Military-Industrial Commission under the Government of Russia, expressed a tough and ambiguous thought. In his opinion, the purchase of new ships from France not only does not benefit the domestic the fleet, but even harms the Russian shipbuilding industry, and the decision on it is simply ridiculous. In addition, Kharchenko said that the initiative of the former Minister of Defense A. Serdyukov, according to which the contract was signed, caused damage to shipbuilding and the state as a whole, and this is not the only action with similar consequences on the part of the ex-minister. However, Kharchenko did not give up the possibility of completing the already laid down landing ships. In favor of this, he cited the fact that the cessation of construction and the termination of the contract will cost our country more than the continuation of work. So in the end, summed up the member of the military-industrial complex, the first two Mistral for the Russian Navy need to be completed, and then determine their effectiveness.

Such statements of the responsible person look, at least, ambiguous. Moreover, in the light of recent events, they have an unpleasant subtext. One gets the obsessive impression that serious accusations towards Mistral have not real bases in the form of technical or tactical problems, but a desire to support the current trend. After the change of the Minister of Defense, a real wave of various news and rumors began, one way or another connected with criticizing or canceling the decisions of the old leadership of the military department. This wave has already taken the form of a real fashion, so every new message about the cancellation of any decision by Serdyukov or his subordinates looks more like an attempt to solve their “behind-the-scenes” interests lately, and not to pay attention to the country's defense. Of course, the previous leadership of the Ministry of Defense managed to do a lot, to put it mildly, bad things. However, it is necessary to deal with these problems, as they say, with feeling, sensibly and constellation. Now, sometimes the impression is created about the real problem-balancing, and not about their solution.

History with the Mistrals, it turns out to be an example of this situation. The purchase of these ships was planned on the basis of a number of certain features of the current state of our navy. Currently, the Russian Navy has about twenty landing ships of various types and about the same number of landing craft. In general, the quantitative composition of the amphibious fleet does not cause any complaints. However, disputes over its quality have been going on for a long time. So, the most massive class of domestic amphibious ships are large amphibious assault ships (BDK). BDK various projects are used by our fleet over the past decades. At the same time, in view of the geopolitical situation, such ships were mainly exploited only during exercises. The number of military operations with their participation can be counted on the fingers. While the Soviet and then Russian sailors and marines were only preparing for possible hostilities, foreign countries actively fought in various theaters of military operations. Thus, during the Vietnam War, the US military was once again convinced of the difficulty of carrying out the landing of an amphibious assault force using ships of various classes. In addition, at the same time, the concept of over-the-horizon landing was formed, when amphibious ships did not enter the zone of visibility from the shore.

USS Tarawa (LHA-1)


In 1976, the US Navy put into operation the first ship of the new class, created based on the experience of recent hostilities. The universal landing ship USS Tarawa (LHA-1) had the ability to simultaneously transport personnel, light and heavy armored vehicles, landing craft and helicopters. In addition, the flight deck of the ship allowed, if necessary, to transport and ensure the combat work of aircraft with vertical takeoff and landing. Thus, one ship of the Tarawa project was able to provide over-the-horizon landing of a battalion of marines and armored vehicles for it. If necessary, the means of the transported equipment could support the troops from the air. It is not difficult to guess how the combat potential of new universal amphibious ships has increased in comparison with old ships of several types at once. In the future, “in the image and likeness” of the Tarawa project in the USA and other countries, several similar UDCs were created. Currently, the most advanced representatives of this class are the American project America, the South Korean Dokto, the French Mistral and the Spanish Juan Carlos I.

Universal landing ship LHA 6 America, launched on the company Ingalls Shipbuilding. In the background is the LPD 24 Arlington-type San Antonio LPD XDUMX docking shipyard that is being completed at the shipyard. Pascagula, 05.06.2012 (c) Ingalls Shipbuilding


Absurdity and amphibious landings. The next turn of the epic with the "Mistral"
South Korean UDC Dokto


Spanish UDC Juan Carlos I


As we see, abroad, the class of universal landing ships showed its capabilities and therefore almost completely supplanted other classes of ships intended for landing troops on the coast. Moreover, almost all the development of foreign amphibious ships and boats is precisely in accordance with the concept of UDC. So, landing craft on an air cushion, for example, the American LCAC, are created precisely with regard to the use at the UDC. Boats like LCAC are made to deliver armored vehicles and personnel from the ship to the shore. Due to its design, such equipment is not demanding to the depth of the coast and can land fighters on almost any beach. Thus, a whole “infrastructure” has developed around UDC, which fully suits the foreign military and is unlikely to undergo major changes in the coming years.

LCAC


Admittedly, attempts to make the UDC have been undertaken in our country. In the eighties of the last century, the Nevsky Design Bureau worked out the 11780 project, which involved the creation of a universal amphibious assault ship, remotely resembling the American Tarawa. Unfortunately, the requirements of naval sailors were constantly changing, which led to the processing of the appearance of a promising ship. Finally, the difficulties with the distribution of production facilities led to the freezing of the project, and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union and the transfer of the Black Sea Shipyard to an independent Ukraine put an end to the entire 11780 project. These UDCs, if they were built, could transport and support X-NUMX Ka-12 helicopters or similar, as well as four landing boats of the 29 project or two hovercraft of the 1176 project.

Model UDC project 11780


Thus, the Soviet Union still tried to catch up and get the ships of the modern class, but still could not do it. After the collapse of the Soviet Union on the sidelines of the Ministry of Defense, the issue of creating the first Russian UDC was raised several times, but then the matter did not go further than talk. The combination of capabilities of ships of this class attracted the attention of the military, but the country was no longer able to design and build something similar. It was the absence of their projects universal landing ships was one of the main arguments in favor of the purchase of the French "Mistral". The French ships in this case were considered as a way to close the need for such equipment for the coming years, while the development and construction of their own UDC will last. Of course, if such a project will be launched.

It will take several years to develop and build our own amphibious assault ships and it is unlikely that the lead UDC of its own project will be launched before 2020 of the year. In addition, in the course of its creation, various changes in appearance and other things that are not conducive to the early completion of work are possible. In this case, the purchase of French ships will help to learn in practice all the pros and cons of this class and take appropriate measures when creating your own UDC. As for the transfer of a number of technologies and documentation for the Mistrals, this will also be useful for Russian shipbuilding. However, at the moment, due to the specific approach of the parties to the coverage of the contract, it is not entirely clear which documents were handed over to Russian shipbuilders.

UDC of the Mistral project


It is worth paying attention to the recent words of Deputy Prime Minister D. Rogozin. In his opinion, the UDC of the Mistral project is inoperative at temperatures less than seven degrees. This statement looks rather strange and raises a lot of questions. It is known that for use in the Russian Navy, the project of the French UDC has undergone a number of improvements, among which, obviously, were aimed at improving the simplicity of equipment for work in difficult conditions typical of some regions nearby Russia. In addition, high-ranking naval commanders participated in the negotiations on the Russian-French contract at one time and they would hardly have ignored such obvious and important things.

It is noteworthy that after all the statements of Kharchenko and Rogozin, the previous picture that has developed around Mistral for Russia has not changed. As it was reported a little earlier, Russia will receive the first two UDC in accordance with the current plan, and the other two ships will be ordered a little later. Thus, the current "round" of disputes around the topic of new amphibious ships is de facto useless. His only positive feature is the opportunity to once again analyze the situation and build assumptions about further events. Meanwhile, work is underway on the construction of the ships "Vladivostok" and "Sevastopol", and it is unlikely that any disputes will be able to stop this process. The Russian Navy will still receive its first universal landing ships, even if they are of foreign manufacture.

http://ria.ru/
http://rg.ru/
http://lenta.ru/
http://arms-expo.ru/
http://globalsecurity.org/
http://navy.mil/
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/
http://twower.livejournal.com/
Author:
471 comment
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. ICT
    ICT 28 January 2013 09: 24
    +9
    citation: the “round” of controversy surrounding the topic of new landing ships is de facto useless.

    I join, we will see
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak 28 January 2013 09: 45
      +32
      Quote: TIT
      even foreign production.


      I remember the death of the battleship "Novorossiysk" aka "Giulio Cesare", So they did not fully decide why.

      I do not like foreign military equipment, all sorts of dirty tricks, riddles, bookmarks ....
      1. VAF
        VAF 28 January 2013 12: 08
        +2
        Quote: Vadivak
        So to the end and did not decide why.


        Vadim. Greetings! + unambiguous!

        And here is the article. Although as a review it seems like not bad, but the conclusions and analysis negative

        But because of this phrase- MINUS article is SIGNIFICANT:
        "...... The purchase of these ships was planned based on a number of certain features of the current state of our navy." wassat
        1. Vadivak
          Vadivak 28 January 2013 12: 33
          +6
          Quote: vaf
          Vadim. Greetings!


          Hello, Sergey. Thank.
          Quote: vaf
          from some features

          Features of national policy
          1. Good Ukraine
            Good Ukraine 29 January 2013 17: 46
            +4
            Every day there are some articles about the Mistrals.
            I think that:
            First
            initially, the question of buying from France was purely political and, moreover, very correctly arranged according to the 2 + 2 scheme. The first two under Sarkozy, and then "we'll see how the new president will behave." If she is "smart" - we will buy, and if not, then we'll see.
            Secondly, "are helicopter carriers needed?"
            Do you think it would not hurt at least one today off the coast of Syria? I think it would have been a completely different alignment. Yes, and the group itself would have looked differently and with constant watch in the air would feel differently. I think that helicopter carriers are needed yesterday, and at least one for each fleet. Why mistrals, and not “we will build ourselves.” What do you think, when will the first appear if we start to build today? - by 2030? And so in 2 years there will be two in the ranks, "- I will answer like this," but why are they needed there in such quantity with a hundred helicopters? "For each polar bear, 2 helicopters?"
            The point is completely different. Apparently Hollande, Francois who behaves badly. Therefore, we decided to cheer him up (After all, we might not buy it, we thought it was an icebreaker), and so that I would always remember about my shipbuilders, who, if there was nothing to eat tomorrow, would go out.

            But such boats are needed.
            On the Black and Mediterranean Seas, so that everyone remembers "South Stream" under protection.
            In the Baltic Sea, Nord Stream is also protected.
            In the Pacific - islands await paratroopers
            In the North, the North Sea Route is guarded

            So what are needed and with at least 4 pieces. Very correct decision.

            As far as I remember earlier, they said that they should go east and south. They were called “Sevastopol” - to the Pacific Ocean, and “Vladivostok” - to the Black Sea. And where does the ice class?
            1. Adrenalin
              Adrenalin 30 January 2013 08: 34
              +1
              Quote: Dobryak Ukraine
              (After all, we may not buy, We thought it was an icebreaker

              laughing good
      2. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 28 January 2013 18: 01
        +2
        Quote: Vadivak
        I do not like foreign military equipment.


        Love - not love, but had to take:

        B-29 = Tu-4

        AIM-9 Sidewinder = R-3 air-to-air missile

        IvS E-1 = type "C" submarine (on which Shchedrin and Marinesco fought)

        destroyer "Maestrale" = destroyer type "7"

        leader "Tashkent" = leader "Tashkent" (built in Livorno for the Black Sea Fleet, excellent ship)

        cruiser Lutzov = cruiser "Petropavlovsk"

        U-boot of the XXI series = DEPL pr. 613

        Turbojet engine Nin = MiG-15 fighter (an attempt to use German development was unsuccessful, I had to buy a British jet engine for Mig)



        Quote: Vadivak
        all sorts of dirty tricks, riddles, bookmarks ....

        The main thing is to throw mud at everything and shout "Urya" the loudest!
        1. vorobey
          vorobey 28 January 2013 18: 20
          +9
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          leader "Tashkent" = leader "Tashkent" (built in Livorno for the Black Sea Fleet, excellent ship)


          And Panorama went down in history from Sevastopol, it was evacuated. True Germans and robbed him

          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          The main thing is to throw mud at everything and shout "Urya" the loudest!


          And where does the dirt apply to the Mistrals? There are claims.
        2. Vadivak
          Vadivak 28 January 2013 18: 32
          +9
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          you’re celebrating - you don’t love, but you had to take


          Again you with your jokes, almost everything that you listed was made by us, stolen, bought by piece, but produced by us.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          The main thing is to throw mud at everything and shout "Urya" the loudest!


          Do not overdo it
          1. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 28 January 2013 19: 30
            +5
            Quote: Vadivak
            Again you with your jokes

            I just want to understand why you said this phrase:
            Quote: Vadivak
            all sorts of dirty tricks, riddles, bookmarks ....


            Russia, like many other countries, has always actively used foreign experience - suffice it to recall the ships of the Peter the Great era and the "Dutch roots" of the Russian fleet. It has always been and none of this has made a problem.
            Until Vadim appeared, and under the amicable applause of the audience, he said that he, you see, "does not like foreign technology."

            There have never been any "riddles and bookmarks" in "Lyuttsov", "Tashkent" or submarines of the "C" type (Average). The only muddy story that Vadim mentioned is the death of Novorossiysk, a weak argument - it is still unknown why the ship died: an accident, a sabotage with a bomb on board or a sabotage with an external VU under the bottom ...

            Quote: Vadivak
            almost everything you listed was made with us

            Key phrase - "almost everything"))))

            "Tashkent" - completely built in Livorno (Italy)
            Great ship, move 43 node. Great help us in World War II.
            But Vadim just poured a tub of dirt on him for nothing, saying about "all sorts of dirty tricks, riddles, bookmarks"

            "Petropavlovsk" (formerly Lyuttsov) - built in Germany. He helped Leningraders during the blockade - ironically, he threw 280 mm German shells at the Germans and, at the same time, served as a power station for a dying, but not surrendering city.

            And Vadim probably is not aware that half of the 17 destroyers of the Northern Fleet during the war years were delivered from abroad. And the Red Navy men fought on them, not thinking about any "dirty tricks and bookmarks", and defeated the enemy!
            For example, "Maddox", which became "Valiant" in the Northern Fleet

            1. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe 28 January 2013 21: 15
              +13
              Quote: Vadivak
              Again you with your jokes, almost everything that you listed was made by us, stolen, bought by piece, but produced by us.


              Comrade Vavidak, with his marshal epaulets, probably forgot that

              - the legendary cruiser "Varyag" was built in Philadelphia (USA),

              - 10 destroyers "Mechanical Engineer Zverev" were built for the Baltic Fleet in Germany;

              - nuclear icebreakers "Taimyr" and "Vaygach" were built in Finland, at the shipyard of the joint stock company "Vyartsilya Marine Technics" by order of the Soviet Union, 1989

              - all 28 Large landing ships of the 775 project (which are now sent to the coast of Syria) were built in Poland, at the shipyards of Stocznia Polnocna.

              But Vavidak is all the same, he does not like foreign equipment, there are all sorts of "tricks, riddles, bookmarks ..."


              Polish ships in the service of the Russian Navy


              Nuclear icebreaker "Taimyr", reliable Finnish technology
              1. atesterev
                atesterev 28 January 2013 23: 44
                +7
                You see, the maestro, while Poland was in the CMEA and the VD, Finland was oriented more toward the USSR than the west, and its allies needed to be fed.
                By the way, this is why the training aircraft L-29 and L-39 were designed and produced in Czechoslovakia.
              2. avreli
                avreli 29 January 2013 08: 22
                +1
                The article is good, but not outstanding - you could add specifics. Therefore, the material is neither a plus nor a minus.
                And here you are, SWEET_SIXTEEN, for competent argumentation and sound approaches - plus.
                Like - aleksandrik (post later).
                It’s hardly worth paying attention to the opinion of other participants, the level they demonstrate: “the computer is a shaitan machine, you turn it on, but it knows the time.” smile
                And fake epaulettes for them are almost the only consolation.
                And the site is not our patrimony, everyone is free to say what he wants.
              3. Vadivak
                Vadivak 29 January 2013 08: 27
                +3
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Comrade Vavidak, with his marshal epaulets, probably forgot that


                My shoulder straps do not give you sleep? What a jealous you are. I’ll write to Smirnov to give them to you. They are unnecessary to me. Like Sasha Sparrow.

                What you once again describe is not related to the NATO bloc, that is, it was built not in Germany but in the German Democratic Republic, not in Poland but in the NDP, Finland bought Soviet weapons and was not a member of NATO, the Varangian settled in the allied Russia of America, and if you consider NATO is an ally of Russia then the flag in your hands, the North Atlantic
                1. Santa Fe
                  Santa Fe 29 January 2013 11: 06
                  +3
                  Quote: Vadivak
                  My shoulder straps do not give you sleep? What a jealous you are. I will write to Smirnov to give them to you

                  Vadim, don’t start. This is just a discussion. You don’t need to ask anyone for anything, just express your thoughts and give facts.

                  Quote: Vadivak
                  e is related to the NATO bloc, that is, it was not built in Germany but the GDR

                  Alas, by.
                  Proclamation of the GDR - 1945

                  Purchase of 10 destroyers "Engineer-mechanic Zverev" - 1904 ... 1907, just before the First World War

                  Purchase of "Lyuttsov" - 1940, - from the future enemy, a year before the terrible war! (already should have alerted, however, there were no "bookmarks" on Lyuttsov)

                  And how, in your opinion, can you explain the purchase of an excellent ship "Tashkent" from fascist Italy, the future enemy of the USSR?

                  Quote: Vadivak
                  Varangian formed in the union of Russia America

                  excellent, the United States turned into allies))))

                  Quote: Vadivak
                  and if you consider NATO an ally of Russia, then the flag in your hands, the North Atlantic

                  By the way, was France a loyal ally of Russia at the beginning of the century? At the shipyards of Saint-Nazaire (where the Mistral is now being built) from 1904 to 1906. 11 "Lieutenant Burakov" class destroyers were built ... funny, isn't it?

                  At the beginning of the twentieth century, almost the entire fleet of the Russian Empire was built abroad (Germany, Denmark, France, USA).
                  1. Vadivak
                    Vadivak 29 January 2013 11: 30
                    +2
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    excellent, the United States turned into allies))))


                    You probably didn’t teach history as a child, Until 1917, even fought against the Germans together

                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    )) Purchase of "Lyuttsov" - 1940, - from the future enemy, for th)


                    Note not four but one, piece goods, and not only do you write with a future enemy, but at that moment the Germans and I even fought against one enemy, you read the story there by the way it says that the First World War began in 1914 and 1907 is not before it's seven years old but it's already math
                    1. Santa Fe
                      Santa Fe 29 January 2013 12: 39
                      0
                      Quote: Vadivak
                      You probably didn’t teach history in childhood

                      Well, they taught! We were told that arrogant Saxons and American bonzes have always looked for an excuse to spoil Russia.

                      Or is it not so?

                      Quote: Vadivak
                      and not only do you write with a future enemy, but at that moment the Germans and I even fought against one enemy

                      What an amazing confession!
                    2. Kodiak
                      Kodiak 29 January 2013 12: 51
                      0
                      Quote: Vadivak
                      Until 1917, even against the Germans fought together


                      Before 1917?
                      When do you think the Americans entered the war?
                    3. Jurkovs
                      Jurkovs 30 January 2013 12: 37
                      0
                      Moreover, the United States owes its very independence to Russia and France, which put forward an ultimatum to England and the latter refrained from sending its fleet to the shores of America in the midst of a civil war.
                  2. Aleksys2
                    Aleksys2 29 January 2013 11: 39
                    +3
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    excellent, the United States turned into allies))))

                    Have you heard anything about the Entente bloc? And on whose side did SASHA fight in World War I?

                    When Varyag was ordered, SASHA was a friendly country to us, in other matters, like Germany.
                    The construction of their first armored cruisers the Russian imperial fleet began in the 1880 of the XIX century. According to the 1882 shipbuilding program of the year, the construction of 4 frigates and 9 corvettes was planned. The views of the authors of the program were very uncertain and led to the fact that both armored and armored cruisers were built for actions in the ocean.
                    Preparing for action on British communications, The Russian naval leadership strove to have as many cruisers as possible, but building armored units like the Rurik and its followers was too expensive. In this regard, in 1895, the designers of the Baltic Plant were invited to develop an ocean armored raider, with an eye on the British Astray project. As a result, the Russian fleet received three cruisers in the 1902 - 1903 years - Diana, Pallada and Aurora. The designers who did not have sufficient experience made many mistakes, as a result of which these cruisers were estimated at the beginning of the Russian-Japanese war as the most useless of the newest ships of the fleet. Their weapons turned out to be weak for a solid displacement, their range was limited, and their speed was completely insufficient.
                    In preparation for the war with Japan, the Russian naval leadership came to the conclusion that it is necessary to have two types of armored cruisers in the fleet: long-range reconnaissance, with a displacement of about 6000 tons and close reconnaissance, with a displacement of 2000 -2500 tons. The corresponding competitions were announced in 1898, and in connection with the workload of Russian plants, foreign companies were widely involved.
                    The result of these efforts was the emergence of the 6 fleet of armored cruisers of the 1 rank. All of them carried on 12 152-mm guns of the main caliber and had to have a speed of 23 knots. The Varyag cruiser was designed and built by the American company Kramp (born William Cramp & Sons).
              4. cobalt
                cobalt 29 January 2013 23: 20
                0
                In addition to SWEET SIXTEEN, I want to add that due to the load on the capacities of the USSR shipbuilding enterprises in 1960-70, we built medium and large landing ships in Poland. These are ships of projects 770,771 and 773 - medium DK, about 70 units in total and large DK of project 775-12 units. They were built in Gdansk, the factory of the “Reach the Midnight named after Bohateryov Westerplati”. Also in 1960-1970 in the USSR at the Yantar plant in Kaliningrad, according to project 1171, 15 large recreation centers were built. It was during these years that the program was implemented to equip the landing forces of the Marine Corps. Then in the 1970s to 1984, only 3 large recreation centers were launched under the project 1174 Rhinoceros. also at the Amber factory. Since 1984, our shipbuilding industry has not given the fleet medium and large recreation centers. Those afloat are already of a decent age. I don’t think that our shipbuilding industry, which has not been seriously engaged in landing ship projects for almost 30 years, will now be able to quickly and independently develop and implement a project for a modern large landing multifunctional ship, it takes time and skill to do everything. In such conditions, the purchase of a finished project looks pretty reasonable. But I think the fleet needs modern medium-sized recreation centers. In general, it is better to ask the marines themselves what kind of ships they need and how much, since it is they who disembark from them on the coast and fight
            2. Vadivak
              Vadivak 29 January 2013 08: 41
              +3
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              For example, "Maddox", which became "Valiant" in the Northern Fleet


              I suspected you were off topic, keep up the good work

              The American tub of 1918 was not called Valiant but Hard, it was first given to the British and then passed to us, according to the principle God doesn’t need us for you. And I still do not want to offend you, but these ships were delivered in August 1944, when the Germans were already not to convoys, so there is no need for pathetics, there was a war and fought at any scrap metal, including this

              Destroyer "Hard"
              (until September 23, 1940 - American destroyer Maddox ["DD-168 USS Maddox"])
              (until March 9, 1944 - British destroyer "Georgetown" ["HMS Georgetown (I 40)"])
              1918 - 1949
              Laid down on July 20, 1918 at the shipyard at Four River, Massachusetts (USA). Launched on October 27, 1918. March 10, 1919 went into operation.
              September 23, 1940 became part of the British Navy. March 9, 1944 became part of the Soviet fleet and July 16, 1944 was accepted by the Soviet crew in Newcastle.
              From August 16 to 24, 1944 he made the transition to the Kola Bay as part of a detachment of ships. February 4, 1949 returned to England and was soon scrapped.
              Displacement 1154 t. Dimensions 95.6x9.42x3.6 m
              Initial armament 4 - 102/50, 1 - 75/37 anti-aircraft guns., 4x3 533 mm torpedo tubes
              in 1944: 1 - 102/50, 1 - 76/40, 4 - 20 mm Oerlikon, 2 - 12.7 mm Colt, 1х3 533 TA, 4 bomb mortars, 60 depth charges
              No booking
              Mechanisms 2 turbines, power of mechanisms 26000 hp, 2 screws
              Maximum speed 35 knots Cruising range 4900 miles. Crew 103 people
              In 1944, the speed was 27 knots. Cruising range 1900 miles. Crew of 11 officers and 130 sailors
              1. Santa Fe
                Santa Fe 29 January 2013 11: 22
                0
                Quote: Vadivak
                We did not call Valiant and Hard

                I'm happy for you. The first comment is essentially.
                Thanks for the amendment.

                Quote: Vadivak
                1918 American Sucker

                By the time he was included in the USSR Navy, Maddox (Hard) was 25 years old (of which he had been mothballed for 20 years). For comparison, the age of the modern missile cruiser "Moskva" has exceeded 30.

                Quote: Vadivak
                when the Germans were no longer up to convoys

                Alas, the Northern Fleet, for a number of reasons, had little to do with convoys.
                Wiring and guarding transports was exclusively dealt with by His Majesty's fleet. As soon as the British recalled their escort, the convoy PQ-17 was completely defeated.
                A little-known fact - at the time of the departure of the British cruisers and destroyers, the convoy PQ-17 already passed 1500 miles of the Norwegian Sea, passed about. Bear and was a couple of hundred miles from Murmansk - purely in the operational area of ​​the SF, however, this did not save him

                Quote: Vadivak
                and then they gave us, according to the principle on you God, that we do not need

                Not the best ship, but it was quite suitable for the limited tasks of the Northern Fleet. Still, the area of ​​responsibility of the Federation Council looked somewhat ridiculous against the backdrop of the expanses of the Pacific Theater
                1. Aleksys2
                  Aleksys2 29 January 2013 11: 49
                  +1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Alas, the Northern Fleet, for a number of reasons, had little to do with convoys.
                  Wiring and guarding transports was exclusively dealt with by His Majesty's fleet. As soon as the British recalled their escort, the convoy PQ-17 was completely defeated.
                  A little-known fact - at the time of the departure of the British cruisers and destroyers, the convoy PQ-17 already passed 1500 miles of the Norwegian Sea, passed about. Bear and was a couple of hundred miles from Murmansk - purely in the operational area of ​​the SF, however, this did not save him

                  Well, as if not quite so.
                  Convoys to the North of Russia moved along a rather narrow corridor between Spitsbergen and the Norwegian coast with naval and air bases located here and in northern Finland. In practice, ships went within the reach of enemy submarines and surface ships for 7 - 9 days, and the zone of activity of enemy aircraft extended to the islands of Jan Mayen, Svalbard and Novaya Zemlya. The protection of ship caravans was provided by the ships of the British Navy. In the operational zone east of the 20 meridian, the safety of the convoy movement was taken over by the Soviet Northern Fleet.
                  At the end of May, the convoy PQ-16 was at the transition from Iceland to the Soviet Union. For six days, he was subjected to continuous attacks by aircraft and submarines and lost seven ships. In the area of ​​the Northern Fleet, guarding the convoy was strengthened by our destroyers and aircraft. To meet and escort ships, warships made 67 sorties, and aviation - about 2000 sorties. In air battles, our fighters shot down 10 aircraft. The convoy in the area of ​​the Northern Fleet had no losses.
                  1. Vadivak
                    Vadivak 29 January 2013 12: 17
                    +1
                    Quote: Aleksys2
                    I'm happy for you. The first comment is essentially.
                    Thanks for the amendment.


                    Thank you, you can edit constantly, but I honestly do not need this plowed field
                    1. Aleksys2
                      Aleksys2 29 January 2013 12: 28
                      0
                      Quote: Vadivak
                      Quote: Aleksys2

                      Well, this is not my quote.
                    2. Santa Fe
                      Santa Fe 29 January 2013 12: 46
                      0
                      But this your comment is again not to the point))))
                  2. Santa Fe
                    Santa Fe 29 January 2013 12: 45
                    0
                    Quote: Aleksys2
                    In the operational zone east of the 20 meridian, the safety of the convoy movement was taken over by the Soviet Northern Fleet.

                    Convoy PQ-17 safely passed the 20-th meridian and was already moving to the Soviet coast in the operational zone of the SF. After which he was left by a British escort and immediately defeated.

                    An interesting conclusion is drawn.

                    Quote: Aleksys2
                    In the operational zone east of the 20 meridian, the safety of the convoy movement was taken over by the Soviet Northern Fleet.

                    If you call a spade a spade, then this is the 1 / 8 part of the dangerous route from Iceland (where the convoys were formed) to the northern ports of the USSR.
                    But even here the Federation Council could not act independently
                2. Aleksys2
                  Aleksys2 29 January 2013 12: 59
                  +1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Wiring and guarding transports was exclusively dealt with by His Majesty's fleet. As soon as the British recalled their escort, the convoy PQ-17 was completely defeated.
                  A little-known fact - at the time of the departure of the British cruisers and destroyers, the convoy PQ-17 already passed 1500 miles of the Norwegian Sea, passed about. Bear and was a couple of hundred miles from Murmansk - purely in the operational area of ​​the SF, however, this did not save him

                  On 21 on March 1942, the 95th Fighter Aviation Regiment (IAP) was included in the Northern Fleet Air Force, which was armed with the 2 squadron of Pe-3 long-range fighters. His main task was to cover convoys at a distance of 200 km from the entrance to the Kola Bay

                  At 21: 00, the cruising group was 5 miles ahead of the convoy. And over the next half hour from the Admiralty came three radiograms that decided the fate of the convoy.
                  21: 11 Cruising compound to move west at full speed.
                  21: 23 In view of the threat of surface ships, the convoy will disperse and proceed to Russian ports.
                  21: 36 According to mine from 21: 23 the convoy scattered.
                  The transmission of radiograms in such a sequence and with such formulations led to the fact that Hamilton and Broome came to the conclusion that the German ships were approaching the convoy. Therefore, when Broome suggested that Hamilton join the escort destroyers to the cruiser formation, he agreed. Broome personally conveyed the Admiralty’s order to disperse the convoy to the astonished Commodore convoy Dauding, who was following the River Afton [100]. And then he issued an order to the remaining ships and ships:
                  Convoy scatter and follow to Russian ports. Escort ships, except for destroyers, independently follow in Arkhangelsk.

