Mistral type ships can hardly be used in wartime.

250

The two amphibious helicopter-carrying dock ships (MFDD) of the Mistral type currently under construction in France for the Russian Navy are not intended for use in wartime in their initial characteristics, says the general director of the Avrora Scientific and Production Association Concern Konstantin Shilov
“As for the Mistral, it can be called a fighting ship with a stretch. This is a ship. It is equipped with non-military equipment, ”he said.

“For what it is necessary for the Russian Federation - surely those who ordered these two vessels knew for sure. I am not a military leader. But this is a ship that must be used either in peacetime or in the prewar period, ”Shilov said.

Mistral type ships can hardly be used in wartime.Answering the question of how the work on the adaptation of Russian weapons to these ships will be built and whether the Aurora participates in this work, he said: “This is a painful question for us. At the time of the conclusion of the contract for the Mistrals, the French company DCNS invited us to cooperate as suppliers of automation and dynamic positioning systems. ”

“We negotiated with them for more than six months. They transferred a significant amount of information (non-secret) in order for our potential customers to become familiar with the principles on which we build our products. But, unfortunately, it turned out that our potential customers - DCNS - were interested only in the technical component, and not in the delivery itself, ”he said.

“At the very last moment, when prices were agreed, DCNS put forward absolutely unacceptable additional requirements that did not allow us to conclude a fully agreed contract,” the group’s general director explained.

According to him, these requirements were as follows: “We were offered to increase financial responsibility and make it more than five times the amount of the contract, which is unprecedented in world practice. Second, our potential customer offered to include one of the points to change the scope of supply during any time when this supply will be executed, with a tight deadline. ”

“For us, this was unacceptable, and we realized that the negotiations were aimed at obtaining information, and not at the actual conclusion of a contract,” Shilov is sure.

Initially it was assumed that four Mistral-type DKKDs would be built for the Russian Navy — two in France and two in Russia. The contracts for the first two hulls were signed, their construction is underway at the DCNS shipyards. Decisions on the third and fourth corps have not yet been taken.

NPO Avrora Concern is the leading Russian developer, manufacturer and supplier of automated control systems and combat information and control systems for warships and submarines.
250 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. fortunophile
    +69
    14 May 2013 15: 08
    Now the next episode from the long series "And they bought it for a fig, but because you can't live without it" ...
    The integration of our weapons into the Mistral MISTRALs is generally something from sadomasobiology combining a snake and a hedgehog. winked
    Why not ask (after all, everyone is alive and some are in positions) with those who signed and approved the contract.
    1. +37
      14 May 2013 15: 20
      If these two helicopter kayaks have not yet been settled, then these wise geyropeytsy, who were about to throw us away, must forward them with payment themselves. receive.
      1. Captain Vrungel
        +27
        14 May 2013 15: 46
        In wartime, it's just a floating self-propelled shed. In peacetime, a ready-made high-sided cattle truck for transporting sheep from the Port of Sudan to France is in peace. Whoever would look for advantages in it and no matter how fantasized, a huge minus to this misunderstanding afloat.
        1. SlavakharitonoV
          +7
          14 May 2013 15: 52
          They say there they say electronics are not fighting. It is clear that not a single country exports full-fledged weapons abroad. There are export versions for this. Here are the French and shot almost all the electronics
        2. +35
          14 May 2013 16: 32
          These minuses (mistral) have one key plus - the ROLL is normal.
          1. avt
            +16
            14 May 2013 16: 46
            Quote: Canep
            of these minuses (mistral) there is one key plus - rollback normal.

            The unkilled argument. laughing good
            1. 0
              15 May 2013 16: 14
              Explain the idea.
              Unkilled argument

              for Konstantin Shilov, Director General of the Concern NPO Aurora, pushed from the deal?
              Taki: "They carry water to the offended."
        3. +21
          14 May 2013 16: 59
          Quote: Captain Vrungel
          In wartime, it's just a floating self-propelled shed


          Any BDK at any time is a floating shed. Ours is something better?
          1. Captain Vrungel
            +10
            14 May 2013 17: 16
            Cheaper than imported.
            1. +9
              14 May 2013 17: 44
              Quote: Captain Vrungel
              Cheaper than imported.

              Ivan Gren is much less, but how much is ?? and how much will it cost to enter ??? if this commissioning takes place ?? So it’s not cheaper, but otherwise I agree that in case of a big war they won’t even shoot at it .... there are much more interesting targets than a barge ...
            2. +5
              14 May 2013 23: 48
              Quote: Captain Vrungel
              Cheaper than imported.