                  On 5 of July 1942 of the year, the destroyers “Thundering”, “Grozny” and “Crushing” left the Kola Bay to strengthen the protection of convoy vessels. The Soviet command at that time had no information about the dissolution of the convoy, so on July 7 the destroyers consumed fuel and, having not found the convoy ships, returned to the base

                  On July 8, to help the PQ-17 convoy, the Northern Fleet command from Vaenga sent destroyers "Gremyashchy", "Grozny", "Kuibyshev" and "Crushing". On the night of July 10, a group of Soviet ships, searching for single transports, fell into the zone of floating 4 ball ice and was forced to reduce speed to low (6 knots). At this time, she was attacked by four German Ju-88 bombers, who dropped sixteen bombs on the destroyers, but all the bombs passed the target; only the destroyers Thundering and Crushing received minor damage and deformation of the hull. The ships could not be found out of the PQ-17 vehicles, and in the evening of July 10 they returned to Vaenga. Replenishing fuel, the destroyers Grozny, Kuibyshev and Uritsky went to Novaya Zemlya to search for convoy ships.
                  The Northern Fleet Air Force tried to cover the convoy ships with the forces of the Pe-3 95 Fighter Regiment (IAP) long-range fighters. In early July, the regiment was relocated to the field site. On July 6, Captain N. F. Kirikov’s car did not return from the first weather reconnaissance flight. The next three days, the Pe-3 flights were prevented by bad weather and they could only help the convoy vessels on the morning of July 10
        3. Ivan Tarasov
          Ivan Tarasov 28 January 2013 20: 24
          +3
          It was necessary when there was no design school.
          Now, it’s just embarrassing to buy junk when your technology exceeds Western.
          1. aleksandrik
            aleksandrik 28 January 2013 21: 08
            +4
            It was necessary when there was no design school.
            Now, it’s just embarrassing to buy junk when your technology exceeds Western.


            Show your patriotic feelings by buying a Lada laughing

            One of the few robust articles on this site. Plus, no questions asked! And the analysis and conclusions are simple good And then I'm already tired of reading about unmatched buckets on wheels from the military-industrial complex and about how the West oppresses the third world!
          2. rapid1934
            rapid1934 28 January 2013 21: 19
            +3
            Quote: Ivan Tarasov

            It was necessary when there was no design school.

            Do you have it now? We have specialists left, count on the fingers. Unfortunately, the collapse of the country and the army led to the fact that now there is money and almost all of the specialists have lost, there were only a few. This applies not only to the fleet ....... request Sorry, the cry of the soul. hi
            1. dmitreach
              dmitreach 28 January 2013 23: 12
              +1
              Recently, he gave a couple of links to the fact that the situation with the hands is not awful. And they train and even pay salaries for training ... !!!!
              If the "Cry of the Soul", then you here, on Topwar or here http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/?id=135 hi
    2. Mitek
      Mitek 28 January 2013 10: 01
      +45
      I will not tire of saying that we need a ship of this class. Kuril Islands, Black Sea Fleet .. Ships are multifunctional. Order from us, two years have been developed, b, then years 5 built. And the ships are aging fast now. It is necessary to replenish the fleet. Plus we will receive any technologies. Plus, the coast-based system of large ships (and this for centuries).
      No one will deny that such a ship would not be in the way in Syria, now? 08.08.08 off the coast of Georgia. Our support in the Kuril Islands, if that. Plus the size of the ship allows you to strengthen air defense. Don't forget about drones. their development is proceeding by leaps and bounds. And how many of them can you stuff on a cow like the Mistral? And let our shipbuilders build frigates. We need a lot of them now. Moreover, 2 UDCs will be built in Russia.
      And further. Who can guess what tasks the fleet will have to solve in conflicts of the future? More ships needed. good and different).
      1. Alexander
        Alexander 28 January 2013 10: 13
        +2
        If something goes wrong we give them to Syria.
      2. Vadivak
        Vadivak 28 January 2013 10: 46
        +12
        Quote: Mitek
        that we need a ship of this class. Kuril Islands, Black Sea Fleet .. Ships are multifunctional.

        Yes ktozh against. Only my domestic is needed

        Quote: Mitek
        how many of them can you stuff on a cow like the Mistral?

        There you can cram whatever you want,

        Quote: Mitek
        And let our shipbuilders build frigates.

        But what about the general staff? people specially trained for them what to do? That is, decide what to build

        1. Mitek
          Mitek 28 January 2013 10: 54
          +11
          I do not argue, but the domestic one will not appear in 2 years, unfortunately ... The consequences of the Gorbachev-Ebnov era are making themselves felt. Plus, we need ships of the frigate class in large quantities, and indeed of any class). Here they are being built here. And on the 2 remaining "mistrals" they will fill their hand for aircraft carriers))).
          After all, regardless of where the UDC is built, they will increase the capabilities of the fleets. And we have few "living" ships left .. And the situation in the world is getting more and more tense. Therefore, it is better than nothing.
          You’re right about the General Staff, but I didn’t say specifically about the frigates, but referring to all types of warships in general) I just expressed it inaccurately) Just really warships in our time should only be their own. And UDC is essentially a transport.
          1. 101
            101 28 January 2013 11: 03
            +4
            And that for India we did not build an aircraft carrier And do not say that it is a repair This is essentially a newly built ship equipped with airplanes and everything necessary
            1. Mikado
              Mikado 28 January 2013 11: 57
              +9
              It has not yet been "built", since 2004 they have been suffering.
              1. 101
                101 28 January 2013 12: 11
                +5
                Since 2008 And still bring a rusty Lada from the landfill and remake it into a new Audi Already exhausted and not everything was as awful there as in the media Just everyone has their own bread
          2. Vadivak
            Vadivak 28 January 2013 11: 16
            +20
            Quote: Mitek
            but domestic will not appear after 2 years unfortunately ...


            So he was back in the 80s and the drawings are intact and the technology is there. Universal landing ship project 11780 (Nevsky Design Bureau) about this and the article is written, thanks to the author
            1. altman
              altman 28 January 2013 11: 47
              +9
              But who will build them then? The Black Sea factories are lost, the plants are loaded in the Baltic and the North ... silence in the Far East .. two corvettes of about 10 years will be built where they can get to large ships, especially with the latest stuffing ... if they even brought in a superstructure for the corvette from St. Petersburg. .
              1. Vadivak
                Vadivak 28 January 2013 15: 09
                +5
                Quote: altman
                But who will build them then?

                Altman, you can put a shipyard on these grandmothers and still remain
                1. dmitreach
                  dmitreach 28 January 2013 16: 10
                  +5
                  Nope, the shipyard is more expensive than the Mistral. Although if we are talking about rowing boats, then I agree wink
              2. Ivan Tarasov
                Ivan Tarasov 28 January 2013 22: 46
                0
                A shipyard is being built near Vladivostok for super tankers (up to 300 thousand tons). Here it is necessary to optimize it, for the construction of large warships (aircraft carriers, UDC, etc.).
              3. lucidlook
                lucidlook 30 January 2013 21: 13
                0
                Quote: altman
                But who will build them then?


                And where were we going to build "Mistrals"? Or are they simpler than 11780? It seems like it is believed that the French ship is one of the most difficult in its class.

                Imhayu, if they were potentially planning to build the Mistrals, then 11780 and even more so can build.
            2. Mikado
              Mikado 28 January 2013 11: 52
              +6
              There drawings are made, redone a hundred times, besides how much time has passed, a hundred and first time to remodel the project for new TD? And what will we get at the output, and most importantly for how long?
            3. Papakiko
              Papakiko 28 January 2013 21: 14
              0
              Quote: Vadivak
              проект 11780

              Sucker fakerny!
              Why such a bulky superstructure, boats on the upper deck and even the whole nose is "STUNNED".
            4. Jurkovs
              Jurkovs 30 January 2013 12: 54
              +4
              In the 80s, all the documentation was in whatman paper and tracing paper, and was made according to the ESKD on Soviet tolerances and landings. It was not enough for the carriage to include this documentation, and for a detailed technical process, a train would be required. To understand these papers today, hundreds and hundreds of designers of the old model of education are needed, today they do not teach this. And then at the shipyard they would find out that their sheet cutting equipment requires documentation and the technical process in FIGURE and would have to call Uncle Vasya from the housing office with a gas burner for cutting sheets. This is what I set out in detail, so that everyone understands that since the beginning of the 80s, two stages have passed in the development of equipment and technology. Today it’s better to do right away in a figure that the CNC equipment perfectly understands. At one time, as part of the co-production of the Superjet, computer design software was purchased. God bless him with the Superjet, but today almost all old planes have been converted to digital (the latest example is IL-76). Highways play the same role, without buying hardware, we will not receive software packages that are also tied to specific equipment manufacturers. We ourselves will bother about 20 years, which we are behind.
              1. dmitreach
                dmitreach 30 January 2013 23: 14
                0
                jurkovs, verbal truth! Fiercely plus. hi
                It is a pity that this comes to many compatriots with difficulty. For many, a super jet is a betrayal of the aviation industry ... request
              2. pavlo007
                pavlo007 1 February 2013 12: 29
                0
                Now, it’s even scary to think if something happens and we will not be renewed software licenses :)))))))))))))
                And on the account of the fact that they do not teach you are right. A colleague at the Admiralty shipyards told me what freaks came to them after high school - headphones in the ears, a nail in the nose, and a public toilet in the brains.
                It’s scary to even talk about your students ...
                And it’s weak for Russia to start developing software packages itself, otherwise I understand that Putininoids are going to create innovative creative software in a shrapnel in order to engage in group masturbation under the android.
                Are we going to land somewhere? Do we have a wick in the ass? In order for our fleet to be able to project power in the world with the help of formations, which include the Mistral, it is also necessary to build this fleet, which it does not have. That's just about 20 years and there is to it. It’s a crime to follow the path of ripping off and trying to copy. Remember what this led us to in computer technology, when in the USSR they scored their own and only tried to rip off IBM processors. That lagged behind for 20 years, having excellent mathematicians and programmers.
                Here you sit, here and translate the documentation for Ivan Tarava into a digital number. Five years, ten sit, develop YOUR software, prepare YOUR personnel, restore machine tool building. That's just the country of Putin with Chubais is allowed on a completely different path. In the X understanding, Russia should turn into a sort of Saudi Arabian monarchy - they pump oil, buy weapons with this money, teach their children ballroom dancing, what else .... management, innovative debilding in Oxford and Eaton, and guest workers, or even spoiled own population, reduced five times in advance, sweeps the streets and serves the masters. Naturally, their own industry, science and education in this scheme is not provided
                Something like that...

                Threat You can minus as much as you want - the opinion of the office plankton, who did not travel outside the KADA-MKAD, except for the game of airsoft, I have little interest. He has just returned from another business trip from one of the provincial cities, because there is no other person who calls your Putin a scoundrel and no one calls him a bastard - eight out of nine factories have been destroyed, a salary of 7 thousand rubles is considered a gift from the Gods, and young people will be drunk. All the rest are mourning in the bazaar. Rasiz fpered !!!!!
                1. dmitreach
                  dmitreach 1 February 2013 19: 44
                  0
                  Putin is to blame.
                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EPBB6MEETk
                  Attention! The video contains uncensored vocabulary.
                  1. pavlo007
                    pavlo007 1 February 2013 23: 27
                    0
                    Again, the standard nonsense of putinoids, flawed by reason - if not Putin, then the United States. For me, that Putin, that bulk, that Ksyusha Sobchak - they are all non-humans and traitors. Even in "my beloved usa" no competitor in the electoral campaign will agree that either vote for the united america party or you are traitors to the usa.

                    And who do you think is to blame except for Putin? It is he who is to blame. If a country has relative democracy and there are elections, then the responsibility for the course is to some extent divided into the whole society - like you deserve such power. In Russia, the situation is somewhat different - all power has been usurped by Putin and his criminal environment (Putinoids will now be amused that they elected him :)))), well, if nothing is solved in the country without Putin, then he is responsible for everything.
                    Absolute unlimited power implies absolute responsibility, responsibility ABSOLUTELY FOR EVERYTHING.
                    These are the truths of my little green friend.
                    And in order to frighten everyone with the fact that either I or everyone in the paragraph putinoids invented any bulk of evil. The real opposition to the criminal course now is only the Communist Party (with all my organic hostility to Bolshevism).

                    PS Video response:
                    1. dmitreach
                      dmitreach 2 February 2013 01: 27
                      -1
                      pavlo007You either listen to the Cord, or argue about politics. Many topics are not disclosed ... (C) Cord.
                      Cord expressed his entire attitude to politics long ago in the clip "Khimki Forest".
                  2. Strategia
                    Strategia 3 February 2013 15: 29
                    0
                    If there was a video against Putin, long ago they would have deleted ...
                    Quote: dmitreach
                    Putin is to blame.
                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EPBB6MEETk
          3. Simon
            Simon 28 January 2013 12: 57
            +3
            That's it! The question is where to build ships of this class, in one or two years you can’t build a shipyard, let alone ships. Yes, and in Ukraine it is useless to order, they have not built anything there for a long time, but they are smeared and the plant is no longer there. fool
            1. dmitreach
              dmitreach 28 January 2013 16: 06
              +10
              Simon, by the time Mistral is enlisted in the Russian Navy, the Vostok-Raflls and Zvezda-DSME shipyard in the Far East of Russia will be partially commissioned. All the way to 2019.
              This example is most attractive to me, because from scratch in a clean field and in the Far East.
              1. Papakiko
                Papakiko 28 January 2013 21: 17
                +4
                If it really will be done in reality, and not on paper and words
                Then we can bow very low to the builders and kiss ourselves on the "stern" wink
                1. dmitreach
                  dmitreach 28 January 2013 23: 29
                  +3
                  August 2011. Construction of the Shipyard “Star-DSME”
                  1. dmitreach
                    dmitreach 28 January 2013 23: 38
                    +3
                    but this is November 2012. but it is better to look here:
                    Shipbuilding complex Zvezda (Primorsky Krai): construction progress (November 2012)
                    http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/25553/
                    1. Papakiko
                      Papakiko 29 January 2013 00: 59
                      +1
                      Kissing early, time is not one car. wink
                      I went to the proposed link, got acquainted. good
                      This is far from Shanghai shipyards, not Saint-Nazaire, not Orchardherd Wood, and certainly not Newport News and Pascagul.
                      I don’t understand where and in what place gas carriers are going to rivet, and probably even the ICE class belay
                      The maximum of the ship is 70 tons. and gas carriers are likely to build oil in South Korea’s Ulsan.
                      THOSE. if half of the drawn will be mastered VERY GOOD.
                      1. dmitreach
                        dmitreach 29 January 2013 01: 10
                        0
                        so you have to start somewhere!
                        They plan to make Aframax tankers there.
                        At the Zvezda-DSME shipyard in Bolshoi Kamen Bay in the Primorsky Territory, large-capacity marine equipment with a displacement of up to 300 thousand tons and a volume of processed metal of 220 thousand tons should be built

                        this is from the wiki.
                        wait and see.

                        More on about. Kotlin New Admiralty Shipyards are planned. But there so far the project hangs. (new info is not enough)
            2. Per se.
              Per se. 28 January 2013 18: 21
              +7
              Quote: Simon
              That's it! The question is where to build ships of this class, in one or two years you can’t build a shipyard, let alone ships.
              Simon, in what shipyards do you think we should build the Mistral clones? For comparison, the displacement of the UDC project 11780, - 25000 tons, length 196 meters, speed of 30 knots, range (at 18 knots) 8000. "Mistral", displacement 21300 tons (32300 tons limit), length 199 meters, maximum speed 19 knots, range 5800.
              1. dmitreach
                dmitreach 28 January 2013 19: 13
                +3
                Perse.,

                On October 1, 2012, at the Baltic Shipyard in St. Petersburg, the laying of the hull of an amphibious assault helicopter dock was carried out (DVKD - this is how these ships are officially classified in the Russian Navy) - the first of two Mistral-class ships that are being built in France in accordance with the Russian-French the 2010 agreement. LLC Baltiyskiy Zavod - Shipbuilding (part of OJSC United Shipbuilding Corporation - USC) laid the keel of the ship's hull (actually the aft part of the ship), named Vladivostok, exactly in accordance with the construction schedule.

                http://bmpd.livejournal.com/344929.html
                1. Per se.
                  Per se. 28 January 2013 19: 46
                  +2
                  Quote: dmitreach
                  made the laying of the hull of the ship (actually the stern of the ship), which received the name "Vladivostok", exactly in accordance with the construction schedule.
                  What can you say here, dmitreach, they are now talking about the refusal to build the Mistrals in our country, but if they build, I want to believe that the history with the projects of the French UDC will not repeat the mistakes of more than a century ago, with the construction of our squadron battleships of the Borodino type "according to the" improved "French project (the battleship" Tsarevich ", again, as an improved design for the Russian battleship" Joregiberri "). Then, too, there was a choice, maybe such a pogrom of Tsushima did not happen with a different project.
                  1. Papakiko
                    Papakiko 28 January 2013 21: 24
                    +1
                    Technology has nothing to do with, in that pogrom.
                    Cadres decided everything!
                    Starting from the inability to coordinate the salvo of several ships and ending with the KLOUNSKY coloring of the squadron ships!
                    As an example, I can offer this:
                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZVqaXEYjhs
                  2. dmitreach
                    dmitreach 28 January 2013 21: 54
                    +2
                    Per se., At the moment we are talking about the rejection of the second pair. (After Vladivostok 2014 and Sevostopol 2015).
                    However, let me remind you that initially Russia wanted to acquire ONE UDC. That's just the French did not agree for some reason ... laughing
                    Then ideas about localization of 2 + 2 or 20% 40% 60% 80% XNUMX% assemblies in Russia began to come up.
                    We settled on the latter option, promising, more precisely, by concluding an "agreement on the will" to purchase two more, but without paying money. The contract in paper, which is in real life, is TWO ships. (+ Vague agreements on the option and subsequent payment of licenses) Speaking in Russian: "they promised to marry." And if the project really turned out to be profitable, two more would have been collected. However, here the public intervened with a love for footcloths and other irrepressible jingoism. And yet the people spoiled the idea of ​​one Russian oligarch who lobbied the project for his shipyards.
                    And instead of the 3rd ship, 60% assembled by the Russian men and the 4th, 80%, at the Russian shipyards, we are likely to abandon the project. Although it seemed to me that the 3rd and 4th ship would already be ice class, joint project. Something like with the Finns on the subject of icebreakers. But in any case, we can say: since Soviet times, we have been cooperating with the Finns on the topic of shipbuilding, having lost Poland, Bulgaria and Ukraine (due to their URA-patriotism), we almost acquired France in the new century. It is much more difficult to calculate financial flows. I still do not fully understand the cost of the feed (which is being done in Russia), but ktozh will tell us ?! request
                    1. Per se.
                      Per se. 28 January 2013 22: 21
                      +4
                      Quote: dmitreach
                      having lost Poland, Bulgaria and Ukraine (because of their URA-patriotism), we almost gained France in the new century.
                      First of all, we lost the Soviet Union, which is sad, having acquired capitalism, Russia seems to be returning to the place of Tsarist Russia, although there is still a Soviet margin of safety. I don’t want to be a pessimist, but somehow it’s not fun with this "Mistral", in this sense, the leader "Tashkent", built for the USSR by the Italians, was an excellent ship, they would buy something like that, first-class, who would argue. As for the ice class, wouldn't it be better to puzzle the Franks right away, if they started to build, so let them do the UDC that we need, and they don't need any. Why then remodel, rearm, all this, you see, provokes construction overloads, and so not so hot on the stability of the ship.
                      1. dmitreach
                        dmitreach 28 January 2013 23: 05
                        +3
                        Viditsa to me, the problem is complex, others like it are political.
                        Because everything happens once, only in fairy tales.
                        About the fact that today almost all the slipways are busy and there are not enough calloused hands, a lot of words have been said, a lot of proof has been applied.
                        The helicopter carrier is either quick or smart. So far, the government and the USC have been clumsy, but with a positive vector.
                        Already (!) The people are starting to forget how indignant they were a couple of years ago about the lack of a berth wall, weapons and helicopters. All THIS plus feed is done in Russia. There would be a desire to implement a long-term project, with a joint design bureau and ice class nuances, I think they would. (This happens with the Finns, why wouldn’t it work with the French?) However, here we are talking about the fact that USC is a complex project. (I won’t be talking about the topic of bribes - it’s boring and not interesting) Implemented as possible in modern Russia (with all its weaknesses), but implemented.
                        Mistral is an attempt to attract DCNS shipbuilders of France with their technologies to Russia. Relatively successful attempt.
                        Here are the realities (V. Meilicev's blog, I liked the idea):


                        Another argument of the French in favor of increasing the price of the contract was the fact that the Ministry of Defense is still making changes to the terms of reference for the construction of the first two Mistrals.

                        This, citizens, is a classic! Our Russian shipbuilding classic - sometimes ships were built for a dozen years, changing not only the details, but even the class of the ship during the construction: one of our first battleships, the Minin, was built for 14 years, varying type from battery frigate to nautical monitor and vice versa .

                        http://bwana.ru/?p=4459
                        However, it’s not possible to trade oil. Better Mistral and USC.
          4. Per se.
            Per se. 28 January 2013 17: 54
            +3
            Quote: Mitek
            And on the 2 remaining "mistrals" they will fill their hand for aircraft carriers))).
            Yes, why fill it, as if we did not re-equip the Gorshkov for India (in fact, they built it anew), did not build the Kuznetsov, did not design the nuclear Ulyanovsk with a bookmark! Okay, to strengthen the fleet, for speed, build these UDCs in France, but clone these ships at their own shipyards are far from the best, why? It is better to immediately build normal aircraft carriers, their own aircraft carriers, or UDCs comparable in efficiency with the Tarawa, there were also quite good Soviet projects.
            1. dmitreach
              dmitreach 28 January 2013 19: 17
              +3
              The way Gorshkov was turned into Vikramaditya is a parable in tongues.
              If we say in the context: "gathered from the world on a string," in frail times - then yes, this is a feat, in spite of everything.
              But if we talk about production logistics and project appraisal, it’s not even a deuce, it’s a count - bold! This construction site would turn into a disgrace, if not for the excuse in the form of the hard times of the 90s.
              Do you like making excuses? Or sprinkle ashes on the head, on the theme of Ulyanovsk?

              It is better to immediately build normal aircraft carriers, your own aircraft carriers, or UDC comparable in efficiency with the "Tarawa",

              but here I agree, because everything goes to that!
        2. Botanologist
          Botanologist 28 January 2013 15: 13
          +13
          Only my domestic is needed

          Well, let's really be an adult. When you are lying on the operating table and you need some kind of medicine urgently, it’s strange to demand from the doctor “only native”. What is, then they pour.
          I believe that there is very good reason to believe that we may need helicopter carriers in the next year or two. And conversations with this in mind that we will build a cool ship in 20 years of the shipyard - ... what are they talking about?

          You look what is happening in the world. Critical stages of unraveling and redivision of the world have come. Who will wait for us until we build something someday .. probably ..
          1. Cheloveck
            Cheloveck 28 January 2013 17: 20
            0
            Quote: Botanologist
            Well, let's really be an adult. When you are lying on the operating table and you need some kind of medicine urgently, it’s strange to demand from the doctor “only native”. What is, then they pour. I think there are serious reasons to believe that we may need helicopter carriers in the next year or two.
            Maybe someone will answer where they are urgently needed?
            1. Botanologist
              Botanologist 28 January 2013 21: 57
              +2
              where are they urgently needed?

              To Syria, for example.
          2. VAF
            VAF 28 January 2013 18: 01
            +1
            Quote: Botanologist
            there are strongest reasons to believe that we may need helicopter carriers in the next year or two


            Dear friend, down there on the tape Aleksey52 described in detail in 4 parts ... what is a MARINE AMPING OPERATION and ... "with what it is eaten" wassat

            Very affordable .. to understand. that you ... are not right with these Barges, and especially that they are needed by our fleet now! wink
            1. Aleksys2
              Aleksys2 28 January 2013 18: 47
              +2
              Quote: vaf
              Aleksey52 outlined in detail in the 4 parts painted ... what is the MARINE landing operation

              This is how I would be .... crying
              1. VAF
                VAF 28 January 2013 20: 04
                +1
                Quote: Aleksys2
                It's like i was


                Sorry, my friend. Dear. Word of honor, I took off my glasses when I wrote a comment, well, and "looked" ... S as 5 "read", that's why it turned out 52 fool

                Once again, I apologize, generously!

                But whoever wanted, he understood and read who wrote and how he wrote! good drinks
                1. Aleksys2
                  Aleksys2 28 January 2013 20: 11
                  0
                  Quote: vaf
                  Once again, I apologize, generously!

                  It happens wink
            2. Botanologist
              Botanologist 28 January 2013 18: 53
              +3
              VAF, yes, I understand all this, and I wrote to you - would there be mine, would I blather? But - there is no gloss of matte ..... Mlyn, for me it’s better to lay a couple of extra frigates with us, otherwise we collect the fleet from all bases, as if for a wedding. And the Mistrals - well, well, fuy with them, let them swim.
              I am sure that this topic was raised in order to drink away from the generals to the oligarchs, that’s all.
              1. VAF
                VAF 28 January 2013 20: 10
                0
                Quote: Botanologist
                Mlyn, for me it’s better to lay a couple of extra frigates with us


                ++++++! As in the recent film "Two Comrades" - "..you are a golden guy Andryukha, let me give you ... well, further on in the film"! +! drinks

                And for me, it was necessary to return Grshkov. IMHO-the same loot. those $ 1.2-1.5 billion, that's just not .. "foreign" but ours ... from oil and gas and ... from the pocket of "amers" (after all, they would not "report" wink) and we would have already had a long MiG-29K / KUB, and not the Indians!

                Now, if such a ship now sailed in the Mediterranean or would have come to the Far East to the Kuril Islands ......

                Already yesterday I lagged to argue about the combat effectiveness of Gorshkov and .... maybe future barges ????

                I emphasize ... future !!! But Syria, here it is ... now ... and then ?????
                1. VAF
                  VAF 28 January 2013 20: 34
                  +4
                  Quote: vaf
                  at the expense of the combat effectiveness of Gorshkov and .... maybe future barges?


                  Forgot the photo ... so to speak for greater persuasiveness and .. "weight" comments! soldier


                2. Botanologist
                  Botanologist 28 January 2013 21: 59
                  0
                  By the way, your opinion about the Alligator? And then there are a lot of enthusiasms, but in practice we have not seen him yet. Well, maybe except you drinks
                3. ruton
                  ruton 29 January 2013 15: 06
                  0
                  And I’ve been saying for a long time that Gorshkov should be left to himself .. And the money that remains from the Mistrals should be put into circulation .. Or maybe with the same French, design a joint aircraft carrier for the same money.
                  1. Jurkovs
                    Jurkovs 30 January 2013 13: 08
                    +1
                    We don't even have a berth for Kuznetsov, it hangs out in the roadstead. Pilots of carrier-based aviation do not have the opportunity to train, the excitement in the North is constantly higher than normal, for training they go to the Mediterranean Sea every two years. As long as they go back and forth just a barge unable to defend itself, and there is nowhere to stay in the Mediterranean, there is no good base. Take a closer look at amers, they use their aircraft carriers simply as big "gunboats" to intimidate the natives. They do not visit us either in the North or Kamchatka, for the same reason of increased excitement, when aircraft cannot take off and an aircraft carrier simply turns into a target, including for ground aircraft. If we also want to intimidate the natives, then we need aircraft carriers. If we want to effectively counter the United States, then we need multipurpose boats to destroy their aircraft carriers. Until now, I have not seen a single scenario where we would use our aircraft carriers.
                    1. Pimply
                      Pimply 30 January 2013 15: 15
                      +1
                      The main adversary in the new century for Russia is a renewed and hungry China. But intimidation of the natives is necessary, because, as practice shows, this is directly related to the interests of the country and the possibility of influence.
        3. 916-th
          916-th 28 January 2013 18: 02
          0
          Vadivak: You can cram whatever you want there,

          For example, blocks (modules) of vertical launch of S-300/400 missiles, anti-ship missiles, KR, or even Iskander. As an option, place standard shipping containers of the Club-K complex on the deck. This is how many Orley Burke destroyers with their Mk. can be replaced?
      3. to water
        to water 28 January 2013 12: 08
        +4
        I fully support. Such ships are needed now and buying from foreigners is fully justified, another question is whether the best supplier is selected. And the time gained must be spent on the design of such ships of the next generation, taking into account the use of technologies purchased now (if necessary).
        1. El13
          El13 28 January 2013 15: 55
          +3
          Quote: regar
          is the best supplier selected

          In fact, the supplier is the only one and they almost forbade us to sell them ... Offer an alternative.
          1. vorobey
            vorobey 28 January 2013 16: 40
            +1
            Quote: El13
            the supplier is the only one and they almost banned them from selling us ... Offer an alternative


            That is fishlessness and cancer. The French have 3 of them in total and have operating experience with a gulkin nose.
            1. El13
              El13 28 January 2013 16: 44
              -2
              Quote: vorobey
              the French themselves have 3 pieces in total

              Hmm ... "only" is that you were joking right?
              1. vorobey
                vorobey 28 January 2013 16: 56
                +2
                Quote: El13
                Hmm ... "only" is that you were joking right?


                Your numbers. how many mistrals do the french have?

                Quote: El13
                I read to your post ... I have not met experts


                Expert.
                1. leon-iv
                  leon-iv 28 January 2013 17: 10
                  +1
                  If you do not take amers
                  Dokdo 1 pc 4 in a series
                  Juan 1 pc
                  Mistral 3 in french 2 we have 2 in the project is completely serial
                  1. vorobey
                    vorobey 28 January 2013 17: 21
                    +4
                    Quote: leon-iv
                    quite serial


                    Since what year and in what latitudes do they use it? This is about operating experience. Not sour series at the expense of Russia to do? Can we still pull our own?

                    7 pieces in a series of 3 currently 4 to us.
                    1. leon-iv
                      leon-iv 28 January 2013 17: 23
                      +2
                      Can we still pull our own?
                      necessarily and more than once but then.
                      Since what year and in what latitudes do they use it? This is about operating experience.
                      I don’t have a protocol, therefore I won’t speak and I don’t advise you not seeing these documents. Moreover, the niches of Mistralka were redone for us.
                      1. vorobey
                        vorobey 28 January 2013 17: 26
                        +4
                        Quote: leon-iv
                        Can we still pull our own?
                        necessarily more than once but then


                        I like to argue with you. good


                        Quote: leon-iv
                        Moreover, the niches of Mistralka were redone for us.


                        I repeat. To the Canaries for our grandmas?
                        Quote: vorobey
                        7 pieces in a series of 3 currently 4 to us
                      2. leon-iv
                        leon-iv 28 January 2013 17: 29
                        +3
                        I repeat. To the Canaries for our grandmas?
                        I repeat once again that changes were made to the project. If they were introduced correctly and correctly, then there should not be global problems.
                        If not, then you need to look at who to put on the powder keg, and to whom to give a match and tie to it.
                      3. vorobey
                        vorobey 28 January 2013 17: 59
                        +1
                        Quote: leon-iv
                        If were made

                        Quote: leon-iv
                        If no then you need


                        Leon aren't you funny?