              Please name the domestic analogue of Mistral, which is "cheaper".
              1. +1
                15 May 2013 00: 07
                Here's a look at what domestic project 11780 our "omnipotent" Afonchiki and Taburetkin ruined:
                http://www.aviaport.ru/digest/2011/04/18/214179.html
                Compare TTX
                1. +2
                  15 May 2013 00: 15
                  They seem to have been abandoned during the Soviet era. What does Afonchiki and Storetkin have to do with it?
                2. +3
                  15 May 2013 00: 22
                  Quote: mhpv
                  Here's a look at what domestic project 11780 our "omnipotent" Afonchiki and Taburetkin ruined:

                  And what do they have to do with it?
                  Developed by Nevsky Design Bureau during 80 years

                  Ships with a standard displacement of 25 tons could be built only in the Black Sea Shipyard

                  Comments I think are unnecessary.
              2. +1
                15 May 2013 00: 29
                Here once we figured out the price of "Lynx". It turned out that a Russian-assembled car is more expensive than an Iveco assembled in Italy. Yes, there are expenses for creating a production line, but Russian workers are still cheaper than Italian ones.
                1. 0
                  15 May 2013 01: 42
                  Well, it’s worth noting that more than 50 changes were made, and I think that any production upgrade was also driven under this matter.
          2. +9
            14 May 2013 18: 22
            Quote: Botanologist
            Any BDK at any time is a floating shed. Ours is something better?


            It is better! In at least two ways:
            1. Price.
            2. Support your shipbuilding.
            1. +14
              14 May 2013 20: 07
              Quote: vadimN
              1. Price.2. Support your shipbuilding


              About the price - a question. It is still unknown how much it will cost to build an analogue of Mistral with a filling at a Russian shipyard.
              As for the support of its shipbuilding industry, financing of a series of corvettes and frigates for its shipbuilding led to long-term construction. The lead ships are understandable, the technology was being tested. But serial ones that are on the stocks for 5 years? And these are ships with a displacement of 2 - 4 thousand tons. And if you also give Mistral, then in general we will wait for 7 years.
              So do not scold the ship just because it is not ours.
            2. +5
              14 May 2013 23: 36
              Quote: vadimN
              Support your shipbuilding.

              And where are UDCs being built in Russia? To create and master a new modern project, how much time is needed, almost all landing ships were built in Poland. By the year 2031, the first Russian UDC will do so.
              1. +1
                15 May 2013 16: 20
                And where are UDCs being built in Russia?

                They are building at the Baltzavod.
                1. -1
                  15 May 2013 22: 47
                  Quote: dmitreach
                  They are building at the Baltzavod.

                  Yeah, they are building, but they cannot build.
                  Yes, Amber now has enough work without UDC. And Ivan Gren, in the next world, probably remembers everyone with an unkind word.
                  1. +1
                    15 May 2013 23: 10
                    Yeah, they are building, but they cannot build.

                    not a needle, difficult to hide. the process is visible from far away.
                    Ivan Gren

                    He is "Frankenstein", recalls the admirals-customers with a bad word. For, the number of reshaping the product on the slipway - exceeds all reasonable limits. There is a proverb about them: "Go there, I don't know where, bring that - I don't know what ..."
            3. The comment was deleted.
            4. 0
              15 May 2013 16: 18
              It is better! In at least two ways:
              1. Price.
              2. Support your shipbuilding.

              Is it built on the moon?
          3. +10
            14 May 2013 19: 22
            Any BDK at any time is a floating shed. Ours is something better?
            The fact that they are ours is taxes to the state, the work of shipbuilders, the development of new technologies, and otherwise, the economic support of the French, the damage to Russia, and the BB-5 crap ...
            1. +8
              14 May 2013 20: 13
              Quote: Naval
              these are taxes to the state, work for shipbuilders, development of new technologies,


              As for taxes - well, some builder in Sochi is stealing 100 million less than your taxes - will it become easier for you?
              As for work, we have a shortage of personnel. Let the corvettes begin to build at least for 2.
              As for technology - our planes are stuffed with French systems very well. Drying is everything. And nothing, no crying is heard. Why aren't we developing technology?
            2. +1
              15 May 2013 16: 21
              French economic support, damage to Russia,

              we also "support" the Finns, against the wishes of the Ukrainians ...
          4. Beck
            +14
            14 May 2013 20: 31
            Quote: Botanologist
            Any BDK at any time is a floating shed. Ours is something better?


            Landing ships are needed by any self-respecting fleet. Landing ships, not a detachable part of the classification of warships. Without landing ships, the fleet is not complete.

            NPO Aurora is Russia's largest research and production center in the field of ship automation.

            The Director General of the Concern NPO Aurora Konstantin Shilov, for one reason or another, most likely the scientific and technical non-compliance of his products with the requirements of the customer, is now pouring mud on the customer purely for the Russian bureaucratic mentality.

            Not even the customer, DCNS, but the landing ship "Mistral" itself. Like it is trough. And even in the face of the Mistral, a whole class of warships. THIS IS NECESSARY AS A HUMAN SURGE EATS.

            And Shilov would have been silent in a rag if there were machine guns and instruments of NPO Aurora on this trough. Then I would praise.

            You look at the Core of Lice, Pitchfork in Bock, and Threshing floor on Bald Head.
            1. sergaivenski
              +7
              14 May 2013 20: 56
              On June 22, 1941, the Great Patriotic War began. On July 14, a jet battery
              mortars "Katyusha" under the command of Captain Flerov bombed the Orsha station, clogged
              German echelons. Result; 18 echelons were burned !!! How many manpower and equipment of the Nazis didn’t reach the front !? What, the Russians couldn’t do Vani? Always able !!!
              Just officials to the racket divorced !!! And what do officials like? De-nee-ki !!!
              The Oboronservis case is a living example !!! And they don't need our country !!!
              1. +1
                14 May 2013 22: 05
                Do you know about how many ships of foreign construction were then in the USSR?
            2. +9
              14 May 2013 22: 13
              Everything to the point. I would like to ask from such obese shipbuilders a project for the modernization of some ship that the Admiralty has been demanding from them for several years ... We have divorced our tongues to scratch the tongues ...
            3. 0
              15 May 2013 16: 23
              I will quote a comment from another site, because I share the point of view of not what.