                        If my grandmother had a horseradish. she would be a grandfather.
                      4. leon-iv
                        leon-iv 28 January 2013 18: 03
                        +5
                        That's what I'm talking about. It is impossible to say something without seeing the subject of the dispute. So let's get better about tanks broads on the tank
                      5. vorobey
                        vorobey 28 January 2013 18: 22
                        +1
                        Quote: leon-iv
                        about tanks broads on a tank


                        I'm forever for drinks
                      6. Captain45
                        Captain45 28 January 2013 19: 12
                        +1
                        Quote: leon-iv
                        I repeat once again that changes were made to the project.

                        There was such a thing. Here on the site about half a year ago there was an article that ours demanded to increase the height of the helicopter hangar near Ka, but due to this, the size of the tweendeck for equipment was reduced and they would take one less unit.
                2. El13
                  El13 28 January 2013 17: 33
                  -2
                  Learn to read ... before answering, well, and thinking does not stop to start ... well, a little bit.
                  1. vorobey
                    vorobey 28 January 2013 17: 44
                    +1
                    Quote: El13
                    before answering, well, thinking doesn't stop you from starting ... well, a little bit


                    Take a look in the mirror.
                    Quote: El13
                    In fact, the supplier is the only one and they almost banned them from selling us ... Offer an alternative

                    Quote: vorobey
                    That is fishlessness and cancer. The French have 3 of them in total and have operating experience with a gulkin nose.

                    Quote: El13
                    Hmm ... "only" is that you were joking right?

                    Quote: vorobey
                    Quote: El13
                    Hmm ... "only" is that you were joking right?


                    Your numbers. how many mistrals do the french have?
            2. leon-iv
              leon-iv 28 January 2013 16: 47
              +2
              They use something they have French Africa. Yes, and the technology is now also driving on the Mistrals
              1. vorobey
                vorobey 28 January 2013 17: 01
                +3
                Quote: leon-iv
                Choyuto use


                Otozh and use.

                Throw a link or look?
      4. knn54
        knn54 28 January 2013 12: 56
        0
        We really need a SHIP OF THIS CLASS, but not the Mistral. Both nuclear submarines, minesweepers and autonomous cruisers-raiders (German ships of this class spoiled a lot of blood during the Second World War). And to acquire, in particular, ships from NATO members is absurd. In the event of conflicts, this is a pile of metal, if you do not supply your electronics and weapons.
      5. dmitreach
        dmitreach 28 January 2013 15: 57
        +2
        mitek, Mitek, not really yours., You are too optimistic (7 years, only a good figure) wink If you recall how 1144 Orlan was born (although another example can be given), then from 1965 the question was solved up to 72 (I put it in about 74, they put the lead one in Kirov), the fleet entered the 80th, in December, it seems.
        If our ministers had ordered, according to the established tradition, "bring something, I don't know what," they would have received another atomic "Eagle" on wheels with the function of ice swimming. And as an option "plus Two Tugs", in a load, such as Nikolai Chiker, and then suddenly the nuclear-powered ship all its additional SUs will stall ... (Nothing we had a problem with the engines in the USSR, but they entered the Guinness Book of Records request )
        For the remaining items, I categorically plus. It's nice to see a like-minded person on the Mistral issue ..
      6. 11 black
        11 black 28 January 2013 17: 46
        +3
        Quote: Mitek
        I will not tire of saying that we need a ship of this class. Kuril Islands, Black Sea Fleet .. Ships are multifunctional. Order from us, two years have been developed, b, then years 5 built. And the ships are aging fast now. It is necessary to replenish the fleet. Plus we will receive any technologies. Plus, the coast-based system of large ships (and this for centuries).
        No one will deny that such a ship would not be in the way in Syria, now? 08.08.08 off the coast of Georgia. Our support in the Kuril Islands, if that. Plus the size of the ship allows you to strengthen air defense. Don't forget about drones. their development is proceeding by leaps and bounds. And how many of them can you stuff on a cow like the Mistral? And let our shipbuilders build frigates. We need a lot of them now. Moreover, 2 UDCs will be built in Russia.
        And further. Who can guess what tasks the fleet will have to solve in conflicts of the future? More ships needed. good and different).


        I completely agree with your opinion !!! + I’m talking about this myself. Well, our factories will not pull the production of such ships now:
        The Northern Shipyard and the Admiralty are loaded to the eyeballs with frigates and destroyers, but now they are as needed !!
        Malakhitovites are building Boreas and Yaseni at an accelerated pace; on the 1 asterisk, they modernize and repair boats
        Zelenodoltsy let into the series IACs that are so necessary in the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea Fleet ... well, there are no FREE shipyards now AND THE SHIPS ARE NEEDED NOW !!! So we have to buy abroad, especially since the Mistral is one of the best ships of this class and its BIUS goes along with it, so the deal with the Mistrals is far from being a losing one, unlike any trash like "lynxes" that FORCE our products (tigers) ... THIS IS REALLY RUNNING !!!
        1. Aleksys2
          Aleksys2 28 January 2013 18: 02
          -3
          Quote: 11 black
          along with him goes his BIUS

          Tell me honestly, do you imagine what a BIOS is and what it consists of?
          1. 11 black
            11 black 30 January 2013 13: 15
            +2
            Quote: Aleksys2
            Tell me honestly, do you imagine what a BIOS is and what it consists of?

            A combat information control system which consists of a computer with a high degree of protection (I mean from various types of attacking factors, a nuclear explosion, for example), reconnaissance equipment in the face of a multifunctional radar with a phased array capable of tracking a couple of hundred targets and targeting a couple of dozen (Amer’s AN / SPY-1 for example), means of defense in the face of air defense missiles of various ranges and anti-ship missiles of short-range self-defense, and means of attack in the face of anti-ship missiles and long-range missiles.
            and all this charm is controlled by a computer that is connected with the same computers on other ships, which allows the ships to conduct an organized defense (there will be no such thing that 2 ships accidentally work out 1 target), in a few seconds "disassemble" targets among themselves, implement the principle "sees 1 everyone can see ", and finally, in cases of damage, for example, a radar station on one ship, he can direct his missiles to target the radar station of another ship, that is, the BIUS increases the effectiveness of the warrant several times.

            PS I answered your question ...
            1. Aleksys2
              Aleksys2 30 January 2013 13: 42
              0
              Quote: 11 black
              PS I answered your question ...

              Yes, quite, well, I could still add communications and cryptography.
              The question is, how much will this BIUS be vulnerable from the country that developed it in the case, God forbid, a big war?
              1. 11 black
                11 black 30 January 2013 15: 25
                0
                Quote: Aleksys2
                How much will this BIUS be vulnerable to from the country that developed it in the case, God forbid, a big war?

                Here I agree with you, it is enough to recall the recent conflicts when NATO air defense systems refused to shoot "at their own", I think every country makes such insurance, but after all, ours managed to achieve the transfer of DOCUMENTATION to BIUS, and these are the most complex programs, and we can apply them in creating own similar system, and then you can put your own system on the Mistral ...
                1. Aleksys2
                  Aleksys2 30 January 2013 15: 44
                  0
                  Quote: 11 black
                  and these are the most complicated programs, and we can use them in creating our own similar system

                  Is it really that our competent programmers are extinct? After all, we also have "Lesorub-4342" and "Tee" and "Coral-BN". Can't we ourselves?
                  1. Kodiak
                    Kodiak 30 January 2013 15: 48
                    0
                    Let's just say - how vulnerable will their BIOS be to a country that has full documentation on it? :-)
                2. Pimply
                  Pimply 30 January 2013 17: 27
                  +1
                  Find a proven episode
            2. lucidlook
              lucidlook 30 January 2013 14: 53
              0
              He said everything right. And by the way, what is interesting, if you look at Titanit, you will expand its capabilities by working on air and underwater targets, and there will be something very similar, IMHO.
        2. Aleksys2
          Aleksys2 30 January 2013 13: 45
          0
          Quote: 11 black
          especially since the Mistral is one of the best ships of this class

          To date, all French attempts to sell Mistral on the world market have been unsuccessful. France, having built an 2 ship for its Navy, was forced to stop their construction, and put this ship as a tender for a competition in Australia, when Australia decided to choose the type of ship for its landing forces.
          However, Canberra firmly insisted that both ships be built at Australian shipyards, while Paris was inferior to foreign colleagues only one ship - the second was to be built in France.

          The main reason for the Australian fleet to abandon the Mistral in favor of its Spanish rival was the unresolved disagreement over the construction site of the two ships. Secondly, Australians rated Mistral as "too complex a ship, having certain problems with seaworthiness and too expensive."
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 30 January 2013 15: 17
            0
            The Spanish version is much more interesting. But there are too many American components to get a building permit from the States.
  2. Zifix
    Zifix 28 January 2013 09: 29
    +5
    Let there be heating, already tired of this hysteria.
  3. Krilion
    Krilion 28 January 2013 09: 30
    +3
    the loot has already been paid, so let it be ... we’ll figure it out in efficiency, maybe everything is not so bad ... it’s always time to put on needles ....
    1. 916-th
      916-th 28 January 2013 18: 18
      +1
      Rrilion: ... always have time to put on needles ....

      Why pins and needles? I have already suggested selling it to Roman Abramovich in the collection of his yachts under the worst-case scenario. The floating football club Global Chelsea could do it. The upper deck is very suitable for a football field ... (just kidding, though).
      1. bandabas
        bandabas 28 January 2013 19: 42
        0
        Joking as a joke, but if Abramovich would do Mistral for himself, there would be no ship, but candy. For fun, set +
      2. albert
        albert 28 January 2013 20: 12
        0
        Golden words! laughing
  4. scorpido
    scorpido 28 January 2013 09: 35
    +2
    “As for the transfer of a number of technologies and documentation on Mistrals, this will also be useful for Russian shipbuilding. True, at the moment, due to the specific approach of the parties to the coverage of the agreement, it is not entirely clear which documents were transferred to Russian shipbuilders."
    Yes, if our engineers from the armored train can do a helicopter with a file, can they really not figure out how this Mistral is built)
  5. Slavs69
    Slavs69 28 January 2013 09: 40
    +9
    Building ships for our Navy abroad is not something out of the ordinary. Let us recall, at least, the construction of the cruiser Varyag and his classmates in the States before the Russo-Japanese War. At that time, the Varyag was one of the leading ships not only in the Russian Empire, but also in the world.
    1. redwolf_13
      redwolf_13 28 January 2013 09: 48
      +10
      Well, yes, so advanced that they did not think of putting up shields to cover the servants on the guns. Well, also sliding pipes for raising traction in boilers. So this system died after the first shots and hits from the body shaking. There was also a constant problem with boilers, tubes of boilers and refrigerators were constantly clogged. When this cruiser was received, the admirals scratched their heads and appointed this ship to be a "luxury yacht" and a messenger ship. But Novik, built at the St. Petersburg shipyards, was a novelty in everything. Notice OUR Russian building.
      1. Slavs69
        Slavs69 28 January 2013 10: 18
        +3
        About boilers - at that time those same Nichols boilers were know-how (as they would say now) with their help it was possible to increase the "power" of steam generation. As for the shields for the guns - on the subsequent ships of this series they were already standing, but the Varyag was not lucky: an overload (even had to reduce the volume of coal). Anglechans gave an enthusiastic assessment of the cruiser and scratched their turnips, tk. saw him as a threat to their trade caravans.
      2. valokordin
        valokordin 28 January 2013 10: 29
        +3
        Quote: redwolf_13
        Well, yes, so advanced that they did not think of putting up shields to cover the servants on the guns. Well, also sliding pipes for raising traction in boilers. So this system died after the first shots and hits from the body shaking. There was also a constant problem with boilers, tubes of boilers and refrigerators were constantly clogged. When this cruiser was received, the admirals scratched their heads and appointed this ship to be a "luxury yacht" and a messenger ship. But Novik, built at the St. Petersburg shipyards, was a novelty in everything. Notice OUR Russian building.

        In terms of speed, the Varyag was out of competition, so it was used as a representative ship, as for other aspects, the Americans did not build the ship for themselves. If Novik was built in Russia for themselves, then it was built properly and served in World War II.
      3. tlauicol
        tlauicol 29 January 2013 16: 20
        +1
        the customer himself refused shields on the guns, i.e. Russian admirals
    2. Dikremnij
      Dikremnij 28 January 2013 10: 38
      +7
      You don’t have to go far, remember the USSR, where many ships were built in the German Democratic Republic, Poland and Bulgaria.
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 28 January 2013 11: 48
        +8
        Quote: Dikremnij
        many ships were built in East Germany, Poland and Bulgaria.

        The workshops in Gadzhievo were of Polish construction. And the floating docks (such as the fact that in Sevastopol and many more where were built in Split, in Yugoslavia
        1. dmitreach
          dmitreach 28 January 2013 16: 14
          +3
          You can still recall vessels and icebreakers from Finland.
    3. mamba
      mamba 28 January 2013 11: 06
      +6
      Quote: Slavs69
      Building ships for our Navy abroad is not something out of the ordinary. Let us recall, at least, the construction of the cruiser Varyag and his classmates in the States before the Russo-Japanese War.

      Before the war with Japan, shipyards in France, the United States, Germany and Denmark placed orders for two squadron battleships, four cruisers of the 1st rank and two cruisers of the 2nd rank, as well as several destroyers.
      Before World War I, Russia also built ships at foreign shipyards, including German ones.
      The prototype for the development of the project of the Soviet diesel submarines of the "D" type was a captured British diesel submarine raised from the bottom of the Baltic.
      In the 30s of the 20th century, the USSR acquired from a Dutch company Ivsbelonging to the German company Deshimag Weser, the project of the submarine E-2, which became the prototype for Soviet submarines of type “C”. Technological solutions of the German XXI series after the war were used to develop the most massive Soviet submarine of project 613, built in the years 1950-58 in the amount of 215 units.
      It should be noted separately several diesel submarines that the USSR inherited after the Baltic annexation and became part of the Baltic Fleet.
      Kalev is a series of two underwater mine loaders built in the UK for the Estonian Navy in 1935-1936.
      Lembit is an Estonian submarine built in 1937 in the UK by order of the Estonian government.
      Spidola is the second in a series of two torpedo submarines of the Loire-Simone project, built in France for the Latvian Navy in 1925-1927.
      Ronis is a series of two torpedo submarines built in France for the Latvian Navy in 1925-1927.
      Of the surface ships, the leader “Tashkent”, built in Italy, can be noted.
      As one of the options for the current update of domestic diesel submarines, the possibility of acquiring German submarines of project 212, with the development of their licensed production, is being considered. These submarines, which today are objectively the best non-nuclear submarines in service, have a power plant with an electrochemical generator, which significantly increases the duration of navigation under water.
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 28 January 2013 11: 15
        +1
        a dozen submarines do not hurt to order from the Swedes-Germans-Dutch
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 28 January 2013 22: 24
          +2
          Quote: Tlauicol
          submarines will not hurt to order from the Swedish-German-Dutch

          At least a couple would definitely not hurt. Only together with a full set of documentation. IMHO in vain minus. The Germans, perhaps the only ones (not counting ours) have a wealth of real experience combat effective use of submarines. And their design decisions are solid. With such a purchase, our design bureaus could have VERY much practical benefit to have
      2. Misantrop
        Misantrop 28 January 2013 11: 52
        +4
        Quote: mamba
        Technological solutions of the German XXI series after the war were used to develop the most massive Soviet submarine of project 613, built in the years 1950-58 in the amount of 215 units.

        A little bit wrong. Etc. 613 is an almost entirely German 21W project developed by them at the end of the war. The USSR was supposed to withdraw from the trophy section, but initially the British grabbed it. One of the teachers at our school was part of a group that shook this documentation from the British then, telling us in detail about this incident. wink
      3. Flooding
        Flooding 29 January 2013 12: 14
        0
        Quote: mamba
        As one of the options for the current update of domestic diesel submarines, the possibility of acquiring German submarines of project 212, with the development of their licensed production, is being considered.

        Let me doubt it. Such a crazy idea with some Russian experience in the construction of submarines did not occur even to Serdyukov.
    4. Pushkar
      Pushkar 28 January 2013 11: 40
      +5
      My grandfather served on the Oleg, an armored cruiser. In total there were 4 ships in the series, the lead "Bogatyr" was built in Germany, the fastest of the series (the cars were better). The rest of the series were built according to the Bogatyr's drawings.
  6. erased
    erased 28 January 2013 09: 42
    +6
    At present, the Russian Navy has about twenty landing ships of various types and about the same number of landing ships.

    Strange phrase. Apparently with an error. However, the meaning of the article is correct! new technologies and new systems are needed. Let foreign, let bought. The basis of the army and navy should be domestic equipment. But single copies may be foreign. Only they need to be acquired not for receiving kickbacks, but with a clear understanding of what and why they are taking. Then there will be a sense!
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak 28 January 2013 10: 06
      +7
      Quote: erased
      Let foreign, let bought.


      Better after all for nothing, but we still have intelligence, technical espionage, Charlie LLC and Chapman for example
      1. dmitreach
        dmitreach 28 January 2013 16: 13
        0
        Bourgeois can be bought. not the fact that it is more expensive.
  7. redwolf_13
    redwolf_13 28 January 2013 09: 58
    0
    I can't understand one thing but we need 2 or 4 huge landing craft. WHAT FOR. What else can you think of to drive pirates, I don't know. Well, we had 3 ships of project 1174 (Unicorn) 13880 tons of full displacement could carry on board 4 helicopters, 2 KVP "swan", 440 MP and 79 units. technology. And the result of which one on the Black Sea was sent to nails, two on the Pacific Fleet are welded to the pier so as not to drown. Well, there are no tasks for them at sea for such mastodons. Our MP is designed to cover the coast and repel enemy troops, as well as to carry out tactical landings to a shallow depth of the captured coast. This is how Project 2 ships coped with it.
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak 28 January 2013 10: 17
      +9
      Quote: redwolf_13
      I can’t understand one thing, but we need 2 or 4 huge landing craft.


      Or maybe they didn’t tell us that we will have a colony. Tuvalu, for example, with the capital of Funafati, knows him
    2. Mikado
      Mikado 28 January 2013 12: 05
      +6
      Quote: redwolf_13
      I can’t understand one thing, but we need 2 or 4 huge landing craft


      Kuril Islands, in which case, it is necessary to defend? Do you need to transfer troops to the islands there? Do you need to support Abkhazia in the Black Sea? is it possible to land on the coast of Georgia? In Norway, is it possible to land troops to block its main transport artery? And they are not mastodons, mastodons are American aircraft carriers the size of a city.
      1. Vadivak
        Vadivak 28 January 2013 12: 30
        +1
        Quote: Mikado
        In Norway, landing is likely


        Dashing, well done, but nothing that this is not Papua New Guinea? There, besides the sling and spear, there are also RCC firms Kongsberg Defense & Aerospace - the fifth generation of RCC - Naval Strike Missile launch with Eurofighter and Gripen and in the form of a mobile coastal RCC.
      2. nerd.su
        nerd.su 28 January 2013 15: 53
        +2
        Quote: Mikado
        In Norway, landing is likely

        So that Norway, if you are going to get together with NATO, you have to immediately land a landing in New York! laughing
    3. Old_kapitan
      Old_kapitan 28 January 2013 12: 30
      +8
      Dear, you think at times of the USSR, and since then something has changed. Let's take the recent past - 08.08.08. Then don't get lost in the Georgians and blow up the Roki tunnel, and? Send BDK for slaughter? Now imagine that Russia has a pair of Mistral-class ships. Before Saakashvili had time to report that they had taken off the mooring lines, he would have pulled the tie out of his mouth and hanged himself on it.
      1. Strategia
        Strategia 28 January 2013 13: 46
        +1
        Well, if you send a boat, as Tu-2008 was sent to Georgia in August 22, then, of course, for slaughter. No type of weapon is able to solve problems without interacting with others. But when conditions are created in Norway, but there will be no ships, then strategic shortsightedness is certain.
        1. nerd.su
          nerd.su 29 January 2013 11: 20
          0
          Quote: Strategia
          But when conditions are created in Norway, but there will be no ships, then strategic shortsightedness is certain.

          The second time I see a post about Norway ... Maybe I missed something? Conditions for what? Why do we need a landing in a country that is part of NATO? Not enough radioactivity? :)
      2. Vadivak
        Vadivak 29 January 2013 10: 15
        +2
        Quote: Old_Kapitan
        Do not slip the Georgians then and blow up the Roki tunnel, and?


        This is an alternative, the Roki tunnel was guarded, at least a month before the start I have reliable information from the participants in the events, they left there in June
  8. atk44849
    atk44849 28 January 2013 09: 59
    0
    What is bad BDK Alexander Nikolaev? he needs either modernization or? ... stands in the shooter's bay. fokino prim edge
    1. Mikado
      Mikado 28 January 2013 12: 07
      +5
      the fact that he is BDK, not UDK.
      1. atesterev
        atesterev 28 January 2013 13: 01
        0
        Project 1174 was no longer quite a BDK, it was already equipped with a dock camera, but also not a UDK, in 1964, when TK was issued, no one knew about UDK yet.
    2. Old_kapitan
      Old_kapitan 28 January 2013 12: 33
      +9
      BDK in our time is a floating beef, and they will not let him approach the shore. Only over-horizon landing is promising. This is where UDC is needed.
  9. Alekseev
    Alekseev 28 January 2013 10: 11
    +5
    What abroad bought a military ship, no problem. And they bought it earlier. But what exactly the UDC bought raises questions. The author writes that in other fleets around the UDC "infrastructure" has been formed, which allows the successful combat use of these ships.
    Does our fleet have such an "infrastructure" now? Are the forces of the fleet able to defend the UDC on the transition to the enemy's coast? And where is that shore?
    It is clear that the loss of the UDC is by no means tantamount to the loss of a "simple" landing craft. It is intended for major "affairs" and can operate successfully only under the conditions of the domination of our fleet and aviation in the maritime theater of operations.
    Won't these ships become a very expensive and useless toy in relation to the tasks of the Russian Navy?
    Maybe it was advisable to invest the money in the construction of other ships?
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 28 January 2013 16: 22
      +3
      Reconstruction of 33 berths completed in Vladivostok

      The builders did a tremendous job so that the historic site, which was repaired only once in 100 years of its existence, becomes a modern berth complex.

      Konstantin Vasiliev, correspondent: “This pier is already nearly a hundred years old. In 1917, after commissioning, it was called the “Broad Pier”. Today it is a state-of-the-art complex of berthing facilities, capable of accepting not only all existing types of ships, but also those that should enter the arsenal of the Pacific Fleet by 2020. "

      The need to reconstruct the berth is long overdue. Over its centuries-old history, it was only once thoroughly repaired. According to builders, in 2012, continuing to use it in its original form was simply dangerous. Since spring, dozens of people, five pieces of equipment and two floating cranes worked at the facility. During the reconstruction, builders almost completely replaced the entire mooring wall and underwater communications, installed a storm drainage system.

      Mikhail Chekalin, First Deputy Head of the UGS No. 432 branch of FSUE GUSST No. 4 under the Special Construction of Russia: “Also, all the communications necessary for basing ships were laid on the pier: water, steam, high-purity water, electricity. A new berth lighting system has been installed and perfect, which allows you to carry out any work on it, including mooring. ”

      A memorial plaque has been erected in memory of a truly historical reconstruction on the new pier. Today, warships are already standing here again, including the flagship of the Pacific Ocean fleet - the Varyag cruiser, the ceremonial transfer of the facility to the fleet is scheduled for December 1.
  10. Crang
    Crang 28 January 2013 10: 19
    0
    UDC "Mistral" ... cool ... Can you keep it, gentlemen? And where do we plan to land in the near future? The most important thing is that we have everything. And it's all just rotting against the wall. And they buy some "Mistrals". Mastering money. We have a huge aircraft carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov. It has been floating since the beginning of eRPhia formation. And what? The aircraft carrier is in a deplorable state. His air group has not yet been fully staffed! They cannot purchase the required number of planes and helicopters! There is a huge and powerful UBC "Ivan Rogov", which is better than "Mistral". Unlike the Frenchman, our "Ivan Rogov" can come right up to the shore and land equipment from the bow and stern ramps. And the ship's own powerful onboard armament is capable of effectively supporting the landing of troops with fire. And what? The ship is standing and rotting against the wall. They cannot repair it.
    http://vmf.oruzie.su/landingships/67-rus/21-edinorog
    This stupid "Mistral" in its equipment and did not stand next to our "Unicorn". The normal ship was exchanged for a container ship with three machine guns. They will master the money and build it. Then it turns out that it is expensive and not really necessary to maintain it. They will put it against the wall. Then they will scream - "why do we need such korblis" - well, and then we know. The same was done with aircraft-carrying cruisers such as "Moscow" and "Kiev". Both of them, like the UDC "Ivan Rogov", are head and shoulders above the "Mistral" in terms of the military-technical level.
    1. redwolf_13
      redwolf_13 28 January 2013 11: 46
      +3
      Yes ships pr1174 excellent ships and until the last moment there were as many as 3 pieces. But this is not the main thing "Mistrels", "Lynxes", wheeled tanks, new sniper rifles of England, UAVs of Israel, suddenly the conversation that our AK has ceased to suit everyone, and the T-90 and 80 are expensive and I would like to see in the army something like German armored vehicles and it seems like the regular PM cartridge has ceased to suit, but the Parabellom 9x19 is very good .. Did they accidentally prepare us quietly for the transition to the NATO standard? Followed by BYAKA ????
      Although it already looks like paranoia.
    2. Pushkar
      Pushkar 28 January 2013 11: 48
      +3
      Isn't it clear about the over-the-horizon landing? Too big target "Ivan Rogov". And about the impossibility of content - it used to be.
    3. Mikado
      Mikado 28 January 2013 12: 29
      +5
      "Ivan Rogov" BDK, not UDC, completely different classes with Mistral and different possibilities, it's silly to compare them. And I responsibly declare to you that it has completely rotted away, only the building remains, and even if you find a lot of money to repair it, where will you look for specialists? All who once built these ships can be counted on the fingers, again to collect people from all over the country and how long will it take? Vaughn "Nakhimov" has already been under repair for the fifth year and so far only preparatory work is underway. How much repair would it take from Rogov?
      1. atesterev
        atesterev 28 January 2013 13: 08
        +3
        Quote: Mikado
        How much repair would it take from Rogov?

        But not at all ... Ukraine does not produce turbines for him ...
      2. Cheloveck
        Cheloveck 28 January 2013 13: 39
        +1
        Quote: Mikado
        and even if you find a lot of money to repair it, where will you look for specialists? All who once built these ships can be counted on the fingers, again to collect people from all over the country and how long will it take? Vaughn "Nakhimov" has already been under repair for the fifth year and so far only preparatory work is underway. How much repair would it take from Rogov?

        Yes, no problem, there would be a desire!
        Money, say no?
        On the Mistral, however, there were.
        Yes, and the "egg-capsule" and everything grows and grows.
        Specialists?
        So they have not gone anywhere, finding is not a problem, making an "offer that cannot be refused" is also not a problem.
        The main reason is the lack of desire in the relevant structures.
        Everything else is crap!
        1. brutal true
          brutal true 28 January 2013 17: 23
          +1
          Quote: Cheloveck
          Yes, no problem, there would be a desire!
          Money, say no?
          On the Mistral, however, there were.
          Yes, and the "egg-capsule" and everything grows and grows.

          Here is a man, they tell you, there are no specialists, engines do not produce. If it is possible to restore all this, then obviously not in a couple of three years, during which the Mistrals will be built.
          1. Cheloveck
            Cheloveck 28 January 2013 18: 12
            0
            Quote: brutal true
            Here is a man, they tell you, there are no specialists, engines do not produce. If it is possible to restore all this, then obviously not in a couple of three years, during which the Mistrals will be built.
            Let me remind you that "Yantar" is a working enterprise, that is, you won't have to look far for sales of specialists,
            M-8K1 still has a place to advertise on the Internet.
            This is so, offhand.
            Thirdly, by what side is the period of 2-3 years limited?
            What will happen if after this period Russia does not have a ship of the Mistral type?
            Will the end of the world come?
            1. Eric
              Eric 29 January 2013 05: 21
              -1
              Join the
              Cheloveck.

              They will drown these UDCs first. For for him, there is no escort AV. He is the number one goal. I assume that he is from the kind of "German infantry doctrine", the main unit is a machine gun, around him the arrows are already. This rationale is Mistral's number one target.

              Regarding the over-horizon landing, I have a question:

              - what are the watercraft for its implementation?
              “And why not build ships of a smaller class, if you are planning to land over the horizon?” With this mega-trough of a tanker they will be like a dog’s tail, the question of range is not so relevant.
              - why did we decide that we have a culture of "raiding" like the United States, with an extended ocean border? I understand their validity of the aircraft carrier fleet, their interests in the 20th century were in Europe. And we have? Are there interests in the ocean? And what are they?

              Some questions, I have, like a sailor! The Mistral is not an indicator of the size of the device, it cannot be compared with the Americans, they are our main geopolitical enemies, but again, where will our interests collide? But back to "I have more than yours", size syndrome should not prevail over PRAGMATISM syndrome. And here, in a pragmatic approach, we ran into "size".

              Now the main idea, I would like to convey to you, Comrades! The German ambassador to the Russian Empire asked our minister three times if he would deign to stop military preparations. And that Serdyuk ... oh, minister, refused the German master three times. After that, the ambassador took out a "note declaring war on the Republic of Ingushetia" from his pocket. Further down the course of history, World War I.

              Question to experts: why did our minister so persistently provoke the German ambassador? After all, he was not going to get this scribble from wide legs. Who paid the minister? Or what promised, or promised? And so the war began for us. By a wave of the language thereof, but they might not have fought. And no one would touch Yugoslavia, in fact.