              Quote
              “At the very last moment, when prices were agreed, DCNS put forward absolutely unacceptable additional requirements that did not allow us to conclude a fully agreed contract,” the group’s general director explained.

              Everything is clear, we were offended by the French and therefore declare:
              Quote
              The two amphibious helicopter-carrying dock ships (MFDD) of the Mistral type currently under construction in France for the Russian Navy are not intended for use in wartime in their initial characteristics, says the general director of the Avrora Scientific and Production Association Concern Konstantin Shilov
              “As for the Mistral, it can be called a fighting ship with a stretch. This is a ship. It is equipped with non-military equipment, ”he said.
              Quote
              “For what it is necessary for the Russian Federation - surely those who ordered these two vessels knew for sure. I am not a military leader. But this is a ship that must be used either in peacetime or in the prewar period, ”Shilov said.
              It is certainly better to ask those who decided to order, and not offended.

              http://vpk.name/news/89406_korabli_tipa_mistral_vryad_li_mozhno_ispolzovat_v_voe

              nnoe_timeya.html
        4. Kadet-1975
          0
          14 May 2013 19: 55
          Obviously, these "Mistrals" are ready-made "Arches" for the Russian "cream of society" for a special period ... !!! For which a simple Russian man must pay off and places for which they have long been allocated. Another fraudulent combination of "cut off" ... !
        5. +3
          14 May 2013 20: 56
          Quote: ...
          For what it is needed for the Russian Federation, those who ordered these two ships must know for sure.


          They know, but they have already been forgiven, and the second one, which was awarded the staff star of the Hero, the money has been mastered ahead of new peaks --- World Cup
        6. Rustiger
          +2
          15 May 2013 01: 32
          Quote: Captain Vrungel
          a huge minus to this misunderstanding afloat.

          Without going into the "entrails" of this floating shed or lighter carrier, I will note one question that immediately arises when looking at this one. ... ...
          I’ll say as a skipper.
          Why the hell do you say such a cool tank? On the material of the stem they saved, or is it so handy to look at the breakwater? There is not even a bulwark, but openwork railings stand like on a walking bilatovoz.
          Say - dock with your nose. Where with such a height, where there are such piers / moorings, it can be to the rocky shores of the Norwegian fjords. This ramp must be served as a Boeing, half the size of the Cheops pyramid.
          Well, let them come up and "built a mound" for the exit from the main deck (what, the admiral's ZiS?). This is how and how you need to fix the stern, with such a side sail. Who in the subject, he understood.

          But its purpose as a comfortable floating prison for oligarchs is an ideal solution. The timing is not feeble. As soon as there is enough "under the cap", take another hundred or two "contingent", and flood tries. over the Mariana Trench. The crew escapes on boats from the dock chamber.
          What to do with the second - I’ll think tomorrow, it's too late. . .
          1. +3
            15 May 2013 01: 47
            Quote: Rustiger
            Where with such a height, where there are such piers / moorings, it can be to the rocky shores of the Norwegian fjords. This ramp must be served as a Boeing, half the size of the Cheops pyramid.

            with a whole pyramid!
            1. +2
              15 May 2013 16: 40
              same DIXMUDE, pictured
          2. +3
            15 May 2013 16: 36
            Rustiger , are you really a skipper? and then the questions are painfully stupid. Find a bulwark on the flight deck of Kuzi and you will be happy.
            sailing side

            I recommend proving not "by eye", but with the documentation on hand. There are ships with a larger side area. He walks on okians and does not squeak. (I compare the Mistral solely with the Mistral because of the size) The difference in draft is one and a half meters.
            1. 0
              15 May 2013 16: 55
              Oh yes! At Queen Elizabeth, you can open the portholes wide open so that the wind walks and the ship does not overturn the wind. laughing
            2. Rustiger
              0
              15 May 2013 22: 11
              -"dmitreach, you are definitely not a bot, "
              - "Exactly!"
              Quote: dmitreach
              Rustaiger, are you really a skipper?

              In truth! 3shturman-3pom.mekh with a diploma, at your service.
              Quote: dmitreach
              Find a bulwark on Kuzi's flight deck

              He is not there, as in Mistral.
              Kuznetsov

              MistralMistral

              And why is it ahead, only take-off planes will catch the landing gear Yes There’s nothing on Juan Carlos either,
              Carlos

              but there is a take-off for airplanes, which is not on Mistral. Here is such a billiard. . .
              I specially noted "Why such a" cut "like a ferry tank?" and they pushed me a keen about the aft ramp and pictures of cruisers.