              Draw conclusions, and be pragmatic. I will answer all those who disagree with me; here is more a question than my thought. stop
      3. Crang
        Crang 28 January 2013 18: 42
        +1
        Well, right "Ivan Rogov" is much better than "Mistral". He's almost as healthy. It also has flight decks for receiving helicopters. Only it also has something that the Mistral does not have - a powerful onboard armament and a nose ramp with a system that allows it to "crawl" ashore. "Ivan Rogov" can drop up to 46 T-72/80 tanks. I will see how you from the Mistral will air these 50-ton colossus. "Mistral" is stupidly inferior to "Unicorn". And the fact that he was chosen is just a desire to cut money. Sawed, it will become uninteresting and expensive. Swimming for five years. And then to the wall and fate like "Rogov". I had to make my own UDC according to the improved project 1174M "Unicorn", and not take French shit. It is ultimately a matter of the country's prestige. Yes, they will not be able to contain it anyway. Carrier-based fighters Su-33 for an aircraft carrier in the era of "army revival" cannot be bought. And without aircraft, an aircraft carrier is an expensive and useless toy.
  11. gispanec
    gispanec 28 January 2013 10: 20
    +1
    Quote: erased
    Only you need to purchase them not to get kickbacks

    And there’s no kickbacks in our PVC ?? ?? ... I know that there is a wow .... what .....
    Quote: erased
    but with a clear understanding of what and why they take it. Then there will be a sense!

    drinks I agree to 100%
  12. Rus_87
    Rus_87 28 January 2013 10: 33
    0
    I read somewhere that one of the main reasons that ours began to buy the Mistral was some kind of miracle yudo nano BIUS installed on them, and most importantly, under the agreement, the French had to transfer all of those. documentation for it. By the way, regarding the documentation, there were a lot of battles with the paddles, they really didn’t want to give it to us, but then they kind of agreed ...
    1. atesterev
      atesterev 28 January 2013 16: 29
      +1
      And how do you imagine this, pass the BIOS? You will pass on the production technology of specialized microcircuits, right? And, as far as I understand, there are at least hundreds of thousands of microcircuits, and not all of them can be bought on the market. Plus military performance ... Plus special equipment ...
      So the BIUS transmission is a very dark matter! Here, it seems to me, the tidbit was for the former Minister of Defense and his relatives ...
  13. tank64rus
    tank64rus 28 January 2013 10: 41
    +1
    If we had spent this money on the development of ekranoplanes and ekranopleta. We were legislators in them. We need to look for promising and advanced and invest national money there, and not buy what we cannot find a rationale for use. It is clear that no one will really sell new technologies .Even if some NATO country wanted to do this, the remaining members of the alliance would immediately veto this deal. Why Serdyukov needed purchases of Italian armored vehicles and UDC data. Are there really people who still believe that he was glad for defensive ability. He did his business, this is what he was able and engaged from the heart. Now some are trying to otmazyvat supposedly not everything was wrong. Well, what about the Americans applaud him.
    1. Pushkar
      Pushkar 28 January 2013 11: 56
      +1
      In fact, the point of the article is that you don’t have to indiscriminately scold everything that was done under Serdyukov, but you need to understand it thoroughly. Otherwise, the story with Tukhachevsky will be repeated - they removed him, and at the same time dispersed the tank corps.
      1. redwolf_13
        redwolf_13 28 January 2013 12: 27
        +7
        Such a "genius" as Tukhochevsky not only had to shoot him 2 times. Create tank corps where 2 thousand BT2 and BT5 did not want to hear about medium and heavy tanks. Deprive infantry support from tanks. A sort of cavalry corps but in armor. The tank corps did not disperse them, they were reorganized to make a normal, well-controlled unit out of this monster. No need to read Suvorov and others like them. And then we are now in controversy will come that wheeled tanks were specially built to go straight to Berlin on the Autobahn to visit Hitler
        This is a miracle of Poherila development of an art system of medium colibres. Because of him, all the artillery almost lost, he saw you get carried away by jet thrust. And I decided to remake all the artillery for recoillessness. And the fact that the idea is crude did not think. Had this "genius" remained in power until 1941, the Germans would not have reached Moscow, they would have reached Sakhalin.
      2. Andrew-001
        Andrew-001 28 January 2013 16: 43
        0
        About "to understand thoroughly" - I certainly support here!

        And about Tukhachevsky - can you imagine what 5 thousand tanks are ?!
        And how does it look even just put together ?! We do not need such buildings.
  14. UPStoyan
    UPStoyan 28 January 2013 10: 49
    +5
    Maybe the idea of ​​building warships abroad is not very good, but ships of this class are needed by our Navy. On a long trip, they are much more effective than the current BDK.
  15. sergey69
    sergey69 28 January 2013 11: 02
    +5
    The French operation in Mali showed how such ships are needed for expeditionary forces. Maybe not in vain Medvedev agreed to purchase the Mistrals. In Syria, they would be very useful. And to defend the interests of Russia in other parts of the world.
    1. redwolf_13
      redwolf_13 28 January 2013 11: 54
      -3
      Where for example ??? In Syria, so the guys from Europe will immediately show us at the door. If the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, then the guys from the United States will be very opposed and their fleet is currently very strong. Cuba is again the United States. All places ended. Although there was still the French Riviera and the snowy slopes of the resorts. Mustache has no more interests. Or maybe you know?
      1. Eric
        Eric 29 January 2013 05: 29
        0
        Comrade, to you my pluses are exactly one more to block the minus, and one more plus for your thought. People do not understand that the Americans forged their fleet the entire 20th century, moreover, their fleet is justified by historical premises. And our locals are here, they want to condo him for 5-10 years. Not the right approach.
  16. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 28 January 2013 11: 18
    0
    Hey. Do not forget. Many ships in the USSR were built abroad. The same landing in Poland.
    1. zanoza
      zanoza 28 January 2013 12: 07
      0
      Quote: 1c-inform-city
      Many ships in the USSR were built abroad


      So for a reason congestion our shipyards. Our projects were or were created under our "supervision".
      All point descended from our shipyards.
  17. vorobey
    vorobey 28 January 2013 11: 21
    +15
    Quote.

    The development and construction of its own universal landing ships will take several years and it is unlikely that the head UDC of its own project will be launched before 2020. In addition, during its creation, various changes in appearance and other things are possible that do not contribute to the speedy completion of work. In this case, the purchase of French ships will help to learn in practice all the pros and cons of this class and take appropriate measures when creating your own UDC. As for the transfer of a number of technologies and documentation for the Mistrals, this will also be useful for Russian shipbuilding. True, at the moment, due to the specific approach of the parties to the coverage of the agreement, it is not entirely clear which documents were handed over to Russian shipbuilders.

    Some expensive experience turns out to buy two pieces and evaluate the pros and cons. Was it not easier and cheaper to conduct some joint exercises with our BDK and Mistral with the same tasks.

    That is, the author himself is not completely convinced of the advisability.

    About the overseas landing I will say one thing. In August, 93 conducted exercises in Kazachka. Then our tank company from 126 divisions was transferred to 810 brigade MP. and together we defended the coast.

    I will say so, boring. in the absence of opposition to the MH conveyor, I shot in less than 15 minutes. Given the transfer and concentration of fire at high-speed targets. The infantry was just finishing off what remained afloat. After these exercises, battalion 64 was transferred to the brigade.
    1. Uncle Serozha
      Uncle Serozha 28 January 2013 11: 38
      +3
      Quote: vorobey
      I will say so, boring. in the absence of opposition to the MH conveyor, I shot in less than 15 minutes. Given the transfer and concentration of fire at high-speed targets. The infantry was just finishing off what remained afloat.

      An interesting point. So you shot at the craft? Which one? And one more question. Did the lighters have air support? Helicopters in particular?
      1. vorobey
        vorobey 28 January 2013 11: 50
        +7
        Quote: Uncle Seryozha
        Did the lighters have air support?


        I won't say anything. I did not know the plan of the exercises, since the Letekha tanker was fulfilling his assigned task. we took our positions from the depths. Ie Apparently when the coast has already been processed by enemy aircraft. moved forward, shot and curled up. Just like the "Shore"

        Targets were made by the way from shell boxes and car tires. To drown such an infection could only be a direct hit. Support minesweepers towed targets, and some were thrown right under the shore.
        1. Uncle Serozha
          Uncle Serozha 28 January 2013 12: 15
          +3
          Quote: vorobey
          Targets were made by the way from shell boxes and car tires. To drown such an infection could only be a direct hit. Support minesweepers towed targets, and some were thrown right under the shore.

          belay Seriously prepared you, respect. Moreover, taking into account the 93rd year ... Far from all parts it was so.
      2. VAF
        VAF 28 January 2013 12: 26
        +1
        Quote: Uncle Seryozha
        Did the lighters have air support? Helicopters in particular?


        Helicopters can provide "air support" as you call it only if the assault force has already landed on the coast, breaking the front lines of defense and gaining a foothold, then yes!
        In all other cases, your helicopters are simple targets !!!

        Well, if you do not capture the bridgehead on the coast of the Mumbo-Yumbo tribe, armed with bows and arrows !!! wassat
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 28 January 2013 12: 43
          +2
          Add that air defense also needs to be knocked out - helicopters are more vulnerable. Well, you must have local superiority in the air.
          And all this before the helicopter landing. If air defense stations can be raised with missiles from ships, then big problems can arise with a flock of Toyota tanks with a DShK in the back.
          1. Vadivak
            Vadivak 28 January 2013 18: 48
            +1
            Quote: Spade
            Toyota tanks "with DShK in the back


            Also / Needles, stingers ......
    2. leon-iv
      leon-iv 28 January 2013 11: 41
      +6
      Now let's think that it is better to push to the shore of the BDK where it can be a lot more than sip.
      But the UDC can also walk along the enemy’s positions with vertices.
      And this is not entering the counter zone.
    3. Letnab
      Letnab 28 January 2013 11: 50
      +2
      but in more detail, for the ignoramus .. how did the landing happen? beyond the horizon, or by the release of ships to the shore, honestly, I would like more detail!
      1. vorobey
        vorobey 28 January 2013 12: 28
        +6
        Quote: Letnab
        overseas, or the exit of ships to the shore,


        That's just the point that differently. we capture the coast, and unload in the west. But how much the shore is not ironed. necessarily some kind of cockroach will survive (infantry sorry).

        Quote: leon-iv
        walk vertically through enemy positions


        Only first decide what and how much or 16 heavy landing. or 32 drums.


        Quote: leon-iv
        to drive to the shore of the BDK where it can be much more than sip


        Well, BDK has something to answer.

        In 93, one BDK covered the entire territory of Poti along the Rioni borders from the north and the Moltakva – Paleostomi region from the South and this was not the limit. though we guarded our boat as an adult.
        1. Vadivak
          Vadivak 29 January 2013 10: 23
          +2
          Quote: vorobey
          we capture the coast, and unload in the west. But how much the shore is not ironed. necessarily some kind of cockroach will survive (infantry sorry).


          It will survive necessarily and still follow a little will not seem
    4. VAF
      VAF 28 January 2013 12: 23
      +2
      Quote: vorobey
      About the overseas landing I will say one thing.


      Sasha. Hello dear! +! drinks
      Please clarify. What is meant by such a criterion as "over-the-horizon landing" of an assault force in naval affairs?

      And then some "specials" all dream of air support for the landing wassat

      people can’t understand in any way that attack and attack helicopters. like attack aircraft are designed to DESTROY troops and armored vehicles and no more !!!

      And then again "rushed" ... from everything that flies to try to "bungle" a strategic missile carrier-bomber " fool
      1. vorobey
        vorobey 28 January 2013 12: 32
        +4
        Quote: vaf
        over-the-horizon landing "


        I ask myself to explain the advantages so that I can’t catch up with my chicken mind.
        Hi Seryozha.

        I'm sorry I didn’t unsubscribe to your message about getting stronger than a shovel. You know. To get it you need to beg well.
      2. dm98
        dm98 28 January 2013 14: 40
        +2
        vaf if not difficult explain the difference between attack and attack helicopter
        and why the same ka-52 will not be able to perform the functions of shock and assault?
        And the second question (follows from the first). Why this helicopter will not be able to DESTROY the enemy’s manpower and armored vehicles.
        1. VAF
          VAF 28 January 2013 15: 33
          +3
          Quote: dm98
          vaf if not difficult explain the difference between attack and attack helicopter


          if it’s very simple, then the strike Mi-28, Ka-52, strike-attack Mi-24, attack-Mi-8AMTSh (and the entire MTV family), as well as Ka-26 and above.

          Quote: dm98
          why the same ka-52 will not be able to perform the functions of shock and assault?


          In the previous comment from the context where it is written on the destruction of troops and equipment fell out .. DIRECTLY on the BATTLE FIELD!

          Quote: dm98
          Why this helicopter will not be able to DESTROY the enemy’s manpower and armored vehicles.


          Why can’t it, maybe ... if only the TO or TE that the helicopter will destroy him:

          1. They will not see or will not be the first to find, but agree that over a flat sea surface this is not so problematic (unless you hide behind the crest of a wave lol )

          2. What means of destruction and what are you going to destroy ???
          Well, and with what range? Read what we have now and what air defense means the enemy has (not in general) but actually uses to cover areas of concentration of troops. Defense missions, airborne dangerous directions, etc.
          I emphasize .... the enemy. not the Mumbo-Yumbo dance! wink
          1. dm98
            dm98 28 January 2013 15: 44
            +4
            VAF
            1. They will not see or will not be the first to find, but agree that over a flat sea surface this is not so problematic (unless you hide behind the crest of a wave)
            ,
            I’m just not a supporter of gaining superiority in the air with the help of the Mistral wing!)))))
            And not once did he say that the helicopter should hang over the sea, for example, it might probably go from the flank, again I think the terrain and the coastline will allow the helicopter to go the distance of the shot of its fire weapons. After all, somehow he does it on land))))). Otherwise, the turntables would die out as a class. (This, again, is a purely logical conclusion)

            VAF
            2. What means of destruction and what are you going to destroy ???
            , Established for a given helicopter!
            If everyone was so afraid that the helicopter could be easily shot down with a "needle" or some other MANPADS system, then the helicopters would have finished producing as soon as these MANPADS were invented.


            Another thought occurred to me!
            According to plans, the Mistrals will go to the Pacific Fleet! And there the coastline is very rugged and there are many rocks, so ................
            This is me again about the landing on the Kuril Islands))))
            1. VAF
              VAF 28 January 2013 17: 27
              -1
              Quote: dm98
              I’m just not a supporter of gaining superiority in the air with the help of the Mistral air wing!


              And how are you going to provide air support for the landing, without gaining superiority in the air ?????
              Well, yes. I forgot, the Mumbo-Yumbo tribe has no aviation wassat

              Quote: dm98
              And not once did he say that the helicopter should hang over the sea, for example, it might probably come from the flank, again I think the terrain and the coastline will allow the helicopter to go the distance of the shot of its fire weapons.


              And he, a helicopter, probably should fly on the flank, or what? Or does your barge already go under water and, for underwater start of helicopters, first goes underwater to the flank? wink
              And how much is the flank in km ????? wassat
              Check out the helicopter tactics section (not Wiki)!

              Quote: dm98
              again, the terrain and coastline I think will allow the helicopter to approach the distance of the shot of its fire weapons. After all, somehow he does it on land


              Ohhh, happy. already starting to understand. what is what! fellow

              Quote: dm98
              Otherwise, the turntables would die out as a class. (This, again, is a purely logical conclusion)


              Just BEAUTIFUL, but Sevraynichal, because. it was necessary to continue ... WHEN USING HELICOPTERS AS IMPACT ON THE SEA !!!
              But you can’t write like that. you yourself acknowledge by this that your rotten theory at the expense of BARG (purchasing them at the moment) flies into the pipe ..

              Quote: dm98
              Regular for this helicopter!


              It’s clear that it’s inconvenient to answer, but you have to be bold enough to admit it. what .. have given BULGARIAN BED!

              Quote: dm98
              If everyone was so afraid that the helicopter could be easily shot down with a "needle" or some other MANPADS system, then the helicopters would have finished producing as soon as these MANPADS were invented.


              Read again what you wrote in paragraph 1, and remember. what are we talking overseas !!!! A smooth and even surface. without relief!

              Quote: dm98
              This is me again about the landing on the Kuril Islands)


              1.Tactical range of the helicopter?
              2. How far are the anti-ship missiles and missile launchers?
              3. The range of possible use of helicopter weapons ??? As you say staff wassat
              1. dm98
                dm98 28 January 2013 17: 53
                +5
                VAF
                And how are you going to provide air support for the landing, without gaining superiority in the air ?????
                Well, yes. I forgot, the Mumbo-Yumbo tribe has no aviation
                ,
                Well, apparently this is not the task of the Mistral !?

                VAF
                And he, a helicopter, probably should fly on the flank, or what? Or does your barge already go under water and, for underwater start of helicopters, first goes underwater to the flank?
                And how much is the flank in km ?????
                Check out the helicopter tactics section (not Wiki)!
                ,

                Of course I have to fly .... the rest is to our generals, and services involved in paranormal phenomena
                VAF
                Ohhh, happy. already starting to understand. what is what!

                Just BEAUTIFUL, but Sevraynichal, because. it was necessary to continue ... WHEN USING HELICOPTERS AS IMPACT ON THE SEA !!!
                But you can’t write like that. you yourself acknowledge by this that your rotten theory at the expense of BARG (purchasing them at the moment) flies into the pipe ..

                It’s clear that it’s inconvenient to answer, but you have to be bold enough to admit it. what .. have given BULGARIAN BED!
                ,

                stubbornness and sarcasm you will not occupy .... But I appreciate your knowledge and competence (it's honest!). At the same time, I do not consider myself a specialist, I honestly admitted "I am an amateur." But I try to reason. But I didn’t hear any arguments from you except for sarcasm again!


                VAF
                Read again what you wrote in paragraph 1, and remember. what are we talking overseas !!!! A smooth and even surface. without relief!
                ,

                I did not speak about the sea))))). These are your supporters (opponents of Barge) all the time trying to force him to fight aviation, and even alone
                VAF
                1.Tactical range of the helicopter?
                2. How far are the anti-ship missiles and missile launchers?
                3. The range of possible use of helicopter weapons ??? As you say staff
                ,

                well, if "no wiki" then the radius of kilometers is 300, standard weapons are 5-6 km, the range of MANPADS (portable) is 5-6 km
                As for the RCC, well, 200-250km.

                PS. All the same, I would like to hear from you exactly what the Mistral is inferior to the BDKs that are now in service with Russia. Do not consider it a sorcasm, the question is addressed to you as one of the most literate people on this forum!
                And I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone, I'm trying to reason.
                1. Aleksys2
                  Aleksys2 28 January 2013 18: 35
                  +1
                  Quote: dm98
                  Well, apparently this is not the task of the Mistral !?

                  And whose?
                  Understand, finally, none of those present here are against the idea that we would have UDC in our Navy, just a part of those who commented against the fact that the UDC would be built now, at this point in time believing that the money spent on this deal was better spent on the construction of new promising ocean-going strike ships. We now have more landing ships (20) than attack ships (17). So the question arises, who will provide Mistral with a landing? Now so, we have a BDK with a dock camera. The Mistral can also land using helicopters - 8 helicopters can be placed simultaneously on the upper deck, the capacity of Ka-29 -16 paratroopers with personal weapons (8x16 = 128 people), that is, 128 marines with machine guns land at the same time, but this is not about support helicopters, for seats on the deck of the whole 8. The rest of the equipment is landed by landing boats. In the aft part of the 1174 project BDK there is a dock chamber 75 meters long, 12 meters wide and about 10 meters high. Mistral has a dock chamber 69,3x16,8 m in size, in principle they are comparable. But the armament is gone.
                  1. Vadivak
                    Vadivak 28 January 2013 18: 53
                    +3
                    Quote: Aleksys2
                    Understand, finally, none of those present here are against the idea that we would have UDC in our Navy,

                    Thank you Alex and this is important
                  2. dm98
                    dm98 28 January 2013 19: 33
                    +3
                    Quote: Aleksys2
                    And whose?

                    Well, certainly not Mistral. I meant gaining superiority in the air.
                    Quote: Aleksys2
                    just a part of those commenting against what the UDC would build now, at this point in time believing that the money spent on this deal was better spent on the construction of new promising ocean-going strike ships

                    Do you think that the construction of warships is hindered by not timely financing?
                    Aleksys2,
                    Quote: Aleksys2
                    We now have more landing ships (20) than strike ships (17). So the question arises, who will provide Mistral with a landing?

                    look at the age of these 20 landing ships, be surprised!
                    Quote: Aleksys2
                    But the armament is gone.

                    what are you !!!!!! whether hailstones provide this incomparable advantage?
                    1. Aleksys2
                      Aleksys2 28 January 2013 19: 49
                      0
                      Quote: dm98
                      Do you think that the construction of warships is hindered by not timely financing?

                      As one of the factors, yes, sometimes decisive. For example:
                      The first landing ship laid down on 23 on December 2004 at the Yantar shipyard in Kaliningrad was named Ivan Gren. In 2008, it was supposed to be transferred to the fleet. But due to unstable financing and problems at the plant itself, construction was frozen. In fact, over the 4 years only individual sections of the ship were assembled.


                      Quote: dm98
                      what are you !!!!!! whether hailstones provide this incomparable advantage?

                      Well, Mistral doesn't have them.
                      Mistral:
                      Artillery-AK-630, Anti-aircraft artillery-2 × 30-mm artillery mount Breda-Mauser, 4 × 12,7-mm machine gun "Browning"; "3M47" Bending
                      2 × 2 missiles - Simbad launchers
                      BDK of the 1174 project:
                      Artillery armament includes one two-gun 76-mm gun mount AK-726 with Turret control radars and four six-barrel 30-mm AK-630 assault rifles with Vympel control radars. The ship is equipped with a two-beam launcher of the Osa-M air defense system with the ammunition of 20 missiles. There is also 4 quadruple launchers (columns MT-4) for MANPADS. For fire support of the landing, one BMZ-21 Grad-M MLRS system with two twenty-barreled guides is used.
                      (Caliber, mm 122
                      Number of rails 20
                      Minimum firing range, m 3000
                      Maximum firing range, m 20400
                      Area of ​​damage, m² 14,5 Ha)
                      1. dm98
                        dm98 28 January 2013 20: 26
                        0
                        Quote: Aleksys2
                        As one of the factors, yes, sometimes decisive. For example:

                        The first landing ship laid down on 23 on December 2004 at the Yantar shipyard in Kaliningrad was named Ivan Gren. In 2008, it was supposed to be transferred to the fleet. But due to unstable financing and problems at the plant itself, construction was frozen. In fact, over the 4 years only individual sections of the ship were assembled.

                        Sorry, but this is not about money!
                        Quote: Aleksys2
                        Well, Mistral doesn't have them.

                        You really do not catch up that these cities will not help if they are launched from the day of the sea, and the mistral will not help
                        Quote: Aleksys2
                        Artillery-AK-630, Anti-aircraft artillery-2 × 30-mm artillery mount Breda-Mauser, 4 × 12,7-mm machine gun "Browning"; "3M47" Bending
                        2 × 2 Missile Weapons - Simbad launchers

                        Well, if seriously, do you really think that if you adopted the project, ours would not have stuck a couple of these child prodigies there?
          2. leon-iv
            leon-iv 28 January 2013 15: 55
            +2
            I emphasize .... the enemy. not the Mumbo-Yumbo dance!
            So it’s clear that you are hinting at an aircraft carrier. BUT how many countries that are of interest to us have a strong air defense? And the air, as you think, the Order will not cover. Especially then the redoubt polymer is already finished
            1. VAF
              VAF 28 January 2013 17: 31
              -1
              Quote: leon-iv
              BUT how many countries that are of interest to us have a strong air defense?


              That would overwhelm the helicopter ... a strong air defense is by no means necessary, I hope there will be no requests .. of the "digits" type in the studio .. it is not difficult to read what losses of helicopters in the extreme wars of Afghanistan and Chechnya ???
              And this is on land !!!! And then the sea ... a flat surface like a table!

              That's when .. "finished" and also put into service, that's when we will ... get insolent, but for now ....... our destiny is Rook and a machine gun!
              1. leon-iv
                leon-iv 28 January 2013 17: 37
                +6
                Afghan and Chechen ???
                You yourself are well aware that with normal tactics, the losses from MANPADS are minimal.
                And this is on land !!!! And then the sea ... a flat surface like a table!
                To do this, you must have military air defense and the ability to saturate MANPADS landing area which you may not even know.
                And to defeat at sea, you must have ships that you yourself will need to survive.
                By the way, what do you think Mistralek needs verts like a kaiova?
                in the meantime ....... our destiny is Grachok and a machine gun!
                no our destiny is 20380 and 11356.
                1. VAF
                  VAF 28 January 2013 18: 13
                  0
                  Quote: leon-iv
                  under normal tactics


                  Here he said beautifully +! 08.08.08/XNUMX/XNUMX. well, absolutely normal tactics of warfare aviation wassat

                  Quote: leon-iv
                  losses from MANPADS are minimal.


                  This is not only I know. and that’s all .. 08.08.08/XNUMX/XNUMX ... continue on or not?

                  Quote: leon-iv
                  To do this, you must have military air defense and the ability to saturate MANPADS landing area which you may not even know.


                  Frost dear nonsense. Full! you are trying on a "reformed" army of the Russian Federation and normal combat equipment of the army of a potential enemy!

                  Quote: leon-iv
                  And to defeat at sea, you must have ships that you yourself will need to survive.


                  BPRK, stylized as ordinary trucks I hope you don’t need to attach?

                  Quote: leon-iv
                  By the way, what do you think Mistralek needs verts like a kaiova?


                  We do not need either Barges or Kiowa!

                  Read koment Alexey52. everything is intelligible there!
                  1. leon-iv
                    leon-iv 28 January 2013 18: 17
                    +3
                    Here he said beautifully +! 08.08.08/XNUMX/XNUMX. well, absolutely normal tactics of warfare aviation
                    no, this is an incorrectly constructed interaction of units and subunits
                    This is not only I know. and that’s all .. 08.08.08/XNUMX/XNUMX ... continue on or not?
                    See above.
                    Frost dear nonsense. Full! you are trying on a "reformed" army of the Russian Federation and normal combat equipment of the army of a potential enemy!
                    You once again understand the UDC you need to rob poopuasov. But not to hang out with NATO at sea.
                    BPRK, stylized as ordinary trucks I hope you don’t need to attach?
                    And even I do not remember the lope bought a club-k?
              2. Vadivak
                Vadivak 28 January 2013 18: 55
                +2
                Quote: vaf
                bye ....... our destiny Grachok and a machine gun!

                Well, okay, I still wouldn’t discard those who are quiet on the water
                1. VAF
                  VAF 28 January 2013 20: 43
                  0
                  Quote: Vadivak
                  Okay you


                  Yes, it’s me so ... I’ve been driven up by the manko .. I just got a misunderstanding .. OR ??? wink
    5. Vadivak
      Vadivak 28 January 2013 12: 37
      +5
      Quote: vorobey
      I will say one thing about the overseas landing


      Here is the information for those who decided to solve all the problems with one Mistral, that he needed a cover for the landing, and there would always be a reliable air defense system on his turntable that would cover the same company of tanks
    6. dm98
      dm98 28 January 2013 13: 06
      +6
      vorobey
      But what do you think if the landing was carried out directly on shore, would our result be different with our standard BDKs? I’m thinking that in this scenario all the BDKs would be sank in addition!
      So I’ve never minus the mistral!
      I don’t know how military training should be carried out there, but it seems to me that there must be some kind of fire support! And the element of surprise also plays an important role. Now compare the over-land landing and the land landing directly, who has a better chance? and if it is combined? moreover, helicopters can provide fire support !?

      PS: Do not judge strictly for inferences; I am an amateur! But all the same, I think the Mistral are useful and necessary ships
      1. vorobey
        vorobey 28 January 2013 14: 43
        +2
        Quote: dm98
        in this scenario, they would also sink all the BDK in addition!


        the thing is that when you conduct a mission along the BDK, you open your firing points even before he approaches the shore.
        In turn, he has something to answer for you - two degrees is already a buzz.
        In this case, as a rule, the landing of the landing is accompanied by the landing of the theater of operations in the rear by the defending and advanced group of engineering fencing and reconnaissance. I am writing a bit messy. I try briefly. These actions are supported by front-line aviation and naval artillery. First, ships with light weapons are suitable for disembarkation not to go ashore, but in the distance armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles and GPS. The initial task is to catch on shore. Directly approaching the shore are the BDKs already with heavy weapons - equipment that does not float. Something like this .
        Infantry. Brothers correct if something is wrong. or called the wrong word.
        1. dm98
          dm98 28 January 2013 15: 02
          +5
          vorobey
          Again, I will make a reservation, I am a man of jackets, although I have a second military specialty: "Operation and maintenance of ship art installations", but for a long time this was not true, so my conclusions are based only on my conclusions.


          Well, about "BDK Komikadze" smiled of course!
          How can this very "classic" BDK be able to carry out a landing on the Kuril Islands, for example (around the rocks)?
          And finally, explain what Mistral will prevent in this landing operation?
          Can you make intelligence? I think it can. Everything is better than opening firing points with the help of the BDK
          Will they be able to provide fire support to the landing with the help of helicopters? I think yes!
          Will he be able to evacuate the wounded? I think yes!
          Is an extra "Barge" for people and equipment good? I think yes!
          1. vorobey
            vorobey 28 January 2013 15: 21
            +4
            Quote: dm98
            I think it can. Everything is better than opening firing points with the help of the BDK


            Do not flip. I just answered you.

            Quote: dm98
            if the landing was carried out directly ashore, would our standard BDK have a different result? I’m thinking that in this scenario all the BDKs would be sank in addition!


            Let over-the-horizon landing

            We will say so consider the option ideally. That is, in the absence of any opposition. And if it arises the probability of loss of the Mistral airborne assets increases, landing and attack helicopters increases. and if 100 percent? how the remaining second echelon will row to the shore.
            1. dm98
              dm98 28 January 2013 15: 26
              +1
              vorobey
              And if it arises the probability of loss of the Mistral airborne assets increases, landing and attack helicopters increases. and if 100 percent? how the remaining second echelon will row to the shore.
              ,
              did not understand the logic! Why???
              1. vorobey
                vorobey 28 January 2013 15: 41
                +3
                Quote: dm98
                Why???


                The capacity of UDC Mistral and the number of landing craft.

                You want to say that the mistral releases all at once?
                1. vorobey
                  vorobey 28 January 2013 15: 49
                  +2
                  Mistral

                  Landing of personnel and armored vehicles can be carried out either in the equipped port on the pier or directly at sea using boats: the ships are equipped with an internal dock with a total area of ​​about 2650 m2, which can accommodate two 95-ton LCAC type LCAWs or four LCA type LCA smaller displacement.

                  The US Navy’s LCAC-type airborne landing craft (DKVP) was developed by the American company Bell Airspace in 1983. The main tactical and technical data: total displacement of up to 182 tons, maximum length 26,8 m, width 14,3 m, draft 0,9 m. The main power plant consists of four TF-40B gas turbines with a total capacity of 16 liters. with. Maximum speed 000 knots, Cruising range 40 miles at a speed 300 knots or 35 miles at 200 knots. Landing capacity of 40 marines, one tank or up to 24 tons of cargo
                  1. Eric
                    Eric 29 January 2013 05: 40
                    0
                    "Outstanding" just characteristics! :) And they are for us, mistral-mistral ...
                2. dm98
                  dm98 28 January 2013 15: 58
                  0
                  vorobey
                  The capacity of UDC Mistral and the number of landing craft.

                  You want to say that the mistral releases all at once?
                  ,

                  Here you are!))))
                  Well, it’s clear that they won’t transport everyone at once
                  Then tell me what is easier to destroy one BDK offshore with 300 infantry on board or 2 landing boats with 50? And again, who said that the UDC will be the only one to land?
                  But here again
                  Quote: vorobey
                  The landing is accompanied by the landing of the theater of operations in the rear by the defending and advanced group of engineering barrage and intelligence.

                  Why do not you want to assign this function to UDC, because with the help of helicopters this can also be done!
                  1. vorobey
                    vorobey 28 January 2013 16: 06
                    +3
                    Let's figure out what this miracle of technology is really capable of in combat conditions and is it really necessary for our fleet. As follows from the manufacturer's advertising brochures and the statements of the Mistral sailors, the main combat missions of the ship in the French Navy are:
                    • transportation and landing on the unequipped coast of the sea landing using landing barges, hovercraft and helicopters;
                    • reception from the equipped and unequipped shore of armored vehicles and landing infantry units;
                    • participation through attack helicopters based on board in the fire support of the landing on the shore;
                    • performing the functions of a command post;
                    • delivery of weapons and material and technical equipment to naval assault units operating on the shore using ship helicopters and landing and landing equipment.
                    The ship is capable of carrying 450 (in overload - up to 900) paratroopers and 40 tanks or 70 vehicles. At first glance, very good. But that's what they say in advertising brochures. In reality, "40 tanks" cannot fit on a ship in principle. The fact is that MBTs are transported in a docking chamber (10 units) and on the first tier of a vehicle hangar (3 units). In this case, no landing craft is placed in the docking chamber! Thus, the unloading of heavy equipment can only be carried out through the side ramp.

                    But in this case, it is possible only on a prepared pier of a certain height. On the second tier of the hangar, MBT deployment is not allowed de facto, which is associated with both the stability and strength of the decks. And the dimensions of the ramp leading to the second tier of the hangar do not allow this.

                    Transportation of armored vehicles to the shore is carried out using 4 self-propelled pontoons of the LCM type (almost the same as those that landed on the Normandy coast on the famous "D-Day"), two hovercraft of the LCAC type or two landing catamarans of the L-CAT type.

                    LCM can transfer 1 MBT of the Leclerc type (tank mass about 55 tons) or 60 paratroopers (with a maximum speed of about 9 knots) to an unequipped shore in one go. LCAC also takes on board 1 MBT, but it has 180 Marines and "runs" faster: its maximum speed (fully loaded) is over 40 knots. But the French do not yet have LCAC - the ship was just being tested with it.

                    http://flot.com/nowadays/concept/reforms/guestfromtoulon/4/
                    1. leon-iv
                      leon-iv 28 January 2013 16: 10
                      +2
                      Let's figure out what this miracle of technology in combat is really capable of.

                      And also a hospital ship
                      + there the conditions for the marines are much better than on the 775 project.
                      1. vorobey
                        vorobey 28 January 2013 16: 16
                        +2
                        Quote: leon-iv
                        there the conditions for the marines are much better than on the 775 project.


                        Well, it's hard to argue with that. Leon plus.
                      2. leon-iv
                        leon-iv 28 January 2013 16: 21
                        +2
                        Is a hospital really a minus?
                        By the way, I personally like Juan, but he wouldn’t be sold to us unfortunately.
                      3. vorobey
                        vorobey 28 January 2013 16: 36
                        +3
                        Quote: leon-iv
                        Is a hospital really a minus?


                        Well, I did not highlight when copying.

                        But what about the rest of the parameters and inconsistencies?
                      4. leon-iv
                        leon-iv 28 January 2013 16: 44
                        +3
                        But what about the rest of the parameters and inconsistencies?
                        Marketing is
                        but the essence is that the same 40 tanks are not needed for the marines, but 10 pieces is enough. to start.
                        At the same time, no amphibious landing equipment is placed in the docking chamber!
                        Dugong / chamois and the most important thing are L-CAT (I really want to see him)
                        Understand the mistral is part of the mechanism of aggression. And it’s very effective.
                      5. vorobey
                        vorobey 28 January 2013 17: 10
                        +2
                        Quote: leon-iv
                        But what about the rest of the parameters and inconsistencies?
                        Marketing is
                        but the essence is that the same 40 tanks are not needed for the marines, but 10 pieces is enough. to start.
                        At the same time, no amphibious landing equipment is placed in the docking chamber!
                        Dugong / chamois and the most important thing are L-CAT (I really want to see him)
                        Understand the mistral is part of the mechanism of aggression. And it’s very effective.


                        The total cargo capacity of armored vehicles reaches 1000 tons, for example, the French military considers 60 light armored combat vehicles and 13 Leclerc main battle tanks to be a typical option. (provided that there are no helicopters in the below-deck hangar) Capacity for landing - 450 troops in full gear and with personal weapons, or 700-900 people "light" for a short period of time
                      6. leon-iv
                        leon-iv 28 January 2013 17: 17
                        +1
                        So what?
                        I didn’t say in my opinion that the same Marines in the first wave needed tanks at a minimum or not at all.
                      7. dmitreach
                        dmitreach 28 January 2013 16: 46
                        -1
                        leon-iv, hospital Ship, mind you!
                      8. Aleksys2
                        Aleksys2 28 January 2013 17: 12
                        +1
                        Quote: dmitreach
                        leon-iv, Hospital Ship, mind you!

                        Mlyn, HOSPITAL SHIP IN NATURE DOES NOT EXIST !!
                        There are hospital courts. Does the example of the sanitary ship "Armenia" mean anything to you? Or haven't you bothered to read the details?
                        The passenger ship "Armenia" was built in 1928.
                        Transferred to the medical service of 10.08.1941. The staff evacuation capacity of 400 people. Operating room and 4 dressings on 11 tables were deployed. Medical staff: 9 doctors, 29 nurses, 75 orderlies. The chief physician is the doctor of 2 rank P. Dmitrievsky
                        The ship has completed 15 flights. The main flights from Odessa and Sevastopol. The total number of 15000 people evacuated, on average - 1000 people per flight.
                        The ship died in the 11.25 07.11.1941 of the Gurzuf beam as a result of a torpedo attack by the He-111 torpedo bomber. One of two torpedoes fired by an aircraft hit the nose of the vehicle. The ship sank in 4 minutes, so almost all the wounded, the crew and the medical personnel of the evacuated medical facilities were killed. At the time of the death, over 5500 people were on the ship.
                        Despite the fact that the transport had the distinctive signs of a medical vessel, “Armenia” violated this status, as it was armed with four 21-K anti-aircraft guns. In this regard, “Armenia” was a “legitimate” military goal from the point of view of international law.
                      9. dmitreach
                        dmitreach 28 January 2013 17: 21
                        0
                        Mistral is a ship? Ship.
                        Do you have any weapons? There is.
                        Is there a hospital with 69 beds in the minimum configuration? There is.
                        Will there be helicopters in medical equipment? Why not? (for the needs of the Ministry of Emergencies, at least Search and Rescue)

                        Is it really that hard to understand a chip? Hospital Ships do not exist in accordance with International Maritime Law, but there is no FORBIDDEN to stick 69 beds on Mistral with medical staff.
                        Therefore, this is LOL - a hospital ship. (laugh after the word: "shovel".) Or again the desire to argue until nightfall?
                        I am not a lawyer, I put it on International Law. To me, a Mistral with 69 beds (or maybe more) is prettier than a defenseless ship 30 years ago with the equipment of the last century. So it turned out the function: hospital on the ship.
                      10. Aleksys2
                        Aleksys2 28 January 2013 17: 48
                        0
                        Quote: dmitreach
                        hospital on the ship.

                        That's right, that the HOSPITAL is on a ship, not a hospital ship. What you "put on International Law" absolutely does not paint you. Tell me, are there no medical units on our other ships at all? And what medical equipment of this century will be installed on Mistral?
                      11. dmitreach
                        dmitreach 28 January 2013 18: 00
                        +2
                        I really don’t know, maybe Philips or Siemens. what's in fashion now in fashion?
                        I’m not a red girl to blush, like DAM with Libya. recall double standards in international law?
                        They hit me on the drum when it comes to Russia and the Russian marines.
                        By the way, when did the Hospital Courts leave the berth there? What do you need to update them? Especially after the 90s and 00s. I think they financed very disgusting.
                        Or does the equipment on them improve itself? Yes, you would not even go to the dentist if he had a "drill on strings" (drive on harnesses), there were such in the 80s. I'm not even talking about modern MRI machines, which should be on full-fledged Hospital Courts.

                        Ultrasound device or X-ray. I do not think that the 80s ...

                        taken from Denis Makrushin. http://twower.livejournal.com/722863.html (True, it’s not about Mistral, but about the German mobile hospital.)
                      12. Aleksys2
                        Aleksys2 28 January 2013 18: 59
                        0
                        Quote: dmitreach
                        True, it’s not about Mistral, but about the German mobile hospital

                        Here is an example of a mobile field hospital from Zeppelin on 180 beds. Modular design (aluminum is used for ease), air conditioning, its own power plant, water supply, warehouse, kitchen, bathrooms, etc.

                        And about the Complex Medical Mobile. (ILC) have you heard? It is intended to provide first-aid and first-aid medical care to the wounded, injured and sick in the field while providing military service operations of the troops, as well as in eliminating the health consequences of natural disasters and industrial disasters.


                        Read more: http://www.arms-expo.ru/053049048057124050057049054053.html
                        Read and be amazed. Although this is also not about Mistral.
                      13. dmitreach
                        dmitreach 28 January 2013 19: 34
                        +1
                        That's about it.
                        Vessels replacing the series of "Hospital ships pr.320" do not enter service in the Navy. And mobile hospitals are coming.
                        The French use this ship to demonstrate the flag in humanitarian missions and are proud of this fact.
                        That is, they are also used as a Hospital Ship, although it is not so because of the requirements of the Hague Convention, in that the helicopter carrier is a Ship.
                      14. Aleksys2
                        Aleksys2 28 January 2013 19: 52
                        0
                        Quote: dmitreach
                        The French use this ship to demonstrate the flag in humanitarian missions and are proud of this fact.

                        I agree that for the Emergencies Ministry fleet it is needed yesterday.
                      15. dmitreach
                        dmitreach 28 January 2013 19: 58
                        0
                        If you like being a lawyer - free will. To me it's mono **** but. I love jokes. Especially if you happen to joke to the president about the peaceful mission of the Russian Mistral. Like: "some kind of Ship, there are nurses on board, go through the forest, gentlemen from NADO" (for example, off the coast of Syria).
                        What would they not land, like a civilian plane in Turkey and not stop, like a ship in Cyprus. These cases are not forgotten, or throw the PRF?
                        A ship used for medical purposes is a hospital ship. Something has changed? Or did the name change make it impossible to cram 16 medical helicopters there and deploy an ILC with French / German / Russian equipment and specialists, should there be a need?
                        From the past dispute, I emphasize once again the thought: being hospitalized is one of Mistral's functions. "Hospital Ship" is the same as: "peaceful tractor" (from a joke) -LOL, JOKE, JOKE.
                        As we can see from the function of the ship, it can be a hospital ship and take part in humanitarian missions, but a hospital ship cannot be a ship. For the word "ship" is equivalent to the word "military".
                      16. Aleksys2
                        Aleksys2 28 January 2013 20: 03
                        0
                        Quote: dmitreach
                        LOL, JOKER, JOK.

                        Like in a joke about a stewardess and a falling plane.
                        As I understand it, you think that Mistral is the first ship in our Navy which has an infirmary, operating rooms, an X-ray, an ultrasound, and a dentist.
                      17. dmitreach
                        dmitreach 28 January 2013 21: 25
                        0
                        No I do not think so.
                        So, as an example.

                        On February 29, 1996, during a NATO fleet exercise, after successfully completing a mission to detect a conditional enemy submarine, an undetected Russian B-448 Tambov submarine contacted the ships asking for help. Soon, a submarine surfaced in the middle of the NATO ship warrant. One of the crew members needed urgent medical attention due to an acute attack of appendicitis.

                        Yes it happens.

                        Toli case infirmary on Peter! But you can’t chase him with "MES mission"(mission in quotation marks), to some Tunisia ...
                        French helicopter carrier Mistral will help with the evacuation of Egyptians fleeing Libya
                        http://www.chaspik.spb.ru/world/francuzskij-vertoletonosec-mistral-pomozhet-s-ev
                        akuaciej-bezhavshix-iz-livii-egiptyan /

                        Question: But why do we need it? does not require an answer., for Syria, for 888.
                    2. dm98
                      dm98 28 January 2013 16: 23
                      +1
                      Justify how it differs from our BDK in this situation
                      1. vorobey
                        vorobey 28 January 2013 18: 11
                        +1
                        Quote: dm98
                        Justify how it differs from our BDK in this situation


                        What speed does this crap have afloat, and how long will it row to the shore from beyond the horizon. two to three hours?
                      2. leon-iv
                        leon-iv 28 January 2013 18: 13
                        +3
                        And why should she go ashore if 2/2 can be dropped off at 3 calls?
                        A speed of 19-20 knots
                        for example 775 18 knots at grena is similar
                      3. vorobey
                        vorobey 28 January 2013 18: 27
                        +1
                        Quote: leon-iv
                        A speed of 19-20 knots
                        for example 775 18 knots at grena is similar


                        By the term crap, I meant a floating conveyor, and he would not give out more than 11 km to calm.

                        The option shown in the photo is due to horizontally?
                        50 km to the shore

                      4. dm98
                        dm98 28 January 2013 19: 46
                        -1
                        vorobey,
                        Quote: vorobey
                        Quote: dm98
                        Justify how it differs from our BDK in this situation


                        What speed does this crap have afloat, and how long will it row to the shore from beyond the horizon. two to three hours?

                        I apologize for not explaining the question!
                        I meant landing through the ramp!
                        Well, at the expense of swimming 2-3 hours ..... BDK to the shore according to your
                        Quote: vaf
                        already goes under water and for underwater launch of helicopters leaves first in the underwater position on the flank?
                        sorry pops up right off the coast?
                      5. vorobey
                        vorobey 29 January 2013 08: 58
                        +1
                        Quote: dm98
                        Well, at the expense of swimming 2-3 hours ..... BDK to the shore according to your


                        Interesting supporters of over-horizon landing.

                        I repeat in this case, you won’t release techgics 50 km to the coast through the ramp, because this technique will row for two or three hours to the coast.
                        So see?
                      6. dm98
                        dm98 29 January 2013 09: 00
                        0
                        Quote: vorobey
                        Interesting supporters of over-horizon landing.

                        I am not a supporter of overseas landing!
                        I am a supporter of using military equipment in accordance with accepted tactics and in accordance with a specific situation!
                        So here Mistral as including the landing ship is not worse than our BDK

                        I say goodbye to Sim, apparently the audience here is not configured to search for the truth, so I see no reason to continue the dialogue
                      7. vorobey
                        vorobey 29 January 2013 10: 27
                        +2
                        Quote: dm98
                        therefore, I see no reason to continue the dialogue


                        The arguments are over.
                        No need to say that he is omnipotent in the complex. You can arrange it in different ways, but already at sea, and you will not replay the task for it and the landing site.
                        if he planned to land at the port, he will land at the port a larger number of equipment, including on the vert platform.
                        But then he will have neither helicopters nor LCACs

                        If he planned overseas landing, then he would not accept any heavy weapons. And in what universalism is manifested if the BDK is loaded, it can also land on the shore and unload at the port. and start landing from the sea.

                        All the best. Seek the truth theorist.
                    3. dmitreach
                      dmitreach 28 January 2013 16: 44
                      +1
                      vorobeyas far as I remember through the aft ramp (through the docking chamber), loading of equipment, in particular MBT, is carried out. (Of course, it is possible both from the pier and afloat) There is a check-in on the deck for cars, which is higher than the camera dock. Only there is a limit on the number of MBTs, because they weigh a lot. The link is a lot of photos. There are even trucks on the helicopter deck.
                      http://i-korotchenko.livejournal.com/550564.html
                      1. vorobey
                        vorobey 28 January 2013 17: 17
                        +3
                        Quote: dmitreach
                        There are even trucks on the helicopter deck.


                        Plus for you, but where did the helicopters go? the people are cutting for the complex and proving that there are support helicopters on the unequipped coast of Mistral Panaceaplus.

                        The total cargo capacity of armored vehicles reaches 1000 tons, for example, the French military considers 60 light armored combat vehicles and 13 Leclerc main battle tanks to be a typical variant (provided there are no helicopters in the below-deck hangar). Capacity for landing - 450 troops in full gear and with personal weapons, or 700-900 people "light" for a short period of time
                      2. leon-iv
                        leon-iv 28 January 2013 17: 21
                        +3
                        Plus for you, but where did the helicopters go? the people are cutting for the complex and proving that there are support helicopters on the unequipped coast of Mistral Panaceaplus.
                        and what prevents to gather a group based on the conditions? Versatility is somehow good.
                        And in my opinion no one said that Mistral can carry everything at once.
                      3. dmitreach
                        dmitreach 28 January 2013 17: 47
                        -1
                        A group of at least medical helicopters, at least from PLO, at least some others! ETOGES airfield in fact.
                      4. dmitreach
                        dmitreach 28 January 2013 17: 44
                        +1
                        Thank. Mutually.
                        the people are cut for the complex

                        I am also for the complex. Here the French Dixmund sent to Mali, using one of the functions of the ship. Complex? One of the features is at least!
                        I understand that you mean that he turned into a barge. But this is based on the task at the moment. Would Mali be a coastal state, oh not the fact that there were no helicopters there! And so in Mali, a ship is not needed at all, judging by the map.
                    4. saturn.mmm
                      saturn.mmm 29 January 2013 00: 16
                      +1
                      Quote: vorobey
                      As follows from the manufacturer's advertising brochures and the statements of the Mistral sailors, the main combat missions of the ship in the French Navy are

                      We decided on the tasks, good. I also wanted to add that the contract for two ships was signed and partially paid, the ships are under construction, a large backfire. Question, will you abandon the ships? I think no.
                      Harchenko smiled, said that the ship was bad, and then added that it would evaluate when it was built.
                      Yes, the ship will come in handy somewhere in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, and so. Even the marines on the ocean will be transported in normal conditions.
                      The main thing is that they would not have stumbled rockets and did not begin to be used as an attack assault
                      Clickable photo
                      1. vorobey
                        vorobey 29 January 2013 09: 01
                        +2
                        Quote: saturn.mmm
                        I also wanted to add that the contract for two ships was signed and partially paid, the ships are under construction, a large backfire. Question, will you abandon the ships? I think no.


                        Saturn below answered

                        Quote: vorobey
                        right .from two pieces you can’t get anywhere, but the fact that two are still refused is good.

                        let the command ship, the hospital, the extra ration with you take two pieces to the autonomous area.
        2. Aleksys2
          Aleksys2 28 January 2013 16: 09
          +2
          Conducting a naval landing operation

          Preparing the landing area

          Preparation of the landing area is divided into preliminary training and direct support for the landing.
          Preliminary preparation of the landing area may begin 10-15 days before the start of the landing by activating aerial reconnaissance. The main events begin 3-4 days before the landing, with the arrival of an advanced detachment in the landing area, which may include: AUG, KUG, a mine-sweeping group, a reconnaissance and underwater demolition group, a special forces group, a Navy, a demonstration group and a group of landing ships with marine units on board.
          Key events include:
          reconnaissance of enemy enemy and coastal waters in order to identify the most important objects that can influence the landing;
          preliminary aviation training of the area for gaining air supremacy, suppressing PDO facilities, blocking naval bases and destroying critical command posts;
          preliminary fire (ship) training and trawling of the fairways for the DESO approach to the areas of parking and maneuvering;
          the landing of small landings in order to capture coastal islands or peninsulas; and the landing of demonstrative landings in the false direction.
          When conducting small-scale landing operations, when the surprise factor is of paramount importance, preliminary preparation of the landing area may not be carried out.
          Direct support for the landing is carried out on the day of landing and begins a few hours before the landing of the landings. The main activities are:
          the breakthrough of mine-explosive barriers in the landing areas of the assault units and the setting of mine-barriers on the flanks of the landing area;
          fire support for landing, including nuclear aviation and naval artillery training and direct support.
          Direct air support begins an hour or more before the start of the landing. To solve the problems of aviation support, mainly aircraft carrier and marine corps are involved, and for large-scale operations - tactical and strategic aviation of the air force.
          For direct aviation support, attack aircraft are mainly used, operating in groups of 7-9 vehicles at intervals of 1,5-2 hours. An aircraft carrier group (40 attack aircraft and 24 attack aircraft) can fly at maximum voltage of 120-150 sorties. For these purposes, the aviation wing of the marine corps can single out 60-100 attack aircraft and 45-105 attack aircraft, which are capable of making 300-600 sorties.
          Direct naval artillery support for the landing can begin one hour before the landing. It is carried out by detachments of fire support ships (OKOP), which may include battleships, cruisers, destroyers and small artillery ships. The structure of fire support ships during the landing of the division can include up to 15 warships at the rate of: one destroyer and one small artillery ship to directly support the battalion landing group (BDGr), one cruiser or destroyer for general support of the regiment landing group and up to three cruisers ( destroyers) for the general support of the division.
          1. Aleksys2
            Aleksys2 28 January 2013 16: 13
            0
            The OKOP firing positions are selected so as to minimize interference with the landing. The positions of the ships of direct fire support are located close to the initial lines of movement of the landing and landing equipment, the positions of the ships of general support are located at a distance from the coast to 10 miles. Each ship is assigned a shelling zone on the shore and the most important targets for destruction.
            Naval artillery fire training can begin an hour before the landing, and direct support - a few minutes before the first wave of landing means to land.
            1. Aleksys2
              Aleksys2 28 January 2013 16: 17
              +1
              Assault landing

              With the beginning or in the course of direct fire support, approximately 4-6 hours before the beginning of the landing (usually the night before the landing), the airborne troops with the landing forces of the first (assault) echelon arrive at the designated landing area.
              The US command provides for a combined landing, on the assumption that two-thirds of the assault echelon forces land from the sea, and one-third by helicopters in the depths of the PDO.
              The most likely edmp landing options:
              the landing of two regimental landing groups as assault landing forces, with two BDGr of each regiment landing from the sea, and the third - by helicopters; the third regiment landing group is a reserve commander of the division;
              the landing of two regiment groups as part of a naval assault, and the third as part of a helicopter assault, with two BDGr of each regiment representing an assault troop, and the third is a reserve of regiment commanders. Some units are allocated to the reserve commander of the division.
              Landing from the sea. Airborne squads with arrival in the landing area are initially located in the outer areas of the parking and maneuvering, appointed at a distance of 20-30 miles from the coast. Landing ships and transports have 8-10 cable gaps. In these areas, under the cover of naval artillery fire and air strikes, the final preparation of the landing for landing is carried out.
              With the suppression of PDO objects, landing ships and vessels move from external to internal areas of parking and maneuvering, located as close to the coast as possible (from 2 to 5 miles), where airborne landing craft are launched, which move to waiting areas, from where on command approach landing ships and vehicles for landing personnel and loading equipment on them.
              At the end of loading, landing craft proceed to the areas of wave formation of the landing craft located in 500-1000 m from the parking and maneuvering area towards the coast. Launching of amphibious armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles with first-tier assault personnel is carried out from amphibious assault ships and other amphibious assault ships for the time required to reach their baseline (Fig. 4.6).
              As waves are completed, they are sequentially directed from the formation area to the initial line located 1500-3000 m from the coastline, and, on command from the control ship (boat), the landing and landing equipment of each wave in the front line are sent to the designated landing points. The movement of the waves of the landing and landing means is carried out simultaneously to all battalion landing areas, and the last 1000 m they pass at maximum speed. The intervals between the landing equipment in one zone are 50-100 m.
              1. Aleksys2
                Aleksys2 28 January 2013 16: 19
                0
                On the landing means of the first two waves, assault companies of the first-tier battalions on floating armored personnel carriers follow, which can be reinforced by assault divisions of the battalion in military vehicles. For the breakthrough of mines and other PDO obstacles, two floating engineering vehicles are included in the first wave of each battalion. On the landing and landing means of the subsequent (starting from the third) planned waves, mortar, artillery units and software, as well as reserve units and command posts, follow. The distance between the first and second waves is usually 400-600 m (2-3 minutes of travel), and between all subsequent planned waves - 1-2 (5-10 minutes of travel), which ensures their approach to the shore, landing units and freeing up space for the landing approach of the next wave.
                For the simultaneous landing of the BDGr assault echelon, 40-60 landing and landing equipment are required, of which 6-9 planned waves and 4-6 waves are formed on call. On landing means of waves on call are delivered supplies (ammunition, fuel, lubricants, food), rear, repair and other service units.
                The planned landing time for the BDGr assault echelon is 50-70 minutes, and the entire BDGr landing time is 4-6 hours. The planned landing time for the BDGr assault echelon is 50-70 minutes, and the entire BDGr landing time is 4-6 hours.
                1. Aleksys2
                  Aleksys2 28 January 2013 16: 49
                  0
                  Actually why am I:
                  But to what, with the landing of an assault troop landing, it is more or less clear, we have the Marines, we have the BDK, there will still be UDC.
                  But with the preparation of the landing area, not everything is as rosy as some comrades here would like:
                  The main events begin 3-4 days before the landing, with the arrival of an advanced detachment in the landing area, which may include: AUG, KUG, a mine-sweeping group, a reconnaissance and underwater demolition group, a special forces group, a Navy, a demonstration group and a group of landing ships with marine units on board.

                  Where is our aug? Where is our KUG? Today we have:
                  "Aircraft carrier" - 1, Cruisers - 3, EM - 3, BOD - 10, SK - 7, minesweepers - 16.
                  Very strong AUG and KUG combined.
                  Or will Mistral solve all our problems with AUG and KUG?
                  1. VAF
                    VAF 28 January 2013 17: 50
                    0
                    Quote: Aleksys2
                    Or will Mistral solve all our problems with AUG and KUG?


                    Aleksey, the tremendous PLUSER! drinks

                    I hope all "amateurs" of the Barges will read and read carefully!

                    And compare with the fact that they "bear" ... lovers of the foreign "stool-tandem acquisition"! soldier
                    1. dm98
                      dm98 28 January 2013 17: 57
                      0
                      VAF

                      Quote: Aleksys2
                      Or will Mistral solve all our problems with AUG and KUG?

                      Aleksey, the tremendous PLUSER!

                      I hope all "amateurs" of the Barges will read and read carefully!

                      And compare with the fact that they "bear" ... lovers of the foreign "stool-tandem acquisition"!
                      ,

                      But did they really buy it to solve problems with AUG and KUG?
                      And without it, how are these problems solved?
                      1. Aleksys2
                        Aleksys2 28 January 2013 18: 39
                        -1
                        Quote: dm98
                        And without it, how are these problems solved?

                        We have profiled the solution to these problems in favor of the purchase of the Mistral.
                  2. leon-iv
                    leon-iv 28 January 2013 17: 53
                    +2
                    Or will Mistral solve all our problems with AUG and KUG?
                    No, but what goal do you pursue and against whom are you fighting?
                    1. Aleksys2
                      Aleksys2 28 January 2013 18: 40
                      0
                      Quote: leon-iv
                      No, but what goal do you pursue and against whom are you fighting?

                      And against whom are you fighting that you need the Mistrals now?
                      1. leon-iv
                        leon-iv 28 January 2013 20: 39
                        +3
                        Mistral is a policy of pure water. I have already spoken about this.
                        And we will need UDC soon in Africa and in Europe
      2. Strategia
        Strategia 28 January 2013 15: 02
        +5
        Quote: Vadivak
        Here is the information for those who decided to solve all the problems with one Mistral, that he needed a cover for the landing, and there would always be a reliable air defense system on his turntable that would cover the same company of tanks

        For the fire support of the landing, fire support ships, aircraft from aircraft carriers, and strategic aviation will be allocated. And UDC helicopters can be used to land an airborne landing force (as an element of a sea landing force - in this case it is customary to call an airborne landing force) and directly support the landing force (like army helicopters on land). It is surprising that some understand the landing of a sea (airborne) landing force from a landing ship as a kind of separate isolated action, and as part of the landing forces they see only one ship - the UDC (the same way, as well as one aircraft carrier as part of the AUG). No, dear ones, a group of dissimilar forces (for example, an expeditionary-strike group - EUG) will be created for a landing force, the core of which will be landing ships. Even an aircraft carrier in such a group, based on the priority task, will play a secondary, supporting role.
        As for the over-the-horizon landing, its essence lies in the fact that landing ships are not included in the coastal artillery fire zone, and sea landing is carried out from landing boats located on the UDC,
        1. dm98
          dm98 28 January 2013 15: 10
          +1
          Strategia
          Greater to you human plus!
          It is this thought that I am trying to convey here))))
          1. VAF
            VAF 28 January 2013 16: 02
            0
            Quote: dm98
            Greater to you human plus!


            This is your undeniable right. good

            Quote: dm98
            This is the idea I’m trying to convey here


            Here, you are not the Strategy is wrong, because. share the chicken. which has not yet laid even a simple egg, not to mention gold!
            1. dm98
              dm98 28 January 2013 19: 49
              0
              Quote: vaf
              Here, you are not the Strategy is wrong, because. share the chicken. which has not yet laid even a simple egg, not to mention gold!

              OK! Let's agree, we will not share the chicken, only you will not destroy it yourself ahead of time drinks
        2. VAF
          VAF 28 January 2013 16: 00
          +1
          Quote: Strategia
          It is surprising that some understand the landing of a sea (airborne) landing force from a landing ship as a kind of separate isolated action, and as part of the landing forces they see only one ship - UDC


          It’s surprising that some (I’m not under .., but in your style I answer wink ) understand the landing according to the FACT, i.e. having everything you list ... including aviation from an aircraft carrier wassat .