              Before scribbling the post, for half an hour I looked for a site that I looked half a year ago, where shipbuilders (non-military) discussed driving performance, maneuverability, seaworthiness and other issues of Mistral as a SHIP (self-propelled floating craft.
              I did not find (yet), therefore, I did not begin to give my arguments without confirmation by the opinions of specialists in this topic. And now reluctance and once. . . hi
        7. +3
          15 May 2013 03: 55
          shed in wartime? ... most likely in this sense you are right ... but something tells me that besides the nuclear submarines in wartime, if we are talking about a global war with the massive use of nuclear weapons, we don’t need any ships at all .. .a in peacetime, or in the pre-war, these barges with helicopters can be used ... perhaps this will help this most peaceful time and save longer ...
          1. 0
            15 May 2013 16: 44
            barn in wartime? ...

            This is a self-propelled shed / garage. What's bad about it? :) Or garages are not needed as a factor.
            NEVER used for the purpose of SSBNs, NOT ONE COUNTRY IN THE WORLD! (fortunately) But BDK 775 dangles to Syria, almost more often than the Ministry of Emergencies ... So draw conclusions ...
      2. Ivan Pavlov
        +2
        14 May 2013 16: 02
        but the main fault on the then president
        1. pavlo007
          +6
          14 May 2013 16: 54
          On the present, on the present. Do you really think that this degenerate with Ai Her was a prezik?
          1. bezumnyiPIT
            +2
            14 May 2013 17: 56
            And what did you achieve?
      3. +5
        14 May 2013 16: 17
        Maybe it’s enough to write about the Mistrals, it’s sick of them already ..
        1. Anat1974
          +1
          14 May 2013 21: 52
          I fully support YOUR proposal, and the symptoms of malaise are also similar for me. In almost all materials, water, water, water ..........
      4. +12
        14 May 2013 18: 31
        Quote: Prokop
        And if they start to be indignant, give them to the tear of Serdyukov,

        I understand that this is not the 37 year. But, still, when will he be shot?
        1. Mikado
          +1
          14 May 2013 19: 03
          after the top
        2. +6
          14 May 2013 19: 24
          I understand that this is not the 37 year. But, still, when will he be shot?
          Never, even from witnesses to suspects, can he be transferred. Probably awarded .... lol
        3. +1
          14 May 2013 20: 53
          Quote: Garrin

          I understand that this is not the 37 year. But, still, when will he be shot?

          Oh! Laughing from the Soul, thank you! :))
        4. sergaivenski
          +1
          14 May 2013 21: 02
          And no one will give up "Marshal Taburetkin" !!! He is his boyfriend !!! And then? He knows too much !!! And, if God forbid, he will start chatting - a lot of bumps come out of his chairs -
          tit !!! Nope!
      5. 0
        15 May 2013 12: 58
        Quote: Prokop
        If these two helicopter kayaks have not yet been settled, then these wise geyropeytsy, who were about to throw us away, must forward them with payment themselves. receive.


        It is impossible there a contract such that it is easier to buy 2 than to refuse all. Thanks to the stool so that it chokes.
    2. +7
      14 May 2013 15: 26
      Quote: fortuneophile
      Why not ask (after all, everyone is alive and some are in positions) with those who signed and approved the contract

      Yes, because there everyone will pull each other. Not a few bureaucrats "earned" on this contract. They are almost ready, but we still have no turntables for them.
      1. +8
        14 May 2013 15: 39
        this is our national money swelled into this squalor
    3. Kovrovsky
      +5
      14 May 2013 15: 52
      Who to ask? After all, it’s not 1937 ...
    4. Vashestambid2
      +30
      14 May 2013 16: 04
      Mistral type ships unlikely can be used in wartime

      The article is somehow muddy, which means hardly? A helicopter carrier carrying 8 Ka-52 and 8 Ka-29 + 700 marines with military equipment, WHAT ELSE DOES IT NEED? So that he sat on his companions or plunged under water? laughing
      1. +10
        14 May 2013 16: 21
        Well, about the fact that Kamov helicopters will be placed on them, there are still disputes. Although I agree. In wartime, everything is in use ... The article has an incorrect title. The question is about the effectiveness of their application, about which little is said in the article.
        I am not a supporter of the purchase of these ferries, but it is also desirable to maintain objectivity. In wartime, the opportunity to bring them down is ... albeit one way ...

        By the way, if I choose, I would take Spanish, but it didn’t burn out with it. And of course you need yours ...

        1. MilaPhone
          +10
          14 May 2013 19: 07
          Quote: klimpopov
          By the way, if I choose, I would take Spanish, but it didn’t burn out with it. And of course you need yours ...

          Even if given "Juan Carlos" smile would be as Spanish as "Mistral" is French and we bought it - shrill screams of despair and indignation, there would be no less if not more!
          1. +5
            14 May 2013 22: 06
            That's right. At the same time, hysterical children here do not understand that the very USSR, when necessary, bought massively foreign ships, and was not at all embarrassed by this. And he did it right.
            1. +5
              14 May 2013 22: 14
              Quote: Pimply
              And he did it right.

              then it was necessary to immediately buy a nimitz - a couple and not a torment.
              the double benefit of the Russian Federation is two more AB, the Yankees two less)))
              1. -2
                14 May 2013 22: 58
                And don’t say 8))) True, that Nimitz without an aircraft carrier group ...
            2. Rustiger
              0
              15 May 2013 02: 06
              Quote: Pimply
              The USSR, when necessary, massively purchased foreign ships, and was not at all embarrassed by this. And he did it right.

              Sure. But these were CIVIL COURTS of all types, purposes, displacement and navigation areas. And they were already purchased for specifically existing tasks, with a guarantee of no downtime. For example. Here is the most modern (at that time) and expensive diesel-electric icebreaker “Captain Demidov”. Built in 1984 in Finland at the shipyard of the Wärtsilä company according to the project 1191 for the USSR. Launched at the beginning of 85, and immediately started to work on GDP (Inland Waterways) in the KRP and WORP. Immediately with the shipyards he went to the Kama RP. At home port 85-90g. Chistopol, Tatarstan. A provincial town with a population of less than 70 thousand
              demids

              And how many were 4-day passenger Finnish and Austrian - at least a hundred. How many high-speed catamarans with an open deck. Lighter carriers, container ships, tankers, and the military NO. At the end of the 80s, more than HALF diesels produced in Germany, the Czech Republic, Italy, etc. worked on river bulk carriers. Many old ones, but worked, then paid off and come in handy!

              For what eldak this storehouse is needed, no one knows yet.
              The zone is a floating one - this is its purpose. A masterpiece decision. . . Yes
              1. 0
                15 May 2013 16: 51
                For what eldak this storehouse is needed, no one knows yet.

                this "no one" wants to see obvious events. just from obstinacy. BDK 775 in what quantity and how many nautical miles have you reeled in the last six months?
          2. +3
            15 May 2013 16: 49
            Even if this "Juan Carlos" were as Spanish as "Mistral" is French and we bought it - shrill cries of despair and indignation, it would be no less if not more!

            By the way, a thought! I agree.
        2. +2
          15 May 2013 16: 47
          Well, about the fact that Kamov helicopters will be placed on them, there are still disputes.

          I don’t like to say that, but you are forcing me: the Proof in the studio, at the expense of disputes about the Kamov turntables.
          then I would take Spanish, but it didn’t burn out with it.

          The Spaniards depend on Omerigi a little more than completely, and Fashington will not approve the deal.
      2. +5
        14 May 2013 16: 53
        Quote: Vashestambid2
        The article is somehow muddy, which means hardly? A helicopter carrier carrying 8 Ka-52 and 8 Ka-29 + 700 marines with military equipment, WHAT ELSE DOES IT NEED? So that he sat on his companions or plunged under water?

        The declared parameters in the Plan are not bad - I do not argue, although there are already problems with its application in our latitudes, and how it will manifest itself is unknown, the technique must be beautiful, then it is effective, and here, honestly speaking, squalor ..
      3. +3
        14 May 2013 17: 07
        And why not use these helicopter carriers by slightly modernizing them with small aircraft carriers? Albeit in a truncated version. We have Yak 141 vertical take-off aircraft, I think the efficiency will increase significantly, we have so few aircraft carriers
        1. +7
          14 May 2013 17: 12
          Do we have a Yak 141? belay
          The only one is rotting in Monino ... It seems that Zadorozhniy still has it. The one in Monina without an engine. The consequences of the accident.
          Although in principle you are right - there is ... one ... not flying ...
          In short, forget it. Merged it ...

          Or do you know something? Prick sir ...
          1. +5
            14 May 2013 20: 58
            Quote: klimpopov
            The one in Monina without an engine. The consequences of the accident.


            It’s clear, but the accident is the collapse of the USSR
        2. +5
          14 May 2013 17: 51
          Quote: elmir15
          . We have Yak 141 vertical take-off aircraft

          They were not (serial), only tests
      4. +1
        15 May 2013 00: 29
        Apparently citizen Shilov had in mind that the requirements for electronic equipment on warships differ from civilian models. Resistance to elevated temperatures, radiation, protection against electromagnetic radiation. Perhaps Mistral equipment will fail when using nuclear weapons. Perhaps the French civilian components are not critical, or resistant to damaging factors, but gr. Shilov doubts this.
    5. +4
      14 May 2013 18: 21
      Quote: fortuneophile
      The integration of our weapons into the Mistral CIRCUITs is generally

      So in a note / article in black and white it says:
      This is a ship. It is equipped with non-military equipment

      There are no weapons on ships. Is that what they transport!
      1. Rustiger
        +2
        15 May 2013 02: 27
        Quote: Hedgehog
        There are no weapons on ships. Is that what they transport!

        Even on a river dry-cargo ship, there was a "Makar" with two extras in the safe by the cap. shops and several boxes of "olives". Notice not personal but s / n. As far as I know, this was the case on many s / n ships. And I'm not even talking about the "sea traders", they are obligated. Maybe more than one barrel. And that was before the "Somali pirates" in the "era of advanced socialism."
    6. opkozak
      +14
      14 May 2013 19: 05
      That's what they had to build in Nikolaev.
      And the drawings are saved!
      The Nevsky Design Bureau led the development of the Project 11780 universal landing craft in the 1980s. The displacement of the UDC was to be 25 thousand tons with a length of 196 meters, a width of 35 meters and a draft of eight meters. Project 11780 was supposed to reach speeds of up to 30 knots, and its range was eight thousand miles. The ship’s air group was to include 12 Ka-29 transport and combat helicopters, and four Project 1176 landing craft or two Project 1206 air cushion landing craft would be placed in the docking chamber. The armament was supposed to include a 130-mm twin automatic gun, two batteries of the Dagger air defense system and four Dagger anti-aircraft missile and artillery systems
      1. +4
        14 May 2013 20: 12
        Quote: opkozak
        That's what they had to build in Nikolaev.