          Therefore, all ... "some" try to prove and explain to you and all lovers of barges and the deeds of "great and all-powerful commanders and their subordinates" that first you need to create proper support (striking power !!), and then acquire "transport "Barges!

          And then you. excuse me. incurred .....
          Quote: Strategia
          Expeditionary-strike group - EUG), the core of which will be amphibious assault ships.


          Are you talking about what and whose fleet are you talking about ???? About Amerovsky ??? Yes, they have it! About French, and is there about Britons? everything is the same!
          Even the Chinese have something .. practically everything is there, and the lack of strike aircraft so far is compensated by the HUGE (compared to us) number of new strike ships!

          And what are you going to complete with EUG ??????

          Quote: Strategia
          overseas landing, its essence lies in the fact that landing ships do not enter the coastal artillery fire zone


          Which section of Tactics did you read this "libel" from?
          1914 model ????
          And besides the artillery of the enemy that there are no other means? Or are you just not aware that even the Mumbo-Yumbo tribes are already acquiring the BPRK, not to mention the developing and developed countries that they themselves are already producing and adopting?

          Quote: Strategia
          and amphibious assault landing is carried out from landing craft located on the UDC,


          I would like to see ... how much time will it take for 2 landing boats to leave the belly of the Barge (there are only 2 of them in my opinion) and what can they take with them ???? to reach the coast of the enemy ????
          1. Strategia
            Strategia 28 January 2013 16: 22
            +4
            You, frankly, disappointed me. Your posts are usually distinguished by professional argumentation and restraint. And now, it seems, you "suffered".
            First, the creation of groupings should be comprehensive: we have Kuzya, missile cruisers, destroyers, minesweepers, support vessels, naval missile-carrying aircraft, that is, the ability to create groups for training amphibious operations, interaction of the branches of forces right now. Shortcomings will be revealed that can be eliminated, an understanding of the mutual assistance of various forces and means will be formed, there will be experience in the use of methods of military operations tested in combat conditions. And if you first create one
            Quote: vaf
            first you need to create the proper support (striking power !!), and then acquire "transport" barges!
            , and then something else, then all this will have to be spliced, which will take time. Otherwise, there will be no loss. Moreover, we all theorize (as, for example, with BMPT, etc.), we are surprised that we do not know what to build. So after all, we will not test anything in the complex, at least for solving combat training tasks. To shoot, carry out launches, make marches or transitions without combining these actions and forces and means - this is not to answer the questions of the requirements for weapons or organizational structures. If now our commanders are given the "amerovskoy grouping" in their hands, then they are unlikely to easily cope with managing it, but people, I repeat, must learn to interact with each other at all levels. One of the principles of teaching - "from simple to complex" - should not be ignored.
            1. VAF
              VAF 28 January 2013 17: 39
              0
              Quote: Strategia
              we have Kuzya, missile cruisers, destroyers, minesweepers, support vessels, naval missile-carrying aircraft,


              Sorry, but you completely disappointed me?
              Which Kuzya ??? What missile cruisers ??? What kind of marine missile aircraft ????
              Do you know any year now ???
              Or you all live (by the way, I am the same) with memories of the 70-80s. When yes ... we had all this, though without Kuzi. But there were other ships too!
              All .. finish !!!

              Your slogans. Which have nothing to do with reality and reality, but only Glory to PU and his team of "reformers" of the Armed Forces is without me! soldier
              1. Strategia
                Strategia 28 January 2013 17: 52
                +4
                Sorry, you seem to have a clinic. Farewell!
          2. leon-iv
            leon-iv 28 January 2013 16: 26
            +3
            I would like to see ... how much time will it take for 2 landing boats to leave the belly of the Barge (there are only 2 of them in my opinion) and what can they take with them ???? to reach the coast of the enemy ????
            if you are about LKAT then ok 20 knots at maximum load. So take it.

            1. dmitreach
              dmitreach 28 January 2013 16: 50
              +1
              I would really like for LCat to be acquired to two Mistrals. An interesting device.
            2. VAF
              VAF 28 January 2013 17: 45
              0
              Quote: leon-iv
              if you are about LKAT then ok 20 knots at maximum load. So take it.


              No ... I don't need that much! I do not know exactly what is the response time of the BPRK from the moment of target detection to launch. but I will need it, if with the X-59, then this is 10-12 seconds, and if they point ("give out" coordinates ") to the Barge, because I myself will go at an altitude of 10 meters above the sea (su-24M) , then another 5 seconds to make a slide .. and preferably one T missile - so that the navigator would drive it just into the landing dock. so that ... all at once!
              1. leon-iv
                leon-iv 28 January 2013 17: 58
                +3
                No ... I don't need that much! I do not know exactly what is the response time of the BPRK from the moment of target detection to launch. but I will need it, if with the X-59, then this is 10-12 seconds, and if they point ("give out" coordinates ") to the Barge, because I myself will go at an altitude of 10 meters above the sea (su-24M) , then another 5 seconds to make a slide .. and preferably one T missile - so that the navigator would drive it just into the landing dock. so that ... all at once!
                So sorry, give a list of countries that can do this so easily, namely to break through an order, for example
                From petit + kuzya + 2-11356 2-22350 +5 20385?
                1. lucidlook
                  lucidlook 30 January 2013 19: 09
                  +1
                  Well, it’s really difficult to break through such an order, no doubt. But here it is necessary to make a reservation about this - will these ships be near the UDC, to cover it? Those. in the case of an over-the-horizon landing, which the author of the article presses on, they will not be able to support the landing force with fire. So?
                  1. Kodiak
                    Kodiak 30 January 2013 22: 44
                    0
                    The frigates will have "Caliber" + unnamed submarines may well have it, you can strike an ALCM or simply "pour out" bombs from the strategist, in the sky there will be Ka-52K with UDC and MiG with Kuzi.

                    If this is not enough in this area, then you need to choose another one - it is difficult for a state with a more or less long coastline to create a reliable PDO along its entire length.
                    1. lucidlook
                      lucidlook 31 January 2013 00: 29
                      0
                      What a militarist you are! Well still tactical nuclear weapons are not remembered! wink

                      Total, judging by your description, we have - complete air dominance in the landing area, almost completely suppressed by air defense and enemy artillery. Attention, the question is - what else could prevent BDK class ships from landing in this case? Well, apart from the wrong shore? IMHO - nothing.

                      And this, I think, needs to be talked about. That the only (and a very significant) argument in favor of the UDC is a wider opportunity in terms of landing on the coast - a flat-bottomed boat or DKVP is still easier to find a suitable shore than the BDK. Personally, I do not see more advantages. I see the cons, but the pros - no. And all these mysterious over-horizon landings, it’s so ... from the evil one.
                      1. Kodiak
                        Kodiak 31 January 2013 02: 55
                        0
                        Quote: lucidlook
                        What a militarist you are! Well still tactical nuclear weapons are not remembered! wink


                        I prefer ODAB :-)

                        Quote: lucidlook
                        Total, judging by your description, we have - complete air dominance in the landing area, almost completely suppressed by air defense and enemy artillery. Attention, the question is - what else could prevent BDK class ships from landing in this case? Well, apart from the wrong shore? IMHO - nothing.


                        The problem is that the artillery of the enemy revealed by the reconnaissance is suppressed and the artillery correctors identified are destroyed.
                        Until the landing from helicopters / landing boats makes sure that there are none in the landing area, there are no guarantees that the masked battalion / battery will not open fire at limited speed and maneuvers of the airborne base when approaching the shore.
                        Yes, in DKA the enemy can also open fire - but as a target they are much more complicated and the price of losing one or even several of them is lower.
                      2. lucidlook
                        lucidlook 31 January 2013 13: 14
                        0
                        Quote: Kodiak
                        Yes, in DKA the enemy can also open fire - but as a target they are much more difficult


                        But they don’t have air defense either, and getting just one even unexploded anti-ship missiles will most likely be enough.

                        Quote: Kodiak
                        and the price of losing one or even several of them is lower.


                        This is only if DKA / DKVP so much that you can immediately put the entire landing. And if they need to do 10 round trips, then even half of them are lost - they double the remaining load, firstly, it’s doubled (at least) landing time and its lower intensity, and secondly, and much weaker support for the landing by armored vehicles, third and foremost. And taking into account the fact that there are only 2 of them in the dock chamber, it generally looks utopian for me personally.

                        Imagine yourself as a defender, what would you do? Really nothing comes to mind? wink
                      3. Kodiak
                        Kodiak 31 January 2013 16: 31
                        0
                        Quote: lucidlook
                        But they don’t have air defense either, and getting just one even unexploded anti-ship missiles will most likely be enough.


                        The ships have air defense warrants, long-range missiles are quite capable of covering the enemy landing from aircraft.
                        Also, not all MiGs will be in shock configuration - there are few chances for a single RCC to fly (but they still are, I agree).
                        But with a salvo of artillery division you won’t do anything special.

                        Quote: lucidlook
                        This is only if DKA / DKVP so much that you can immediately put the entire landing. And if they need to do 10 round trips, then even half of them are lost - they double the remaining load, firstly, it’s doubled (at least) landing time and its lower intensity, and secondly, and much weaker support for the landing by armored vehicles, third and foremost. And taking into account the fact that there are only 2 of them in the dock chamber, it generally looks utopian for me personally.


                        If we lose the BDK, the ship immediately goes into minus, and everything that is not landed / unloaded from it.
                        That is, there is no doubled time and load because the landing from it is already over.
                        For the same reason, we will not wait for the support of the landing by armored vehicles from this ship.
                        No, it’s better to lose landing assets than ships (not to mention the fact that the latter will be more expensive).

                        Quote: lucidlook
                        Imagine yourself as a defender, what would you do? Really nothing comes to mind? wink


                        Comes - disguised firing positions for artillery, for example.
                        But against the BDK, this, as already mentioned above, will work more effectively.
                      4. lucidlook
                        lucidlook 31 January 2013 22: 46
                        0
                        And here’s what comes to me:
                        1. By any means knock out landing boats. They, as I have already said, don’t need much, but they don’t have their own defense at all, no reservation either. One maximum of 2 OFS and all. Thus, to exclude support for the landing by armored vehicles.

                        2. When the landing force begins to choke without the support of armored vehicles, wait until the warrant of ships with artillery mounts and rocket artillery is advanced to the shore to support the landing force with fire and leave the UDC without cover. In this case, if there are submarines at their disposal, carry out a torpedo attack along the UDC, if not, then use Van Rieper's tactics (or in combination with a torpedo attack). The goal is to destroy the UDC, and thereby deprive the attackers of the main command center.

                        Further options are possible depending on the reserves of the Air Force and Navy.

                        Perhaps this scenario will seem too gloomy, however, it should be noted that, apparently, this scenario came to my mind not only to me. For:

                        The Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy has formulated requirements for a new infantry fighting vehicle, which will have to land from the Mistral-type helicopter docking ships. According to the Izvestia newspaper, the machine must be highly buoyant, accommodate at least 15 fighters with full-time weapons and equipment, have mortars, automatic grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft missile systems and heavy machine guns.
                        ...
                        According to the assessment of the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, the development of a heavy landing vehicle is necessary in order to follow global trends ─ the over-the-horizon method of landing marines through helicopters and landing boats. At the same time, armored vehicles overcome a distance of 30-40 kilometers to the coast independently.


                        The project should be approved in 2014. When production begins - no one can say.
                      5. Kodiak
                        Kodiak 1 February 2013 01: 15
                        0
                        Quote: lucidlook
                        1. By any means knock out landing boats. They, as I have already said, don’t need much, but they don’t have their own defense at all, no reservation either. One maximum of 2 OFS and all. Thus, to exclude support for the landing by armored vehicles.


                        Since the helicopter (and possibly also the Airborne Forces will take part in the operation) landing force should have already seized the bridgehead and secured the landing site as much as possible, the fire "by any means" will be conducted from a sufficiently long distance and, most likely, from closed positions.
                        In the time it takes to hit a relatively small, high-speed and maneuverable DKA - how many hits will a convenient target get, such as approaching the shore of the BDK?

                        Quote: lucidlook
                        When the landing starts to choke without the support of armored vehicles ...


                        Who said there would be no support for armored vehicles in this case?
                        The DKA ended and the landing party began to choke - you have to take risks and bring the BDK to the shore ahead of time.
                        But at least one surprise that could have caused greater losses has already been revealed.

                        Quote: lucidlook
                        ... wait for the warrant of ships with artillery mounts and rocket artillery to come ashore to support the troops with fire and leave the UDC without cover. In this case, if there are submarines at their disposal, carry out a torpedo attack along the UDC, if not, then use Van Rieper's tactics (or in combination with a torpedo attack). The goal is to destroy the UDC, and thereby deprive the attackers of the main command center.


                        Who said the Mistral will be left without cover?
                        Without even considering the NK, the compound will almost certainly include multi-purpose boats that can provide anti-aircraft defense.
                        Yes, and no one will throw UDC without cover - like the Americans, no matter how much they want to throw all their forces into the enemy, but a couple of fighters must cover the AWACS plane.

                        Quote: lucidlook
                        Perhaps this scenario will seem too gloomy, however, it should be noted that, apparently, this scenario came to my mind not only to me.


                        Possible.
                        And perhaps the Navy Glavkomat wants the marines to take part in overseas landing not only with the UDC, but also with the BDK :-)
                      6. lucidlook
                        lucidlook 1 February 2013 01: 38
                        0
                        Quote: Kodiak
                        And perhaps the Navy Glavkomat wants the marines to take part in overseas landing not only with the UDC, but also with the BDK :-)


                        This is also possible.
              2. dmitreach
                dmitreach 28 January 2013 21: 31
                0
                vaf, are you talking about BDK 775? Or he has megaPVO! Or is it not possible to sink it? Let's talk about the marines throwing themselves on a gentle shore, in the context of the Airborne Forces - and what for they are needed when everything can be brought down. Only it will not be criticism, this is criticism, Dear.
            3. lucidlook
              lucidlook 30 January 2013 02: 23
              0
              Each of them will be able to take 2 MBT or 6-8 armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles.
  18. ochakow703
    ochakow703 28 January 2013 11: 47
    +1
    And here's what I like. A purely Russian approach to acquisition - first we’ll tumble a bunch of dibs, and then we will deal with the efficiency of use. It’s always like that. We knit the cart in front of the mare.
    1. Pushkar
      Pushkar 28 January 2013 12: 04
      +6
      Specifically for the Mistrals, we first figured out the efficiency, and then the grandmother pounded. The current conversations are just swearing in pursuit of Serdyuk.
      1. ochakow703
        ochakow703 28 January 2013 12: 24
        0
        What I see is what I sing. But if our specialists counted everything and appreciated ... then it’s a completely different matter. Only now the sediment still remains.
    2. abc_alex
      abc_alex 28 January 2013 13: 13
      +2
      Are there any options "to train on cats"? :)
    3. Vadivak
      Vadivak 28 January 2013 19: 06
      +1
      Quote: ochakow703
      always like that. We knit the cart in front of the mare.


      Five points, but agree it was different, Christy's tank was very useful to us
  19. INV
    INV 28 January 2013 12: 01
    +2
    Quote: vorobey
    MZ conveyor I shot in less than 15 minutes

    What kind of conveyor? And if at the time of the landing, support aviation began to work for you. As far as I understand, the UDC has a helicopter air wing. What prevents some of the helicopters from being equipped with shock troops? And then, the UDC will not be alone on its own, but as part of a group of ships. And they will certainly have something to "process" the coast before disembarking.
    1. VAF
      VAF 28 January 2013 12: 29
      -3
      Quote: INV
      support aircraft began to work for you.


      And where did you get it then .. support aviation ????

      Quote: INV
      What prevents some helicopters from equipping drums?


      Tactical range of the helicopter and its weapons!

      Quote: INV
      And then, UDC will not be alone in itself, but as part of a group of warblers.


      Studio List laughing And on the shore they will sit and stupidly wait ... when is it the barges will land fool
    2. Old_kapitan
      Old_kapitan 28 January 2013 12: 42
      +2
      So he is about the same! They fought against the BDK. And be the UDC ...
      1. VAF
        VAF 28 January 2013 13: 06
        -1
        Quote: Old_Kapitan
        They fought against the BDK. And be the UDC ...


        And why the hell is sweeter than radish ???? I seriously ask, without under ... yo! soldier
        1. vorobey
          vorobey 28 January 2013 14: 33
          +2
          VAF,
          Quote: vaf
          And why the hell is sweeter than radish ????


          Seryozha, tell me how long it takes for a military U-turn or a bomber’s front after you have pulled the coast, how much can the air defense counteraction to change the effectiveness of bombing or rocket fire.
          In aviation, I do not rummage. drinks But I think this should also be taken into account.
          1. VAF
            VAF 28 January 2013 16: 37
            +2
            Quote: vorobey
            how much time does it take for a combat turn at the attack aircraft or the front of the bomber after having pulled the coast, times


            Sasha’s answer is for a front-line bomber. Like for a fighter of a bomber, returning to a target is a direct route to the grave, so these tasks are performed only from one approach (if we consider landing)

            "Turntables" or "Carousels" were performed only in Afghanistan (this is for the Su-17s). but only for stationary objects, without entering the air defense zone (if possible) and using the terrain (mountains) for cover.

            Therefore, to attack aircraft ..... depending on the speed of entering a combat turn, roll and angle of attack and what height you must gain to re-enter the target depending on the type of ammunition that you must use).

            In general, a combat turn is already carried out at a distance of 3-5 km from the target or launch line, firing and after performing a turn-around to an angle of 120-160 g (depending on the type of aircraft and the parameters with which you plan to perform a military turn or oblique half-loop. i.e. a maneuver that provides you with a repeated approach to the target), and not immediately (who did it immediately, then had big or small problems) and with the mandatory shooting of the CDS or PPI, it is also advisable to twist in the sun or clouds (if there is such opportunity) at least I always did and taught your subordinates!
            Complaints (I mean losses, for all the years of my "taxiing" there were no soldier )

            when there was only a cannon. so I generally turned 90 degrees with a roll, if I didn’t have to strictly maintain the BC (combat approach course), this is when you work as a link.

            So the time .... from 1 minute to 3 (this is already for serious ammunition), but the departure. Virage and again ... 30-40 seconds!

            Quote: vorobey
            How much can air defense countermeasures the effectiveness of bombing or rocket fire.


            For the Su-24-x, Su-17-x, MiG-27K is not critical, because. there is an opportunity to "bind" to the target even before the moment of detection of you by active air defense means, and if you still have "serious" ammunition, then generally a song. let it go and turn it away, with bombs, in principle, the same. PRNK allows you to perform PIM, PFM, PZM after binding!

            When it’s just with cast irons, then there’s a problem, but you get out of their position by a maneuver to reduce height and increase speed.

            But on the su-25 there .. "problem", because. you are limited by the ability to maneuver after capturing the target on the AS by the capabilities of the ILS (by capturing it in elevation), but on new ones (with PrNK Bars-2M there will be no such sore)

            but in fact the SAM is very. very bad, MANPADS is very bad, ZSU, DShK, KPVT just bad, but this is the least of all the troubles!

            And over the water surface, counteraction from the air defense side and with sufficient outfitting of forces and means can reduce fire support to completely 0 if they go there without support forces. As is done with us almost always, with the rarest exception, and only because of that that we use super new technology, unlike the same NATO members!
            1. Vadivak
              Vadivak 28 January 2013 19: 09
              +3
              Quote: vaf
              re-entering the target is a direct path to the grave, so that these tasks are performed only with one call

              Because so many Ilov in the war and died, the drill went on air defense until the ammunition was used up
        2. dm98
          dm98 28 January 2013 15: 18
          +2
          VAF
          well so if Horseradish and radish are the same in sugar content, why are you all so against the Mistrals then?
          1. VAF
            VAF 28 January 2013 16: 43
            0
            Quote: dm98
            Why are you all so against the Mistral then?


            1. Old and ancient ship (in its design).
            2. Not adapted to our conditions and realities — not by helicopter. Nor by landing boats.
            3. A foreign ship, besides being part of the NATO Navy (this is about illusions about the Zenith and everything else).
            4. There are no forces and means to cover it (well, only if all the forces of all fleets are gathered in one place).
            5. Absolutely low-speed barge (the illusion of using it as a helicopter carrier).
            Etc.
            One word ... Tandem tried to "play" politess and ... got into a puddle! soldier
            1. leon-iv
              leon-iv 28 January 2013 16: 51
              +4
              1. Old and ancient ship (in its design).
              Which was sold neither Koreans nor Spaniards wanted to sell.
              2. Not adapted to our conditions and realities — not by helicopter. Nor by landing boats.
              It has not yet been operated at all. How can we talk about it? We have not even seen the specifications.
              3. A foreign ship, besides being part of the NATO Navy (this is about illusions about the Zenith and everything else).
              Without seeing the circuitry and software I will not speak and I do not advise you.
              4. There are no forces and means to cover it (well, only if all the forces of all fleets are gathered in one place).
              Well, see, you yourself answered. We will fight with NATO strategic nuclear forces and the Papuans will rob there and a couple of frigates will be enough.
              One word ... Tandem tried to "play" politess and ... got into a puddle!
              Moreover, the Navy has not received a single ship yet)))))
            2. dm98
              dm98 28 January 2013 20: 04
              +1
              Quote: vaf
              1. Old and ancient ship (in its design).

              OK! One but. If you are offered two identical cars, only one will be 20 years old and the other new. Which one will you choose?
              Quote: vaf
              2. Not adapted to our conditions and realities — not by helicopter. Nor by landing boats

              All the same, I would like to receive a more detailed answer, rather than approval
              Quote: vaf
              . A foreign ship, besides being part of the NATO Navy (this is about illusions about the Zenith and everything else).

              According to Zenit, I agree about the fact that the foreign one does not see anything bad. I would generally hull the Koreans to cook some of our ships!
              Quote: vaf
              There are no forces and means to cover it (well, only if all the forces of all fleets are gathered in one place).

              I agree. Your suggestion? Buy shock ships from the French? Or write off all the remaining BDK? Or, all the same, to give the Navy more versatile ships (Mitsral), well, of course, you also need to think about building shock ships in this case. Again, it can give the case to cook for foreigners and saturate with weapons themselves at home.
              Quote: vaf
              5. Absolutely low-speed barge (the illusion of using it as a helicopter carrier).
              Etc.

              Does anyone have such illusions? Do the Papuans? I personally do not experience such ....
              Quote: vaf
              One word ... Tandem tried to "play" politess and ... got into a puddle!

              I have a more negative attitude towards a tandem than a positive one, especially to Medvedev. He voted half of his conscious life for the LDPR (in his youth), and then for the Communist Party
            3. mazdie
              mazdie 28 January 2013 23: 06
              0
              We can only guess what caused their choice, but I have serious doubts about its advisability.
      2. vorobey
        vorobey 28 January 2013 14: 09
        +4
        Quote: Old_Kapitan
        They fought against the BDK. And be the UDC ...


        No guys, it was just an over-the-horizon landing, I understand. since I'm sorry but to put OFS into a boat from a tank is much easier than in a projectile box at 1200m. and we could shoot at 9500 OFSom. Coastal artillery hollowed before us.
        1. leon-iv
          leon-iv 28 January 2013 16: 14
          +2
          And if, for example, start landing at the turn of 50 km?
          The same LKAT can also fly 1000 miles.
          And there you can advance the first wave of output.
          + In the second wave of the BDK.
    3. vorobey
      vorobey 28 January 2013 15: 58
      +4
      Quote: INV
      What kind of conveyor? And if at the time of the landing, support aviation began to work for you. As far as I understand, the UDC has a helicopter air wing. What prevents some of the helicopters from being equipped with shock troops? And then, the UDC will not be alone on its own, but as part of a group of ships. And they will certainly have something to "process" the coast before disembarking.


      There is still such a concept in the army as RBU border safe removal.
      If the landing party is hooked on the shore, then excuse me, kindly draw fire into the depths, otherwise the defenders will remain without work.

      Although Westerners are not used to friendly fire. and a projectile in the ass is a common thing.
  20. Uncle Serozha
    Uncle Serozha 28 January 2013 12: 07
    +4
    There are two questions that have long been ripe for me in terms of the Mistral. Hypotheses and analysis are accepted as answers; hurray-patriotic tantrums are not of interest.

    The first question. One of the arguments in favor of the Mistral decision was that the domestic counterpart would not be ready quickly enough. This, as I understand it, means only one thing - that in the near future (and, moreover, well-known) time, our Navy will face tasks that cannot be solved without UDC. (otherwise you could leisurely develop your own UDC, or, as suggested Vadivak, to dig a little quiet project 11780).
    Question: what are these tasks? What are we going to do in the foreseeable future, what cannot be done without UDC and there is no time to wait?

    Second question. Along with helicopters, the UDC can carry VTOL aircraft. We do not currently have them. But they can be developed. Technologies Yak-141, "merged" in the dashing 90s through numerous joint ventures to the Americans, are slowly and painfully embodied in the F-35B - the next generation of the upright aircraft there. We can also resume work in this direction.
    Question: eis there work for "vertical units" in the current conditions? Air support landing? District air defense? Intelligence service? Or is it easier to provide other means (support / reconnaissance - with turntables, air defense - with naval air defense systems)?

    I would like to hear the opinions of those who are closer to the topic. Thank you in advance. Forced to depart now on official need, but I will read later necessarily.
    1. shurup
      shurup 28 January 2013 13: 43
      +2
      Have you heard about ROPIT shipping?
      The task of the UDC is to protect the areas of the Constitutional Court, Far East and Northern Sea Route, to demonstrate the flag in the areas defined by the current doctrine.
      Work - providing northern delivery, freight delivery of goods, participation in operations of the Ministry of Emergencies.
      VTOL is considered an expensive toy, devoid of work. An analysis of the Falkland conflict showed the overwhelming predominance of non-combat losses with dubious positive results.
      Mistral of French origin remains only the Mediterranean region and the role of ballast on the budget.
    2. Vadivak
      Vadivak 28 January 2013 19: 14
      +1
      Quote: Uncle Seryozha
      or, as Vadivak suggested, quietly dug project 11780).

      Well, I suggested, I'm from patriotic feelings. And for me they wanted Mistral-buy one, the sailors will like it, buy another, otherwise it’s better to copy or take the best6 for the domestic one, we have the dough for yachts, we have experience,
      1. Uncle Serozha
        Uncle Serozha 28 January 2013 20: 45
        +1
        Quote: Vadivak
        Well, I suggested, I'm from patriotic feelings. And for me they wanted Mistral-buy one, the sailors will like it, buy another, otherwise it’s better to copy or take the best6 for the domestic one, we have the dough for yachts, we have experience,

        In the normal way it is. That is precisely why I asked the question: what urgency is such that the domestic UDC has no time to wait? And I still don’t understand.
        Quote: shurup
        The task of the UDC is to protect the areas of the Constitutional Court, Far East and Northern Sea Route, to demonstrate the flag in the areas defined by the current doctrine.

        shurup - thanks for the answer. This is not clear. Firstly, why do you need UDCs, which are kind of a means of landing, to protect these areas? But this is not even the main thing, the main thing is this:
        Returning to my original question: what is such urgency? Why does the need to solve the problems you listed should arise in such a near future that there is no time to design your own - do you have to urgently buy from the French, and even in such quantities (taking into account those that will be built with us)? Are we suddenly increasing cargo flows in these areas at times? Or plan to increase? A tanker fleet for transporting liquefied natural gas? What?
        Quote: shurup
        VTOL is considered an expensive toy, devoid of work.

        This is clear. Thanks again.
        1. Kodiak
          Kodiak 29 January 2013 12: 55
          +1
          Quote: Uncle Seryozha
          Returning to my original question: what is such urgency? Why the need for solving the tasks listed by you should arise in such a near future that there is already no time to design your own


          I doubt that anyone here has any information whatsoever comparable to the knowledge of decision makers, but of course you can theoretize.
          1) Who knows when they will begin to divide the Arctic.
          2) Who knows if the Japs will start, having seen enough of the actions of the Chinese, what kind of provocations the Kuril Islands are up to.
          3) Does our company have few interests in different Africa or is there a stable environment?
          And our opportunity to drive the EUG to their shores could very well help the natives become much more prudent and ready to cooperate.
          Well, the opportunity to exchange cut paper for living ships appeared - why not use it?
  21. Rus2012
    Rus2012 28 January 2013 12: 17
    0
    Quote: Mikado
    Kuril Islands, in which case, it is necessary to defend? Do you need to transfer troops to the islands there? Do you need to support Abkhazia in the Black Sea? is it possible to land on the coast of Georgia? In Norway, is it possible to land troops to block its main transport artery? And they are not mastodons, mastodons are American aircraft carriers the size of a city.


    It turns out that MRK "Buyan" can plant on AUG for 2,5-3,5 thousand. km promising "Caliber".
    http://www.militaryparitet.com/ttp/data/ic_ttp/4981/


    Cruise missiles are located in vertical launchers in the superstructure of the ship immediately behind the mast. The design does not provide means for the issuance of target designations, instead of them there are so-called universal firing ship systems that provide guidance to the target from other sources. It can be reconnaissance aircraft, other ships, orbiting satellites.

    Those. from the Caspian Sea easily reaches the World Cup, and with the World Cup in the Mediterranean bully am hi
    And we were so worried about our fleet ...
    1. VAF
      VAF 28 January 2013 13: 13
      0
      Quote: Rus2012
      It turns out that MRK "Buyan" can plant on AUG for 2,5-3,5 thousand. km promising "Caliber".


      This is still .. the distant future, and especially if we take the "pace" of construction and the adoption into service with .. "main" weapons "!

      Quote: Rus2012
      And we were so worried about our fleet ...


      So development has always been a shaft and excellent. but in fact .. how much and where ??? crying
    2. atesterev
      atesterev 28 January 2013 13: 17
      +3
      Everything is great, but in the photo there is never Buyan, but the 1234 Diamond Gadfly,
      1. dmitreach
        dmitreach 28 January 2013 17: 00
        +1
        I wanted to write about it))) plus you. Although among the Gadflies pr 1234, there may have been "Buyan". We need to look at the list of MRK names.
        here is Buyan-M pr. 21631, which is for 2,5-3,5 thousand. km promising "Caliber", zhahnet.
        http://army-news.ru/2011/03/korabl-buyan-21631/
        1. Aleksys2
          Aleksys2 28 January 2013 17: 24
          0
          Quote: dmitreach
          here is Buyan-M pr. 21631, which is for 2,5-3,5 thousand. km promising "Caliber", zhahnet.