        So this is a ship! Who can stand up for himself a little at sea and, when approaching the shore, set a strand there. What the Mistral absolutely cannot do. The barge is self-propelled and nothing more.
      2. Captain Vrungel
        +5
        14 May 2013 21: 07
        For this project the RO-RO project of the "Engineer Ermoshkin" type was taken as a basis. Its theoretical drawing. Wartime transport. On the exercises, he took on board a tank regiment with a rear in 4 hours. Unique gas turbine passages 30 nodes. Try to catch up. Where are they? All four vessels from the thousand half-abandoned ships of the USSR were acquired by the US Navy. Shipping Command. They were intensively exploited. Became the base for a project like "New Orleans". It's a shame, at home, the specialists are still alive.
        Maybe now naval commanders will appear, who felt sea salt on their lips in the ocean, and not in a tavern in a cabin. Only operation can show what corresponds to what. So many ships with the collapse of the USSR left (and all of them were very carefully prepared for wartime and the transport of military goods across the oceans. How did the sailors joke, what are you transporting? Seeders Seeders, mowers and combines with vertical take-off. How many transports, tankers were involved , refrigerators for providing squadrons in the oceans.Now you can place the names of all support vessels on one arm.
      3. +4
        15 May 2013 00: 37
        Still would have saved Nikolaev, and the country.
        But the drawings, of course, are also cool, scaring enemies.
    7. +6
      14 May 2013 20: 32
      How many copies were broken when preliminary negotiations with France over these ships began, one of the political scientists (I think, German or English, I don’t remember exactly) on a news channel broadcasting in German, said something like the following that the agreement which will be concluded for the construction of the Mistrals for Russia, the largest corruption deal of the century, and to a greater extent beneficial to the French, in connection with the decline in the French shipbuilding industry and a possible social explosion, and that the deal will be concluded at the personal request of Sarkozy, addressed to Medvedev, it was for this that an advertising campaign for this type of ships was launched. In connection with the questions that arise, how do I know, I watched the program myself, I speak German.
      1. sergaivenski
        0
        14 May 2013 21: 25
        At one time, Dear Sirs, the First World War was on, and Russia participated in it at
        side of the Entente. Grigory Rasputin, using his influence at the royal court,
        they concluded a separate peace with Germany. But the French and the British did not need this. What did they do? They gave a bribe through the French ambassador to Russia, Mr. Paleolog
        General Spiridovich, the head of the personal guard of Nicholas II. Rezko was reduced okh-
        Rasputin's wound, this allowed the tsar's relative, Prince Yusupov, with a group of conspirators to "soak" Grishka !!! What does the greatest power of the Bribe mean !!! The Mistral case!
        it smells bad !!! Do not go to a fortuneteller, there were some bribes !!!
    8. Reasonable, 2,3
      +1
      15 May 2013 04: 15
      Well, why so?. At the Black Sea Fleet, they are in place.
    9. +5
      15 May 2013 06: 04
      Now rockfall will start again towards Serdyukov. The old topic about the purchase of foreign scrap metal for the Russian army and navy will again unfold. Only one thing I cannot understand. After all, these ships are not ballpoint pens. And the sanction for their purchase should have been given in any way by the top officials of the state, at that time the GDP and DAMA, only after a comprehensive examination and evaluation by specialists. Or did Serdyukov decide to purchase these expensive "toys" by his sole decision, and the "sweet couple" was out of business? Doesn't it seem that it’s long ago to put all the i's and give a true legal assessment to all the actors in the high-profile cases of the Ministry of Defense. Otherwise, the ministers, secretaries, cleaners, plumbers are to blame for everything, and the Fuhrer is like an outside observer. He only skims the cream, flies with cranes and answers rehearsed questions on TV shows.
    10. +1
      15 May 2013 06: 57
      Well, how can you strictly ask, MOTHER row kickbacks .... everything in the FAMILY ... wink and these "sheds" will probably have to be resold to someone, in Tajikistan, for example, they will make dorms there ... laughing
      1. 0
        15 May 2013 12: 21
        And why give them to the Tajiks. In the West, for example, floating prisons are widely practiced. Why in our country, not at least one best Western experience is adopted. The first inhabitants to send there those who gave the sanction for the purchase of these ships. Let new things settle in.
    11. +1
      15 May 2013 13: 04
      Quote: fortuneophile
      The integration of our weapons into the Mistral MISTRALs is generally something from sadomasobiology combining a snake and a hedgehog. winked


      Yes, all this is another chatter. The Chinese need to pay attention. They calmly bought our aircraft carrier and equipped it as they saw fit. Ie the question is how to convert the finished ship there. It remains to find out what exactly Mistral lacks in order to meet the requirements, roll up his lip and start designing. Business then ... And this miracle, in glasses, from the NGO Aurora simply cries because the French carried money past their pocket, but they did not lose their heads and squeezed everything out of the contract. The stool again, cattle certainly ...
  2. +1
    14 May 2013 15: 20
    It is already visible that ento truck! laughing
  3. +4
    14 May 2013 15: 22
    I am always jarred when I see this "Stump", the barge is better looking .. the French always have some kind of freaks in the automotive industry and in shipbuilding .. And I can't even imagine how to fit it into our Navy groupings, a floating barrel, and the first target for any anti-ship missile ..
    1. +5
      14 May 2013 15: 31
      Quote: DEfindER
      floating barrel, and the first target for any RCC ..

      Well, well, the first version for which they have already been purchased, will be used as a false distracting goal.
      1. +8
        14 May 2013 17: 52
        Recently, our ministers have been in vogue for false targets ... Inflatable tanks, air defense systems, etc. .. These funds would be for real equipment. otherwise the whole fleet will soon resemble "false targets", incl. and new ships. A striking example is the DPL pr. 677 "Lada" "St. Petersburg", a ship afloat since 2004, included in the composition in 2010, but the fleet actually does not have this ship ...
    2. +10
      14 May 2013 16: 10
      ... uh ... about the car industry, it's easier ... Everybody has freaks ... but the most elegant are the Franks always ............ The point is that France, that in tank building, that in aircraft building (auto, ship, ..., etc.) has always abstracted from others and went its own way (handsome Mirages, Rafal, always a "duck") The same Leclerc the most computerized tank in the world .............. Immediately I will make a reservation that I am not comparing T.T.Kh. and T.T.D. technology ......... and Mistralushka (already our long-suffering one) fits quite well into the overall appearance of the landing and tank landing ships ...
      1. +7
        14 May 2013 16: 39
        Quote: FREGATENKAPITAN
        and Mistralushka (already our long-suffering) fully fits into the general appearance of the landing and tank landing ships ....

        I dare to disagree with you, for example I will bring the BDK Azov, the difference is absolutely everything, their ship is more like a medieval galleon than a modern warship ..
        Their planes do not inspire me the same, Rafal is the same as a chopped off whole, there is no that grace of lines like Sukhoi ..
        Well, at the expense of the car industry, of course they don’t argue about tastes, but I know that many people are completely unflattering about the design of Renault and Peugeot ..
        1. +2
          14 May 2013 17: 04
          Don't you like the Bugatti Veyron too?
          1. +4
            14 May 2013 17: 27
            Quote: McSIM
            Don't you like the Bugatti Veyron too?

            For such money, the car should shock the appearance, but it does not shock me, although the design is excellent, the same Lamborghini is much prettier at a lower cost ..
          2. avt
            +3
            14 May 2013 17: 53
            Quote: McSIM
            Don't you like the Bugatti Veyron too?

            You will laugh, but this is a Volkswagen. We bought chances in the bud and here is the result.
          3. The comment was deleted.
          4. 77bob1973
            0
            14 May 2013 23: 00
            Personally, I like Bugatti-57 and 41. And if about landing ships, then Mistral and other UDC is the desire to combine two or even three types of ships in one. Something like Swiss knives. Our navy did not smell of such universalism.
        2. +2
          14 May 2013 17: 54
          Quote: DEfindER
          but I know that many are completely unflattering about the design that Renault that Peugeot

          I won’t argue about barges and tanks .... I agree, but about Peugeot ..... very reliable .... a beautiful car for women .... my wife had a 106 wad (50 km), then 000 ( 206 43 km) now 000 traveled 1007 57 km ... on old versions I have NEVER repaired !! 000 changed the brains of the robot (1007 17 rubles) .. changed the basket with the clutch (000 11000 rubles) and right now the brain makes the electric drive of the passenger door ..... but dvigun ideally ... the suspension is just super .... in the pits and potholes, and everyone is alive !!! and the WATER design is very good .... it sets fashion in many respects to all other Europeans! + Salon is really cool, believe me)) !!
        3. +5
          14 May 2013 20: 19
          ..Well, I had to visit 775 projects in Baltiysk on these DBs, this is a different story ..... (by the way they are of Polish construction) ...... Mistral, Tarava, Iwo Jima, etc. are ships of a different plan, they cannot be compared directly ...... From Mistral it will turn out (again I will make a reservation ... if I have already acquired) magnificent control ships ... with functions naturally and BDK or TDK ....