          You, this, didn’t beguile anything?
          The small missile ships of the 21631 project (code "Buyan-M") are multipurpose ships of the "river-sea" class.
          It is armed with a vertical launcher of the 3P-14UKSK complex on the 8 anti-ship missiles "Caliber" or "Onyx", which makes it possible to strike with high-precision cruise missiles both at sea and ground targets.
          OCD Caliber - firing range 220 / 300 km
          P-800 “Onyx” - Range, along a combined path (length of the end section 40 km) - 300 km, along a low-altitude path - 120 km

          I’m embarrassed to ask, where is 2,5-3,5tys. km ??
          1. PLO
            PLO 28 January 2013 17: 36
            +1
            I’m embarrassed to ask, where is 2,5-3,5tys. km ??

            that's right
            you have some incomprehensible source that most likely uses data for export missiles that are all limited by the MTCR treaty with a range of 300 km, and for domestic missiles TTX have never been reliably voiced, because military secret

            although according to some sources it is known that, for example, Onyx flies at a distance of more than 400 km, and the CRBD Caliber at 2600 km
            1. dmitreach
              dmitreach 28 January 2013 21: 02
              0
              There still infa popped up that satellite reconnaissance was being restored ... So how much will they fly, having target designation from orbit, only Putin knows. laughing
              Under START III, they certainly do not fall !!!! laughing laughing laughing
            2. mazdie
              mazdie 28 January 2013 23: 12
              0
              But what about the treaty on limiting medium-range missiles?
        2. mazdie
          mazdie 28 January 2013 23: 11
          0
          I do not believe in such ranges RCC
    3. Strategia
      Strategia 28 January 2013 14: 00
      0
      To sink an aircraft carrier (and certainly not AUG) requires a direct hit of 10-15 anti-ship missiles. "Eat something he eat, but why should he give it ?!"
      1. atesterev
        atesterev 28 January 2013 16: 37
        +1
        It’s not necessary to sink, it’s enough to disable it by 5 months. And then it will be taken for repair, it will be repaired, then the team will hand over combat missions ... And only after that it will go into operation :)
        1. Strategia
          Strategia 28 January 2013 16: 52
          -1
          So this is again 3-5 RCC minimum, and even in the right places.
    4. PLO
      PLO 28 January 2013 17: 20
      +2
      It turns out that MRK "Buyan" can plant on AUG for 2,5-3,5 thousand. km promising "Caliber".

      congratulations fellow
      you just invented a bike

      you mean the long-range cruise missiles (CRBDs) of the 3M10 Caliber, their maximum range was indicated at 2600km, but this is almost certainly the firing range with nuclear warheads, with the OFBCH range, according to some reports, is 1700km, but not the point ..

      most importantly, all the CRBMs are primarily intended for firing at stationary targets from the control center at Glonas / GPS or with the help of ANNs, and firing at moving ships in particular at ships is possible only with the help of nuclear warheads, because they usually do not have ARLGS for homing

      if you googled a little more, you would understand why CRBDs are not used as anti-ship missiles (I give a hint: calculate the time of approach of this missile to the target at maximum range, taking into account the fact that their speed is usually 0.8M)

      By the way, the same Americans abandoned the anti-ship version of the Tomahawks a very long time ago
      1. Windbreak
        Windbreak 30 January 2013 23: 12
        0
        Quote: olp
        By the way, the same Americans abandoned the anti-ship version of the Tomahawks a very long time ago
        So this version has a range of 550 km.
  22. anchonsha
    anchonsha 28 January 2013 12: 28
    +3
    This mess with "mistrals", Italian "lynxes" suggests that there is no council in the country under the Minister of Defense and, in general, under the state, where such issues as the modernization of the army, the renewal of weapons, procurement abroad, etc. would be resolved. Maybe they are, but then they mean nothing. How can a minister completely carry out reforms in favor of the United States, the West, and no one will forbid him?
  23. Strategia
    Strategia 28 January 2013 12: 39
    +2
    It seems that the dispute needs to be resolved from two points of view - economic and military. From an economic point of view, calculate: a) how much will be spent on the actual purchase of ships, taking into account their possible "fit" to our standards or fit our filling to their hull; b) how much operating materials, repair kits, tools, fixtures, equipment for maintenance and repair will cost, taking into account their wear, breakdowns, losses (if ours do not fit); c) how much will it cost to train our specialists for the primary use of ships, as well as the cost of restructuring the educational process and UMB training specialists in the future. Then compare these figures with the cost figures in the case of building these ships in Russia. From a military point of view, in my opinion, this issue is unambiguously resolved in favor of the UDC as a ship corresponding to the nature and methods of conducting modern military operations (over-the-horizon landing, complex use of forces and means ...). Plus the time factor. And then it will be possible to more accurately prioritize the choice. As for the question of where to use ships, it's not only in the colonies. First, they may be needed to liberate their islands in the event of a sudden capture by the enemy. Secondly, with the strengthening of groupings of troops in certain areas (for example, Kamchatka) in conditions when the coast is already controlled by the enemy. And, thirdly, to assist ground groupings operating in coastal areas by landing amphibious assault forces, including in defensive operations. IMHO
  24. vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 28 January 2013 12: 53
    -1
    Again the Mistral, squalor and not a ship, Nowadays such a colossus will only leave the home port, satellites will already detect it and then you will not hide it anywhere, especially according to the strategy of use it should go in a group of ships of some squadron. A logical question against whom are we going to use it, against NATO? or against a banana republic on the coast of Africa? If no one ever laughs at NATO even at a small distance accessible for landing, if it is against African countries, does Russia have such interests there? It turns out that they bought a super expensive imported toy, which would also be just as expensive, the French built a ship that they didn’t need and who didn’t need to sack it, but then our burdocks turned up and bought it at exorbitant prices. I am amazed at such an active discussion of such an empty topic, and Mistral’s supporters do not quit disputes, like stubborn rams trying to find out what is very necessary and most importantly what a beautiful and comfortable ship, the most powerful argument on their part is that it’s important new, it’s interesting who lives in the city will buy super expensive potato harvester just because it is new?
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 28 January 2013 15: 45
      +1
      Do you think that other ships will not be detected by satellites. Mistral's main task is to represent the conventionally "colonial" interests of Russia. And they are, and there are many of them. And in most cases, the enemy is quite limited in means - tanks, armored personnel carriers, small arms and some air defense.

      Or do you have something else to offer for projecting power in different corners of the planet?
      1. vladsolo56
        vladsolo56 28 January 2013 18: 07
        -1
        Well, I really didn’t know that Russia had such interests, and where, if not a secret? name at least one country. Damn even interesting
  25. sashka
    sashka 28 January 2013 12: 56
    -2
    What dregs .. For what, to whom and why is it necessary? Specifically .. Maybe someone knows?
    Are we going somewhere? Then the question is WHERE?
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 28 January 2013 15: 46
      0
      Well, if you look at the map, you will find many answers
  26. shurup
    shurup 28 January 2013 12: 56
    -2
    UDC fleet needs not two, but six minimally. When Russian shipyards do not have time, it is historically allowed to build abroad. But weapons are made in Russia.
    Why the order was handed over to the French is the main question. Why not Swedes, finals, Koreans? They don’t give bribes! - the main answer.
    The signed contracts will have to be fulfilled, but who will be responsible for the money thrown away?
    And, I repeat, it is necessary to build immediately the Arctic options, and not the Mistral. In this, let the French learn from Russia.
    1. Cheloveck
      Cheloveck 28 January 2013 13: 51
      +1
      Quote: shurup
      UDC fleet needs not two, but six minimally.

      What for?
      What will they do, against whom?
    2. Pimply
      Pimply 28 January 2013 15: 49
      0
      In NATO, the same French are the most independent unit.

      Korean shipbuilders have too strong ties with the United States, and too much American equipment — the deal would be blocked. The Spaniards have the same canoe. What are the UDC from the Swedes and Finns? And get an answer, not a scream - they don’t give bribes. Are these Koreans, for example, for whom corruption is still surfacing here and there at the state level?
      1. shurup
        shurup 28 January 2013 19: 46
        0
        Buy a share in the United Shipbuilding Corporation. Medvedev will sell it to you. On the board there, by the way, is the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy.
        The corporation has joint ventures with Koreans and French. Recently, the flag was hoisted on the third super tanker at 120 thousand tons and is already being flung at millionaires (t.s. made in Korea).
        You, as a shareholder, will be explained why it is possible to build a nuclear submarine, but there is no UDC. They will also explain that the Russian-French enterprise was created for joint participation in tenders.
        Then together we’ll say that everything is collapsed, we can’t do anything, and that we can - everything’s loaded.
        Empty glassware is not accepted - no containers. We take cullet, but cheaper. A collateral bye-bye.
        1. shurup
          shurup 28 January 2013 20: 17
          0
          Here is the continuation - Vysotsky was offered the position of deputy chief of the General Staff, because he is not yet old.
          Mistral is to be!
        2. Uncle Serozha
          Uncle Serozha 28 January 2013 20: 58
          0
          Quote: shurup
          Then together we’ll say that everything is collapsed, we can’t do anything, and that we can - everything’s loaded.
          Empty glassware is not accepted - no containers. We take cullet, but cheaper. A collateral bye-bye.

          Can this be decoded for the crews of armored vehicles? feel
  27. redwolf_13
    redwolf_13 28 January 2013 13: 01
    +4
    All dear I came up with a job for "Mistrelia" the idea was stolen from the US Navy
    "The photo shows the US Navy nuclear-powered aircraft carrier CVN76" R. Reagan ", you can see how enterprising warriors use it - they transport private cars on a ship worth $ 4,5 billion! This is where the money of unfortunate American taxpayers goes! and his "furniture maker" L. Panetta ?! "
    VO how are you landing? Grandmas they earn will be like a steam
    So what do you think
    1. VAF
      VAF 28 January 2013 13: 15
      +1
      Quote: redwolf_13
      it can be seen how enterprising warriors use it - they transport private cars on a ship worth 4,5 billion dollars!


      Well, if you wrote it with irony, or ... so under ... then ... fellow

      And so ... juggle? negative
      1. redwolf_13
        redwolf_13 28 January 2013 13: 37
        0
        I did not distort it just a caption under the photo
        Here is the link http://nosikot.livejournal.com/466265.html
        and it should look exactly as you wrote
        under ... then fellow
        1. VAF
          VAF 28 January 2013 14: 19
          +3
          Quote: redwolf_13
          I did not distort it just a caption under the photo
          Here is the link http://nosikot.livejournal.com/466265.html


          If you immediately laid out a link to this .. RESUMER, then there wouldn’t be any complaints to you at all, or I repeat .... would give these photos as if .. well, or as a joke. Mockery, etc.
          This is welcome. I love myself ... joke!

          But in fact on the face .. care about the personnel of the aircraft carrier. Which is undergoing scheduled repairs and transporting cars of personnel to a new place of temporary deployment!
          What's bad about it??? Or tell you how in 1990 we were thrown out of the GSVG into a clean field? The planes are on concrete, but here we are with wives and children and with all the belongings in tents and hastily put together plywood huts!
          did not try to live at -40 ????
          Highly recommend!
          I won’t be talking about tankers at all, since there generally ..... Well ... And it was complete. Especially in the Voronezh province!
          the film was so artistic, the battalion commander was there ... when the whole battalion lived in tanks! So this is true ..... and you are here about ........! negative
          1. dmitreach
            dmitreach 28 January 2013 17: 10
            +1
            A photo is a great example of caring for the personnel of an aircraft carrier and their families!
          2. redwolf_13
            redwolf_13 28 January 2013 17: 14
            +1
            Tell yes no no sad stories I don’t like, especially if you tell something new or instructive. At -40 I have visited yes agree little pleasant. Well, we have always been valued by the state. When he needs it so it is the Motherland and what we need is the way it is "I'm sorry I can't help the state"
            Yes, maybe it was just hard to see, but the text was in quotation marks, which by itself determines that this is an excerpt from the context. Although I apologize again if I was wrong about something. Although where there is ... at least I do not see a kill. Well, as they say, the taste and color of the felt-tip pens cannot be typed
            1. VAF
              VAF 28 January 2013 18: 35
              0
              Quote: redwolf_13
              Although where there is ... at least I do not see a kill. Well, as they say, the taste and color of the felt-tip pens cannot be typed


              So I wrote on the contrary. what if in the form of irony, jokes, or under .. I'm just for it! I myself love over amers .. make a joke. so you just don't get it, +! drinks

              Well, like this:

              1. Vadivak
                Vadivak 28 January 2013 19: 16
                +3
                Quote: vaf
                Well, like this:

                If it’s take off, okay, and if it’s landing, then to the bottom
                1. Aleksys2
                  Aleksys2 28 January 2013 19: 36
                  +1
                  Quote: Vadivak
                  and if landing then to the bottom

                  Landing, well, what is the "bottom", it seems to be on the glide path, it is protruding, the aerofinisher is taut, right now it will catch on and smoothly stop.
                  1. Vadivak
                    Vadivak 29 January 2013 10: 37
                    +2
                    Quote: Aleksys2
                    Landing, well, what is the "bottom",

                    Because he punches all the decks in FIG and they drown together
    2. vladsolo56
      vladsolo56 28 January 2013 18: 09
      -1
      It’s just they are being built for Vladivostok and then hucksters will be transported from Japan by cars
  28. Simon
    Simon 28 January 2013 13: 11
    +7
    Let the French build Mistrals for us, especially since we have nowhere to build them, all the shipyards are loaded. And then Russia will have everything, ekranoplanes, aircraft carriers, and new landing ships. Everything has its time. And this gap should at least be filled with Mistrals.
  29. Strashila
    Strashila 28 January 2013 13: 34
    +4
    "It is known that for use in the Russian Navy, the project of the French UDC has undergone a number of improvements, among which, obviously, were aimed at increasing the simplicity of equipment for working in difficult conditions inherent in some regions close to Russia. In addition, in the negotiations on the Russian-French high-ranking naval commanders participated in the contract at one time, and they would hardly have ignored such obvious and important things. "... confirmation of the insanity of the situation ... high-ranking naval commanders ??? since when did they become awesome specialists in design ... from where do they know the intricacies of design work. This is known only to specialists who are not mediocre on the project, this is their bread and all their knowledge they will not tell ... I repeat, this is their bread, which has been accumulating for decades. The naval guys were blowing what the command was given ... then obvious and important things ... funny.
    1. Strategia
      Strategia 28 January 2013 13: 40
      -1
      Yah! But the military commanders, therefore, do not know what kind of performance characteristics their ships need ?! Well, they killed! laughing
      1. Strashila
        Strashila 28 January 2013 22: 11
        0
        To know the performance characteristics of ships is one thing, but to know how to provide performance characteristics of ships during the design is completely different. wink
  30. toguns
    toguns 28 January 2013 13: 37
    +3
    There are no Mistral yet, but experts are already breaking spears at the forum.
    As the subject of the dispute appears in iron then it will be possible to talk about something and talk, in any case, the new ship will be for sailors and marines in joy.
    1. El13
      El13 28 January 2013 16: 39
      +1
      Quote: toguns
      There are no Mistral yet, but experts are already breaking spears at the forum.

      I read to your post ... I have not met experts laughing
  31. Aleksys2
    Aleksys2 28 January 2013 14: 17
    +3
    For reference, so to speak:
    As part of the U.S. Navy at 30 December 2012 years were 288 ships and vessels of various types, including:
    Nuclear multi-purpose aircraft carriers
    type "Nimitz" (Nimitz) - 10
    Cruisers URO
    type "Ticonderoga" (Ticonderoga) - 22
    Destroyers URO
    Arleigh Burke Type - 62
    Frigate URO
    type "Oliver H. Perry" (Oliver H. Perry) - 22
    Coastal Ships
    Type Freedom - 2
    type "Independence" (Independence) - 1
    Ballistic missile nuclear submarines
    type "Ohio" (Ohio) - 14
    Nuclear submarines with cruise missiles
    type "Ohio" (Ohio) - 4
    Nuclear submarines
    type "Los Angeles" (Los Angeles) - 42
    type "Sivulf" (Seawolf) - 3
    type "Virginia" (Virginia) - 9
    Airborne Headquarters Ships
    Blue Ridge Type - 2
    Universal amphibious ships
    type "Wasp" (Wasp) - 8
    type "Tarawa" (Tarawa) - 1
    Landing helicopter docks
    type "Austin" (Austin) - 2
    type "San Antonio" (San Antonio) - 6
    Landing docks
    Whidbey Island type - 8
    Harpers Ferry Type - 4
    Mine sweeping ships
    Avenger Type - 14

    Total: 164 surface and 72 submarines in total 236 of which 29 landing (12,29%)

    As part of the Russian Navy at the end of the 2012 year were:
    "Aircraft carrier" - 1
    Cruiser:
    type "Orlan" 3, of which in the ranks 1
    RC type "Atlant" - only 3 in service 2
    EM - total 7, in the ranks of 3
    BOD - total 11, in the ranks of 10
    BDK - 19
    MDKVP -2 in the ranks of 1
    SC - 7
    minesweepers - 16
    Sub
    APLB - 12 in the ranks of 8
    APLKR - 8, in the ranks of 4
    Torpedo tubes - 20, in the ranks of 11
    Total: 60 surface and 23 submarines in total 83 of which 20 landing (24,1%)
    Is enumeration of some positions in the Russian Navy noticeable only to me?
    1. vorobey
      vorobey 28 January 2013 16: 26
      +3
      Quote: Aleksys2
      in the Russian Navy is noticeable only to me?


      Well, it’s not immediately apparent. Although in terms of transported numbers and autonomy, they replay.
      1. Aleksys2
        Aleksys2 28 January 2013 17: 03
        0
        Distortion in the ratio of "strike" ships and landing ships.
        If it’s rude, then for one of their paratroopers they have - 4,66 drums, we have for one paratrooper - 1,2 drums.
        1. PLO
          PLO 28 January 2013 18: 34
          -1
          I will add a little
          "Aircraft carrier" - 1
          Cruiser:
          type "Orlan" 3, of which in the ranks 1
          RC type "Atlant" - only 3 in service 2
          EM - total 7, in the ranks of 3

          Kuznetsov in the ranks, but at the moment he is far from combat ready and will not become combat ready until his modernization
          We still have Atlantis in the ranks of 3, not 2, although Ustinov is currently on modernization
          there are really only 3 destroyers, the rest will not be restored, and those that are not in service on long trips

          BOD - total 11, in the ranks of 10
          SC - 7

          BOD strike ships are considered purely conditional, they have only anti-submarine weapons and self-defense air defense
          I don’t know where you scraped 7 patrol ships, but only Hawks in the BF are really combat-ready, and the Undaunted still has no full-time missile weapons (8 Uranus missile launchers), despite the fact that these bitches found 1.2 billion in Mistrai, and 10 millions on the undaunted to make it fully operational ship failed
          3 more SKs are on the Black Sea Fleet, but they are all hopelessly outdated and you can call them shock only to maintain pants fighting spirit
          1. Aleksys2
            Aleksys2 28 January 2013 19: 04
            -1
            I do not insist on the absolute accuracy of the data I have given, because the Internet is not always the height of accuracy and objectivity, but I have indicated the trend correctly.
            Quote: olp
            BOD shock ships are considered conditionally

            Well, without fish and in the pose of a drinking deer you stand up ...
    2. vladsolo56
      vladsolo56 28 January 2013 18: 13
      -2
      You may not know the policy of the United States, they climb wherever they want, but knowing the enemy in advance is so weak that they are not in danger, that's why they have a lot of landing ships. Russia is not going anywhere, why do we need these monsters? everyone says they need it, why? who will answer intelligently and reasonably, is there at least one who can do this?
  32. Nechai
    Nechai 28 January 2013 14: 34
    +1
    Quote: dm98
    Now compare the over-land landing and the land landing directly, who has a better chance?

    Quote: vorobey
    to put OFS into the boat from the tank is much easier than to put into the projectile box at 1200m.

    Resistance to landing can be carried out not only from the coast by forces of the troops.
    In the Union, in the Kaliningrad region, an experiment was conducted. The regiment surrendered 64, received 62k And experimental pantons. The idea - with the threat of a landing, the tanks ascending such a floating means, are fixed on it, the piece is broken, attached. The drive wheel is connected to the drive, respectively, of the right and left screw. One (two see weather forecast) knee of air-supplying work is installed, valve box for exhaust. The control system of the pan flooding valves is connected to the tank's VVD system. And forward. Having come to a predetermined boundary and having dispersed, the pontoons are submerged. There is only a tower above the water. We are waiting, with UBDK ... And on the drum what they thought of the landing, where we should meet and drown it. And in the sea, it’s fatal to hit such a well-armored stealth target. At least someone ...
    1. Strategia
      Strategia 28 January 2013 15: 09
      0
      And how do you think, how many shells of 115 mm TP need to be planted in the UDC (and what are the most vulnerable spots) in order to sink or withdraw from battle at least for a day?
      1. dm98
        dm98 28 January 2013 15: 22
        -1
        I’ll supplement Strategia with your permission!

        and who said that the UDC will stand at a distance of an art shot?
      2. VAF
        VAF 28 January 2013 16: 47
        -1
        Quote: Strategia
        And how do you think, how many shells of 115-mm TP should be planted in UDC


        1-n, well 2-a to the Island and that’s all ... the Mistral is over. and if you also get on the deck, where .. helicopters ...
        I hope the photo does not need to be brought ... which are already sore from contemplation. what ends undermining one NAR'a ????? lol
    2. dm98
      dm98 28 January 2013 15: 15
      0
      Nechai
      yeah, only until the Mistral will have to row oars on such a raft for a long time!
      And again, than in this situation, the mistral will look worse?
      You yourself say that hitting such an armored small-sized target is difficult! And if from a helicopter ??? And if this helicopter will be called Ka-52 ???
      1. vorobey
        vorobey 28 January 2013 16: 25
        +2
        dm98,
        Strategia,

        you better ask what the Mistral can object if this frantic horde would go boarding.

        Nechai,
        Valera, honestly did not know about this.
        1. dm98
          dm98 28 January 2013 17: 11
          +1
          If you are talking about tanks on rafts ..... monitors, or whatever they are called there, then you already answered mom-ka-52, is it not their opponent?
    3. leon-iv
      leon-iv 28 January 2013 16: 29
      +3
      And in the sea, it’s fatal to hit such a well-armored stealth target. At least someone ...

      But the excitement of the sea?
    4. redwolf_13
      redwolf_13 28 January 2013 17: 03
      0
      Interesting thing, but here's the question
      1. How long will you prepare this building for the descent. After all, it is necessary to unhook it, connect it to the rowing drives, set the air intakes. and most importantly sealed. In a sea of ​​water, a cold crew will freeze cold.
      2. during shelling, the water hammer has not been canceled. the engines will stall, the electronics will stand up and the whole skiff will tear off the insulation. In the end, he receives about 20-30 "Varyag" pieces, provided that the pantones do not run out at the seams and then hello to the sea king
    5. SIT
      SIT 28 January 2013 18: 38
      +3
      Quote: Nechai
      Only water above the tower

      But the breeze then cleared by noon and a wave height of 1.5m - 2m. Can a tank gun stabilization system be able to compensate for the keel and roll of such amplitudes? And what will the tank commander and the gunner see in the sprayed optics? It is better not to look at the Mekhvod in his markup, especially if he is the son of the steppes and cannot swim.
      1. Uncle Serozha
        Uncle Serozha 28 January 2013 21: 03
        0
        Quote: SIT
        But the breeze then cleared by noon and a wave height of 1.5m - 2m. Can a tank gun stabilization system be able to compensate for the keel and roll of such amplitudes? And what will the tank commander and the gunner see in the sprayed optics? It is better not to look at the Mekhvod in his markup, especially if he is the son of the steppes and cannot swim.

        It's five! lol
    6. Vadivak
      Vadivak 28 January 2013 19: 19
      +1
      Quote: Nechai
      There is only a tower above the water. We are waiting with UBDK ..


      Wow raft.
    7. Misantrop
      Misantrop 28 January 2013 21: 34
      0
      Quote: Nechai
      Resistance to landing can be carried out not only from the coast by forces of the troops.

      Watching how to counteract wink
      If A-222 "Coast", then it will be enough laughing
      http://rnns.ru/14910-udarnaja-sila-artillerijjskijj-specnaz-mak-bereg.html
  33. Letnab
    Letnab 28 January 2013 14: 51
    +1
    Yes, the gimmick of invention is cunning !!!! it was fun!
  34. Mr.Fox
    Mr.Fox 28 January 2013 15: 09
    +4
    Looking at this dance around the Mistrals, I ask myself this question: did Serdyukov really make the decision to buy them personally, without consulting the president? And now he suddenly became the scapegoat. We found such a convenient switchman, but what about the supreme commander in chief? Or Putin (or then Medvedev) is always in white?
  35. Nechai
    Nechai 28 January 2013 15: 56
    0
    Quote: dm98
    And if this helicopter will be called Ka-52 ???

    Are you already going to sell the Ka-52 abroad? And secondly, YOU did not notice that the Tank Regiment then replaced only tanks, and I painted here the work of only tankers. Update in OSHS TP memory. Who said that ZRABatr and ADN on self-propelled guns remained on the bank?
    Quote: dm98
    and who said that the UDC will stand at a distance of an art shot?

    The UDC will run within the water area, allowing for an amphibious operation, albeit "over the horizon". There will be a surprise for them. In the end, you can't throw EVERYTHING through the air. And directly to the water's edge the flow of goods will be large. As for the dm98 oars, you're very excited, the normal speed of the MONITOR. Yes, 115mm cannon is not the best weapon for long range shooting. And about the effectiveness of CO even TPT, you apparently have, excuse me, a poor idea. As well as its possible range. After all, this option allows for small denyuzhki to significantly increase and strengthen the forces and means of antiamphibious defense of the coast. And you don't have to attribute to me the idea that ONE tankers will defend themselves.
    Moreover, the idea is tempting in the light of countering the tactics of amphibious operations by the PLA and Japan's Self-Defense Forces near our Far Eastern shores.
    1. dm98
      dm98 28 January 2013 16: 03
      -2
      Nechai
      Quote: dm98
      And if this helicopter will be called Ka-52 ???
      Are you already going to sell the Ka-52 abroad? And secondly, YOU did not notice that the Tank Regiment then replaced only tanks, and I painted here the work of only tankers. Update in OSHS TP memory. Who said that ZRABatr and ADN on self-propelled guns remained on the bank?
      ,
      It was addressed in response to this.
      Nechai
      Resistance to landing can be carried out not only from the coast by forces of the troops.
      In the Union, in the Kaliningrad region, an experiment was conducted. The regiment surrendered 64, received 62k And experimental pantons. The idea - with the threat of a landing, the tanks ascending such a floating means, are fixed on it, the piece is broken, attached. The drive wheel is connected to the drive, respectively, of the right and left screw. One (two see weather forecast) knee of air-supplying work is installed, valve box for exhaust. The control system of the pan flooding valves is connected to the tank's VVD system. And forward. Having come to a predetermined boundary and having dispersed, the pontoons are submerged. There is only a tower above the water. We are waiting, with UBDK ... And on the drum what they thought of the landing, where we should meet and drown it. And in the sea, it’s fatal to hit such a well-armored stealth target. At least someone ...
      ,


      Nechai
      The UDC will run within the water area, allowing for an amphibious operation, albeit "over the horizon". There will be a surprise for them. In the end, you can't throw EVERYTHING through the air. As for the oars, you're very excited, the normal speed of the MONITOR. Yes, 115mm cannon is not the best weapon for long range shooting. And about the effectiveness of CO, even TPT, you apparently have, excuse the poor idea. As well as its range.
      This option, after all, allows you to significantly increase and strengthen the forces and means of the airborne defense of the coast for small denyuzhki. And do not ascribe to me the idea that ONE tankers will defend themselves.
      Moreover, the idea is tempting in the light of counteracting the tactics of conducting PLA landing operations.
      ,

      Again I did not understand why in this situation UDC is worse than BDK
    2. Strategia
      Strategia 28 January 2013 16: 34
      +1
      What about the seaworthiness of these "floating tank firing points", what are the characteristics? To what maximum depth or to what maximum distance from the shore can they be used? Practical shooting was carried out by the staff from a submerged position?
    3. Strategia
      Strategia 28 January 2013 17: 19
      -1
      I will allow myself to be tactless, I will ask the question again. Interesting as a tanker! What about the seaworthiness of these "floating tank firing points", what are the characteristics? To what maximum depth or to what maximum distance from the shore can they be used? Practical shooting was carried out by the staff from a submerged position?
    4. dm98
      dm98 28 January 2013 20: 09
      -1
      Quote: Nechai
      Quote: dm98
      And if this helicopter will be called Ka-52 ???

      Are you already going to sell the Ka-52 abroad? And second,

      Who has suggested such nonsense to you?
  36. TSOOBER
    TSOOBER 28 January 2013 16: 16
    0
    Since when are Russia's interests bound only by the internal seas? Russia has become a country that has no interests in “anywhere in the world ocean”? Russia does not plan to build foreign bases? -Why are they chasing the Papuans -And how to protect their economic interests abroad (why are we strong? -We are diplomats)? Russia doesn’t see anything further than its own nose? Does the country want to be strong? Russia had, is and will be economic interests abroad, and since today the center of economic activity will move from Asia to Africa (I read there are such forecasts, even China is planning to transfer part of the production + minerals) - so it will be necessary, as befits a Great Country, to build bases there and periodically kill the Papuans (figuratively) simply by demonstrating to them that it is worth fulfilling their obligations. Whatever the purpose of Mistral! acceptable for the Arctic, strengthen the sides, bring the operating temperature to -50, etc.) And help the Kuriles if the "battles" for the Arctic are just around the corner. They will gradually find strengths and weaknesses and the next will be Mistral-AZM (Arctic zone modernized)
    1. dm98
      dm98 28 January 2013 16: 33
      +1
      Yes smokers is an example
      I just want to say something else
      Yes, it’s bad that not our shipyards are building, it’s bad that it is not an aircraft carrier, yes it’s bad that it doesn’t fit into our Navy, yes, it’s bad, damn, it’s expensive, but probably a lot was stolen from this deal, etc. But in this situation, we all the same have combat units !!!!! and not just sawn money (an example is the road to giving Serdyukov’s son-in-law). we have, albeit not advanced, but all the same technologies, even if they WERE used to be with us, but we prosralized them safely! We have combat units on which the crews will be formed and which will go to sea and not sit on a rusty formidable combat unit at the pier! we will have a new infrastructure, which will remain after the mistral. And finally, we will gain experience, trips, exploitation ....... these are the PERSONNEL that we really need, and we will prepare them now and not in the classrooms but on the ship!
      Therefore, this unfortunate Mistral path is not at all adapted to our Navy, even if it costs at least 10 billion ............. this money would simply be stolen!
  37. Sleptsoff
    Sleptsoff 28 January 2013 16: 25
    0
    What's wrong with buying 2 helicopter carriers? They will not be superfluous, given that we cannot build such ships, for the solution of local conflicts it is it.
  38. Alejandro
    Alejandro 28 January 2013 16: 32
    +2
    The development and construction of our own universal landing ships will take several years, and it is unlikely that the head UDC of our own project will be launched before 2020. In addition, during its creation, various changes in appearance and other things are possible that do not contribute to the speedy completion of work. In this case, the purchase of French ships will help to learn in practice all the pros and cons of this class and take appropriate measures when creating your own UDC. I think some people say nonsense that Mistral is not needed and it can only be put on needles. Ships have already been bought and are being built. And I think no one will argue. that the landing of forces supported by 16 turntables, control systems and a hospital on a boat would be more successful than without all this. And those who say that for them there is no purpose for use, answer, then maybe we don’t need landing ships at all, then we are not going to land today?
    1. vorobey
      vorobey 28 January 2013 16: 47
      +4
      Quote: Alejandro
      Ships have already been bought and are being built.


      You are my cons, and I give you a plus for this. right .from two pieces you can’t get anywhere, but the fact that they have still refused two is good.

      let the command ship, the hospital, the extra ration with you take two pieces to the autonomous area.
    2. Aleksys2
      Aleksys2 28 January 2013 17: 06
      0
      Quote: Alejandro
      And I think no one will argue. that an amphibious assault by 16-powered turntables, control systems and a hospital on a boat would be more successful than without all this.

      I will argue. Name the country where Mistral alonee will be able to land.
      1. dm98
        dm98 28 January 2013 17: 24
        0
        Although I did not write, but read carefully!Aleksys2,
        Quote: Aleksys2

        forces backed by 16 turntables, control systems and a hospital




        Why do you always send the mistral alone?
        And if, according to your logic, send one BDK without support what will happen to it?))))
        1. Aleksys2
          Aleksys2 28 January 2013 17: 55
          -2
          Quote: dm98
          Why do you always send the mistral alone?

          It's not me, it's you trying to send it somewhere alone.
          Well, name the approximate composition of the order required for a "comfortable" landing from the Mistral.
          1. dm98
            dm98 28 January 2013 20: 14
            +2
            Quote: Aleksys2
            It's not me, it's you trying to send it somewhere alone.
            Well, name the approximate composition of the order required for a "comfortable" landing from the Mistral.

            Yes, no, dear, just the opposite.
            At the expense of the ship’s composition of the warrant ..... I will not name it, because I don’t know.
            I’ll answer differently here are the latest events off the coast of Syria: the cruiser Moscow, BOD, a couple of TFRs, and several BDKs. How do you think the mistral would fit into the detachment? And would he strengthen it in case of landing?
            1. Aleksys2
              Aleksys2 28 January 2013 20: 21
              -4
              Quote: dm98
              How do you think the mistral would fit into the detachment? And would he strengthen it in case of landing?

              You can enter anything and anywhere. Landing where? Landing why? Do you really want to fight?
              1. dm98
                dm98 28 January 2013 20: 34
                +3
                Quote: Aleksys2
                Quote: dm98
                How do you think the mistral would fit into the detachment? And would he strengthen it in case of landing?

                You can enter anything and anywhere. Landing where? Landing why? Do you really want to fight?

                Listen, you can answer the question normally?
                1. Aleksys2
                  Aleksys2 28 January 2013 21: 26
                  -2
                  Quote: dm98
                  Listen, you can answer the question normally?

                  I can, about how the landing operation is carried out, I already wrote in this thread. Then the question naturally arises, where are we going to land? To Turkey? To Israel? To Lebanon? To Egypt? To Syria? In Syria - this is not a landing, the military contingent can simply be landed in the port. Further, why are we planting a military contingent there, to fight for the cloudless future of Syria? Based on the results of your answers, I will answer whether Mistral will fit in there and whether he will strengthen the detachment when landing.
                  1. dm98
                    dm98 28 January 2013 21: 50
                    +1
                    Aleksys2,
                    no thanks)))
                    I am not here to argue, I am here to reason and get a normal dialogue.
                    PS Wash from the question, everything is clear enough))) wink
                    1. Aleksys2
                      Aleksys2 28 January 2013 22: 27
                      -1
                      Quote: dm98
                      PS Wash from the question, everything is clear enough)))

                      Orders from "cruiser Moscow, BOD, pair of TFR," will not be enough to ensure the landing, even with the Mistral, or without. For none of the listed pennants can suppress air defense, anti-aircraft defense and other fortifications. This warrant is sharpened against naval targets. Therefore, you will have to land under fire, and in this case, Mistral, with its under-equipping, does not fit in either way. Ivan Rogov would have looked more organic here with his hail.
                      1. dm98
                        dm98 28 January 2013 23: 21
                        +1
                        Aleksys2
                        Orders from "cruiser Moscow, BOD, pair of TFR," will not be enough to ensure the landing, even with the Mistral, or without. For none of the listed pennants can suppress air defense, anti-aircraft defense and other fortifications. This warrant is sharpened against naval targets. Therefore, you will have to land under fire, and in this case, Mistral, with its under-equipping, does not fit in either way. Ivan Rogov would have looked more organic here with his hail.
                        ,
                        You see, if you discard all nit-picking, the question immediately becomes clear))))
                        I agree with you, but not to the end. To carry out an amphibious operation with such a detachment is a suicide, that with a mistral, that with a horn, then aviation is needed! and not the one on the mistral. And how correctly does Waf say to gain superiority in the air, and when it is won, that mistral will look very, very much in topic, and much more sympathetic than any BDK from the order! Where to get this aircraft is another question, but I think it is being solved!

                        PS: And why are you only wearing colonel epaulettes? What do these hailstones do not give you peace of mind, well, if you consider them a panacea, then let me eliminate your last argument in favor of the BDK. Let’s put a pair of BM21 at the end of the Mistral, those that are on the ZIL or URAL chassis))))), will that work? And for the persuasion push, we’ll put not 2 degrees but 4))))), I think they’ll fit in!
                      2. Aleksys2
                        Aleksys2 29 January 2013 00: 21
                        0
                        Quote: dm98
                        What do these hailstones do not give you peace of mind, well, if you consider them a panacea, then let me eliminate your last argument in favor of the BDK.

                        I do not consider them a panacea, God forbid.
                        I am not against UDC, I am for everything to be on time. Without a proper warrant, neither Mistral nor any other landing ship is capable of conducting a successful landing. I just think that before the Mistral needed to build up a regular, strike fleet, and then build aircraft carriers and UDC. They promise to launch the first Mistral in 2013 in September, we will have a proper order by the 2020 year, by which time the Mistrals are already slightly worn out. What are the tasks facing the fleet now that cannot be accomplished without the Mistral? By the way, this squad is practically our entire fleet.
                      3. dm98
                        dm98 29 January 2013 09: 35
                        +1
                        Quote: Aleksys2
                        I just think that before the Mistral needed to build up a regular, strike fleet, and then build aircraft carriers and UDC.

                        Are you by any chance not a wizard?
                        And then you would be in the General Staff, you probably would have sold a couple of aircraft carriers!
                        But if in fact ...... the shipyards of the country are loaded to the eyeballs! I hope you do not deny it? Here they only watch slowly! You probably will not deny this either?
                        Now the question is where to get the shock new ships? Buy over the hill?
                        Therefore, you don’t need to write to the generals for the sake of pluses to your friends the generals, finally have your opinion and do not be afraid to express it, otherwise it doesn’t fit in:
                        Quote: Aleksys2
                        Orders from "cruiser Moscow, BOD, pair of TFR," will not be enough to ensure the landing, even with the Mistral, or without. For none of the listed pennants can suppress air defense, anti-aircraft defense and other fortifications. This warrant is sharpened against naval targets. Therefore, you will have to land under fire, and in this case, Mistral, with its under-equipping, does not fit in either way. Ivan Rogov would have looked more organic here with his hail.

                        and this is from a neighboring topic
                        Quote: Aleksys2
                        The grouping of ships off the coast of Syria at the moment consists of: SK Yaroslav the Wise, BPC Severomorsk, RK Moscow, Smetlivy, and BPC Marshal Shaposhnikov, and that 1 RK, 2 BPC and two SK (FIVE pennants), further the BDKs are little adapted to the confrontation with the AUG, their task is to unload undercover troops, “Alexander Shabalin”, “Kaliningrad”, “Novocherkassk”, “Azov” and “Nikolai Filchenkov” (five pennants) and 6 AUXILIARY VESSELS boards.


                        Well, this post is specially for you Aleksys2 so that you lose steam and put another minus! I have another 900 points to the private, so try!))))

                        I stop the argument because of a lack of meaning, because I do not earn pluses!
                      4. dm98
                        dm98 29 January 2013 09: 35
                        0
                        Well, this post is specially for you Aleksys2 so that you lose steam and put another minus! I have another 900 points to the private, so try!))))

                        I stop the argument because of a lack of meaning, because I do not earn pluses!
                      5. Aleksys2
                        Aleksys2 29 January 2013 11: 00
                        0
                        Quote: dm98
                        and put another minus!

                        And I didn’t minus you.
                      6. Aleksys2
                        Aleksys2 29 January 2013 11: 23
                        0
                        Quote: dm98
                        Now the question is where to get the shock new ships? Buy over the hill?
                        Therefore, you don’t need to write to the generals for the sake of pluses to your friends the generals, finally have your opinion and do not be afraid to express it, otherwise it doesn’t fit in:

                        If you are not too lazy and read my posts in other branches, then take away what my opinion is and that I am not afraid to express it, and even to uphold it.
                        And once again I will voice my opinion: the Mistral is no better than the ships that we have, the Mistral is not able to solve any tasks for combat use without a proper order, we do not need a headquarters ship for 20 ships scattered across 4 fleets, at the moment our Navy is not has tasks that only Mistral can solve, At the moment, we need Mistrals unnecessarily, in the future, when building up a ship group, we need to have both aircraft carriers and command ships in the fleet. I always wrote this, and never changed my opinion, because arguments like: "The Mistral will tear everyone up", "but he also has a hospital", "and in general he is a hospital ship", "but a new one", "We will build the Mistral right now , and the United States will be in ... ", they won't be able to convince me.
                        Of course, no one earns pluses, but they love to minus it from under the silence, here explain to me how in a couple of hours almost all my posts in other branches were zinnusheny? You should at least read before putting a minus, otherwise in the topic about the anniversary of the Siege of Leningrad a post with poems by Olga Berggolz was zipped, I don’t give a damn about the rest, but for this insulting, honest word.
                      7. dm98
                        dm98 29 January 2013 11: 45
                        0
                        Aleksys2,
                        Cool give you another chance for a minus, well, or your comrades)))
                        Yes, I read your posts from the last 3 topics about the Mistral, I no longer consider it necessary to read the notes of a person who contradicts himself in each topic))).
                        Wafa read the posts with interest.
                        And so, in the end, I don’t give any ratings, or rather I didn’t put them up to this point, now I’ll probably be, otherwise people like you will simply be unable to comment!
                        So keep my first assessment on this forum and for you! And this "-". I will find your comment about Olga Berggolts and put a "+", so don't worry
                      8. Aleksys2
                        Aleksys2 29 January 2013 11: 57
                        +1
                        Quote: dm98
                        I no longer consider it necessary to read the notes of a person who contradicts himself in each topic)))

                        And what are the contradictions? Give examples.
                        PS. A plus, do not bother. I didn’t mean that it’s you who minus all the posts, it’s just, probably not put it that way, I meant minuscule people. And again, I’m not minus you, but I haven’t put any pluses either (to be honest).
                      9. dm98
                        dm98 29 January 2013 12: 50
                        0
                        Quote: Aleksys2
                        And what are the contradictions? Give examples.

                        Quote: dm98
                        this does not fit:
                        Quote: Aleksys2
                        Orders from "cruiser Moscow, BOD, pair of TFR," will not be enough to ensure the landing, even with the Mistral, or without. For none of the listed pennants can suppress air defense, anti-aircraft defense and other fortifications. This warrant is sharpened against naval targets. Therefore, you will have to land under fire, and in this case, Mistral, with its under-equipping, does not fit in either way. Ivan Rogov would have looked more organic here with his hail.


                        and this is from a neighboring topic
                        Quote: Aleksys2
                        The grouping of ships off the coast of Syria at the moment consists of: SK Yaroslav the Wise, BPC Severomorsk, RK Moscow, Smetlivy, and BPC Marshal Shaposhnikov, and that 1 RK, 2 BPC and two SK (FIVE pennants), further the BDKs are little adapted to the confrontation with the AUG, their task is to unload undercover troops, “Alexander Shabalin”, “Kaliningrad”, “Novocherkassk”, “Azov” and “Nikolai Filchenkov” (five pennants) and 6 AUXILIARY VESSELS boards.

                        Sorry to look for more laziness, but I assure you that it’s very interesting to read the last three topics about the mistral with your comments)))

                        And yes I can’t find a topic about Olga Berggolz, so I put the promised plus to your last comment on this topic hi
                      10. Aleksys2
                        Aleksys2 29 January 2013 13: 25
                        0
                        Well, there’s no contradiction here.
                        We are discussing the possibility of holding an assault under the cover of an order.
                        And in that thread, it was discussed how we will roll out the AUG of the 6th US Fleet with this order, and in the phrase "further the BDK are not well adapted to confrontation with the AUG, their task of unloading the assault under cover" meant not an amphibious operation, but the fact that the BDK does not fight with AUG , because the BDK was created and designed for landing tasks, and the Mistral is mentioned there as a command ship (I repeat that for such a number of pennants it is ridiculous to drag the headquarters for 200 dugs), nothing more.
                        Quote: dm98
                        And yes I can’t find a topic about Olga Berggolz

                        This indicates how we carefully read the posts of opponents. wink
    3. dm98
      dm98 28 January 2013 17: 15
      -1
      Alejandro
      And those who say that for them there is no purpose for use, answer, then maybe we don’t need landing ships at all, then we are not going to land today?
      ,
      they will answer you now)))))
      here already the concept of the helicopter as such was almost ruined ...... because the Papuans would knock it off with MANPADS, it would not even manage to squeak)))))). So it’s good that the turntables didn’t shut down the production of turntables!
  39. Nechai
    Nechai 28 January 2013 16: 39
    +1
    Quote: dm98
    Again I did not understand why in this situation UDC is worse than BDK

    But what difference does it make to me what to shoot UDC il BDK, a helicopter carrier, a barge, a cargo ship or a mobilized cruise ship. Che comes, it will receive. Do you find fault with words and letter? Kohl essentially nothing to say ... You can still check the spelling, and sarcastically express disapproving, sir. Good luck to you in these works.
    That project was punched and carried out by the then commander-in-chief Sukhoi Voisk Army General Pavlovsky Ivan Grigorievich Hero of the Soviet Union.
    1. dm98
      dm98 28 January 2013 17: 18
      +1
      Dear did not want to offend anyone!
      I am not against raft tanks ..... I don’t understand why you are against the mistral!
      why are they worse than our BDK?
    2. Strategia
      Strategia 28 January 2013 17: 20
      0
      What about the seaworthiness of these "floating tank firing points", what are the characteristics? To what maximum depth or to what maximum distance from the shore can they be used? Practical shooting was carried out by the staff from a submerged position?
  40. Edgar
    Edgar 28 January 2013 16: 47
    +3
    my opinion is that udk is the most elaborate concept of the landing ship. in any case, than spending money on useless ekranoplanes, it would be better if they built at least one udk in the union. especially since there were projects. a completely different question: do they need Russia? or there are more worthy objects for investment.
  41. Skuto
    Skuto 28 January 2013 16: 59
    +2
    I think not everything is so obvious.
    First of all, we need to buy Mistral as a good and fertile occasion to familiarize ourselves with advanced Western technologies (starting from radars and CIUS, ending with a propulsion system).
    Why France, not Spain? They already answered: the French rarely listen to the "State Department", and therefore the transfer of high-tech technologies will not be cut off.
    Mistral is not suitable for climatic conditions? Sorry, but the coastal region is not subtropics? Yes, and we already had something similar to "gyrfalcons", that is, on the contrary, they were not suitable for the equatorial region. However, this did not stop them from proudly flying the flag of the Soviet Union. I think the ships will be modernized for our conditions.
    Why now all these conversations about the futility of the "Mistral" in the press are exaggerated? There are two options:
    1. Ours are banal or want to bring down the price, as the Indians did something similar, blackmailing us with the Kitty Hawk, or Oland decided somewhere that he wouldn’t finish it.
    2. Who from the military-industrial complex is trying to catch fish in troubled waters. Let me remind you that the construction of the BDK of the 11711 series was suspended, the official version: “the decision to build the series will be made only after testing the lead ship. Before starting production, the entire complex must be run-in to understand what changes and additions need to be made to the project. The tests will take about a year. " Most likely, during their construction, questions could arise from the main customer, since he could clearly compare the landing technologies of a foreign state and ours (I don’t need to talk about the difference between the BDK and the UDC, and I understand that). Therefore, the Nevsky Design Bureau is trying to pour a tub of slops on the Mistral.
    1. Strategia
      Strategia 28 January 2013 17: 11
      0
      Quote: Skuto
      Sorry, but the coastal region is not subtropics?
      Vladivostok, unlike Murmansk, is a FREEZING port.
      1. Aleksys2
        Aleksys2 28 January 2013 17: 59
        +2
        Quote: Strategia
        Vladivostok, unlike Murmansk, is a FREEZING port.

        I don’t know how Murmansk is, and Severomorsk just never freezes ... fellow
        1. harrymur
          harrymur 29 January 2013 14: 08
          0
          Yes, it’s crap and not ice, hull class L2, it requires reinforcing the sheathing of the variable waterline and that’s all, that is, steel, for example, 8 mm will be 10-12 mm wide 1,5-2 meters along the length of the hull, there will be 20-30 tons of displacement in% nothing to the displacement, a couple of centimeters to the draft, the only thing that needs to be looked at is the defense of DZ and Kingston, in short everything is solved
  42. dmitreach
    dmitreach 28 January 2013 17: 35
    +1
    Where can I use the Mistral.
    http://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/navy.htm

    The Navy (Navy) is a type of Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (RF Armed Forces).
    Currently, the Navy has the following tasks:

    deterrence from the use of military force or the threat of its use against the Russian Federation;
    protection by military methods of the sovereignty of the Russian Federation, extending beyond its land territory to inland waters and the territorial sea, sovereign rights in the exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf, as well as freedom of the high sea;
    creation and maintenance of conditions for ensuring the safety of the RF maritime activities in the oceans;
    ensuring the naval presence of the Russian Federation in the oceans, the demonstration of the flag and military force, visits of ships and vessels of the Navy;
    ensuring participation in ongoing global community military, peacekeeping and humanitarian shares that meet the interests of the Russian Federation.

    Depending on the state of the military-political situation in the world and its regions, the tasks of the Navy are differentiated as follows:

    In peacetime:

    strategic patrol and combat duty of strategic missile submarines (RPLSN) in the established readiness for delivering strikes at designated targets of a potential enemy;
    combat support of the Strategic Rocket Forces (ensuring the combat stability of the Strategic Rocket Forces) on routes and in areas of combat patrol;
    search for nuclear missiles and multipurpose submarines of a potential enemy and tracking them on routes and in problem solving areas in readiness for destruction with the outbreak of hostilities;
    observation of aircraft carrier and other naval strike groups of a potential enemy, tracking them in the areas of their combat maneuvering in readiness to strike at them with the outbreak of hostilities;
    opening and obstruction of the activity of enemy reconnaissance forces and means in the seas and ocean areas adjacent to our coast, observation and tracking of them in readiness for destruction with the outbreak of hostilities;
    ensuring the deployment of fleet forces in the threatened period;
    identification of communications and equipment of oceanic and marine theaters in strategically important areas of the oceans;
    the study of the likely areas of hostilities and the conditions for the use of various branches of the Navy, the use of weapons and technical equipment;
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 28 January 2013 17: 37
      0

      intelligence over the activities of foreign ships and aircraft;
      shipping protection;
      implementation of foreign policy actions of the government;

      participation in strategic nuclear forces in strategic nuclear deterrence;
      ensuring non-nuclear deterrence from the threat or use of military force against the Russian Federation from ocean and sea directions;
      protection and protection of the state border of the Russian Federation in the underwater environment;
      protection and protection of the State border of the Russian Federation in the airspace and control of its use;
      defense of the state border of the Russian Federation on land and sea by military methods;
      Assistance to the Border Troops of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation in protecting the State Border, the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone of the Russian Federation;
      assistance to internal troops and internal affairs bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation in the suppression of internal conflicts and other actions using means of armed violence on the territory of the Russian Federation, ensuring public safety and the state of emergency in the manner established by the legislation of the Russian Federation;
      (Olympics in Sochi)
      coastal defense;
      assistance to the civil defense forces and the Ministry of Emergencies in the elimination of the consequences of accidents, catastrophes, fires and natural disasters.


      The period of threat:

      the transfer of forces (troops) from peacetime to wartime and their operational deployment;
      participation in the localization of possible cross-border armed conflicts;
      protection of shipping and production activities in the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone of the Russian Federation, and, if necessary, in crisis zones of the oceans.


      In wartime:

      defeat of enemy ground targets in remote territories;
      ensuring the combat stability of strategic missile submarines;
      defeating anti-submarine and other enemy groupings, as well as coastal targets;
      maintaining a favorable operational regime;
      support from the sea for front-line troops in the conduct of their defense or offensive in coastal directions;
      sea ​​coast defense.
      1. vladsolo56
        vladsolo56 28 January 2013 18: 26
        -1
        And that, apart from the Mistral, no one is suitable for these purposes? it’s not directly ships, but universal vessels, but the price of these monsters is such that all of the above tasks can be provided with much cheaper and already available means. not convincingly written
        1. dmitreach
          dmitreach 28 January 2013 20: 12
          +1
          And we discuss in the article Mistral or something else?
          not convincingly written

          question to the author and president. Taken from the website of the Ministry of Defense. there is a proof there!
          the price of these monsters is

          In secret and in a whisper: yes, the Mistral is a universal vessel (UDC) ... whether it is bad or good is a question. But it was created as a "universal vessel".
      2. Aleksys2
        Aleksys2 28 January 2013 18: 44
        -3
        And where is Mistral's position here?
  43. tank64rus
    tank64rus 28 January 2013 18: 16
    +1
    Give them to the Ministry of Emergencies.
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 28 January 2013 18: 17
      +3
      there is such a topic
      1. vorobey
        vorobey 28 January 2013 18: 44
        +3
        Quote: dmitreach
        there is such a topic


        Dreams Come True (Gazprom)
        1. Vadivak
          Vadivak 28 January 2013 19: 22
          +3
          Quote: vorobey
          Dreams Come True (Gazprom)

          I clarify come true in Gazprom
      2. shurup
        shurup 28 January 2013 18: 48
        +1
        Ha ha ha Already took a picture.
        Chips and dales will choke on cheese if they see one somewhere near California.
  44. maxoid
    maxoid 28 January 2013 18: 47
    -1
    But the features of the Russian Navy are probably falling apart flagships, and warships welded to the berths, etc. I wonder why buy cheaper than build on your own? I don’t ever believe in technology (I’m not cursed, after all, plowed furrows)))))
  45. SIT
    SIT 28 January 2013 18: 49
    +1
    The use of UDC as part of the AUG is logical and justified. Landing with UDC helicopters may not necessarily be carried out at the water edge, but anywhere on the shore, including a fairly remote one. Only all this makes sense when capturing air supremacy by the forces of the AUG air wing and suppressing air defense, enemy PDO by ship missiles and artillery. What could take off from Admiral Kuznetsov is enough to capture air supremacy off the coast of Africa (except South Africa) and the islands of Oceania. In other places there are no chances. So how to use UDC? You can put cool tires on your car, but if it does not have a motor, then it will just be show off in front of the neighbors and nothing more.
  46. nic
    nic 28 January 2013 19: 12
    +1
    Honestly stole it in a slurry:
    From 8:00 the version of how the decision was made to build the Mistral.


    At 14:00 Makienko about the Mistral in the northern latitudes.
    1. Aleksys2
      Aleksys2 28 January 2013 19: 38
      0
      Nice to listen to literate people ..
  47. Alejandro
    Alejandro 28 January 2013 19: 15
    0
    Quote: vorobey
    You me cons

    And you are in vain No. . Just rechecked - I didn’t put you cons. A couple of comments zaminusil but definitely not you request
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak 28 January 2013 19: 24
      +3
      Quote: Alejandro
      Just rechecked - I didn’t put you cons

      Not lying
      1. vorobey
        vorobey 29 January 2013 09: 06
        +2
        Quote: Alejandro
        And you are in vain



        I apologize.
        1. Alejandro
          Alejandro 29 January 2013 21: 23
          0
          Received drinks . Moreover, to check, all your mined comments put down the pros wink
  48. I think so
    I think so 28 January 2013 19: 23
    +1
    The absurdity of buying weapons from a potential (?) Enemy is so obvious to a normal person that making such a purchase is unambiguously either a complete nerd (iPhone) or an enemy of the country ... It is a pity that only now at least someone really begins to delve into this criminal deal .. Of course, the former Minister of Defense is not the main one here, the track goes much higher ... And whom do these Russians endure over themselves? ... Although you can understand them, after EBN, these almost cherubim ...
    1. nic
      nic 28 January 2013 19: 33
      0
      Makienko already a year ago thickly hinted at Luntik, and an extra at least 220 million euros for the contract with Mistrals.
    2. dmitreach
      dmitreach 28 January 2013 20: 16
      +1
      Igor Korochenko disagrees with you.
      The French component of the Russian Navy

      http://i-korotchenko.livejournal.com/222351.html

      On the whole, it can be stated that there are no problems for expanding bilateral military-technical cooperation at the level of the top political leadership of Russia and France. Now there is a study of issues of interaction at the level of specific firms. On the French side, these are Safran, Thales, Sagem, SNEKMA, Dassault, DCNS and several others.
      1. Aleksys2
        Aleksys2 28 January 2013 20: 29
        -3
        Quote: dmitreach
        The French component of the Russian Navy

        All systems and devices on board the ship will be Russified. The Mistral will be equipped with Russian and French control and communication equipment; DCNS will need to ensure system compatibility. Some of this equipment will be installed on the ship at the shipyard in Saint-Nazaire, part - at one of the Russian shipyards. In addition, in Saint-Nazaire, the ship under construction will receive Russian fire control systems.

        No comment so to speak. Question: Are we already in NATO or France in the CSTO?
        1. dmitreach
          dmitreach 28 January 2013 20: 48
          +2
          Neither is the other. Russia is shaking the already not monolithic side of the NADO, tied to mutually beneficial economic cooperation, the key player is France.
          Have a desire to criticize?
          About the attitude of France to the interests of the United States, (in the block) recall, or in the know?
          And by the way. something like that was eternally afraid of the arrogant Saxons. Russia-Europe Union, (be it Germany or France)
          Or should we scare the Baltic states with Poland?
          Mistral is not SSBN. The Americans even squeaked this secret to the British. But with the French we are not very bad yet in space and cooperate. Back to the Iron Curtain era?
          1. Aleksys2
            Aleksys2 28 January 2013 21: 28
            0
            Quote: dmitreach
            Have a desire to criticize?

            There is no desire to criticize your nonsense.
            1. dmitreach
              dmitreach 28 January 2013 22: 28
              0
              Do not know how to conduct a dialogue, do not criticize. By the way, you have not yet apologized for insulting me. This is the third. I think for you any point of view that goes against yours is nonsense.
              You can not answer. Do not bother. (You can again complain to moderator, I'm not talking about stars)
            2. dmitreach
              dmitreach 28 January 2013 22: 37
              +2
              Politeness and courtesy in the market can not be bought. (Russian proverb)
              1. Aleksys2
                Aleksys2 29 January 2013 00: 37
                0
                Quote: dmitreach
                Politeness and courtesy in the market can not be bought.

                This is true, unlike you, I am polite to the point of disgrace, and what I call some things as they are, I'm sorry. But unlike you, I don’t minus all your posts (as you do), I don’t like to do little dirty tricks. And of course all of you are writing not for the sake of rating, but just like that, like to flood. And even if I focus on your breach .., okay, let there be bloopers, So here are your bloopers about the hospital ship "Wilhelm Guslov", about the death of "Armenia", about the absence of control ships in our fleet, about the hospital ship, about how "Russia is shaking the already not monolithic side NADO" (I hope you know after which France withdrew from the military component of NATO, but remained in the political?). So the indication of these bloopers of yours pursues one goal, study the issue deeper and more thoroughly. And the fact that you started poking me ... - this is just a question of politeness and courtesy, for which you so stand up.
                1. dmitreach
                  dmitreach 29 January 2013 01: 04
                  +1

                  I, unlike you, are polite to disgrace,


                  So I want to say: and ugly modest ...
                  When I started poking you, it was a reaction to your outspoken rudeness. (an alternative to switch to a mat, somehow not comme il faut)
                  Not only am I minus you, I don’t need to ascribe to me. If someone does not agree and puts a minus - the flag in his hands, has the right. They also negate me, especially today, in the process of a dispute with you .... A strange coincidence, isn't it?

                  Apologies are accepted. I put a plus.
                  1. Aleksys2
                    Aleksys2 29 January 2013 03: 03
                    0
                    Quote: dmitreach
                    Apologies are accepted.

                    You are wrong again. I didn’t apologize and I don’t intend to. Give an example of my "outright rudeness".
                    1. dmitreach
                      dmitreach 29 January 2013 08: 20
                      +1
                      wrong? it's a pity. I thought I’m talking to a person. I recommend chocolate, they say it strengthens the memory and promotes metabolism in the thought process.
  49. albert
    albert 28 January 2013 20: 44
    +4
    Any helicopter carrier is better than none at all.
    1. Eric
      Eric 29 January 2013 05: 55
      0
      Better, ocean-class strike ships than Mistral.