          Well, the car ...... undoubtedly a German prestigious Frenchman ...... only everything is fresh ....... but for example, Fawn 508 or Citramon s5 is new, Rno Megan coupe ... just elegant. ..... Well, as they say it tastes .......
          1. +4
            14 May 2013 20: 49
            To be honest, we got a little bit from the Mistral! How many ships of the ocean zone have been built over the past 10 years? Recently there was infa about unmanned helicopters, dare your heels on the highways, it will not hurt! As a floating operational headquarters, why is it bad! BIUS) of a potential enemy! The fact that it is not reasonable to send him on a campaign alone, but aircraft carriers do not go to sea one at a time! Good or bad, let the sailors write reviews after operation and I have a suspicion that after all the amenities of the Mistral, our BDK and TDK will not look their best !! And as for the construction in France, if you like them, then God help us build two at home (and the timing of the construction of the French and ours will clearly not be in our favor)
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. +7
    14 May 2013 15: 25
    Quote: fortuneophile
    Embedding Mistrals of our armament into the MIS

    What kind of ... maybe a BIUS for using a wide range of weapons on a landing ship?
    This is a trough for transporting and landing troops, a floating hospital, etc.
    No need to make an attack ship out of it.
  6. +7
    14 May 2013 15: 25
    Well, uh ... with them, with these Mistrals! May they become pleasure boats for the wives of our soldiers and officers. This will be a click on the pride of the inventors of this craft)))
    1. KPACHA9_3BE3DA
      +7
      14 May 2013 15: 57
      So far, unfortunately, I can’t put any advantages, but I completely agree with you!
    2. +10
      14 May 2013 18: 31
      Quote: krez-74
      This will be a click on the pride of the inventors of this craft)))

      For such babosy
      This is us, click on the nose
      Their monsieur there themselves are glad
      What's in Russia
  7. +6
    14 May 2013 15: 26
    First they threw it, well then, as always, they threw it ... Vile. In the spirit of Anglo-Saxon "morality".
  8. USNik
    +20
    14 May 2013 15: 26
    Mistral type ships can hardly be used in wartime.

    Why such a fright? Or will the engine jam with his first shots, will all the helicopters explode in the crew, mass diarrhea will begin and the bottom will fall off altogether? In fact, Mistral is designed for overseas operations, and not for oncoming tank battles.
    1. +2
      14 May 2013 15: 31
      Quote: USNik
      In fact, Mistral is designed for overseas operations and not for oncoming tank battles.

      But do we intend to attack someone? So it is better to strengthen the coastal defense.
      1. USNik
        +10
        14 May 2013 15: 38
        And what do you think is better to sail to the coast of Syria on the old BDK or on the new Mistral?
        1. Captain Vrungel
          +8
          14 May 2013 16: 01
          Better on a new passenger-and-freight ferry with spacious car decks for equipment and comfortable cabins with landing facilities. Yes, and the speed is one and a half times higher, seaworthiness is better and not more expensive in price (if you do not tear kickbacks). There is no money to buy, take a bareboat charter with the right to replace the flag and crew with subsequent redemption.
        2. ed65b
          +6
          14 May 2013 18: 07
          On the mistral will be better.
      2. +1
        14 May 2013 20: 37
        I dare to ask, do we need an ocean fleet?
    2. +9
      14 May 2013 15: 39
      I support !! In the Northern Fleet during the Great Patriotic War, our grandfathers on rusty American vessels (otherwise you cannot call this help) gave the Fritz a light !! The crew of the ship is glane !!! Without it, even the most modern canning vessel!
      PS let me who served on the boxes correct, if something goes wrong! soldier
    3. waisson
      +4
      14 May 2013 15: 43
      without support ships he is helpless
    4. +7
      14 May 2013 17: 07
      Quote: USNik
      Mistral is generally intended for overseas operations.

      And what is its "horizon"? wink
      And what is the "horizon" of coastal weapons: missile-carrying aircraft and anti-ship missiles?
      Or can Mistral be used where these funds are not?
      Most likely so. Against the Papuans.
      Rastrata, however.
      And there is no evidence ... request Not the 37th year, you know ...
    5. +2
      15 May 2013 09: 54
      Quote: USNik
      Or will the engine jam with his first shots, will all the helicopters explode in the crew, mass diarrhea will begin and the bottom will fall off altogether? In fact, Mistral is designed for overseas operations, and not for oncoming tank battles.

      I am afraid that you are not far from the truth, during a military campaign the load on all the ship's nodes can be maximum, and the capitalists do not make a margin of safety. economy first of all, their technique is more for antlers than for war .. Remember the article was, the memoirs of one techie who accompanied our tanks in the Emirates, he wrote about the French leclerk who were delivered to the landfill by train, after that they were calibrated for a long time, trimmed, because they all got confused during the railway trip, our tanks on their own across rough terrain reached the range and fired better than the French .. So think about how this barrel-shaped Frenchman will show himself when it really is "hot"!
      1. 0
        15 May 2013 16: 59
        during a military campaign, the load on all nodes of the ship can be maximum, and the capitalists do not make a margin of safety because saving above all

        ohh, and we throw our hats out of habit ... For with a safety margin in БЧ-5 - everything is normal. Tugs in the squadron - evidence of this.
  9. 120352
    +7
    14 May 2013 15: 29
    A purely cruise civilian ship. Girls ride along the beach and off the coast. But what a cool kickback Serdyukov did!
    1. +6
      14 May 2013 21: 06
      Quote: 120352
      A purely cruise civilian ship. Girls ride along the beach and off the coast


      But did Serdyukov have problems with the girls? He didn’t have Mistral to roll them, now there is something, but the girls are still sitting



  10. waisson
    +3
    14 May 2013 15: 37
    well, why a cruise can be used as a ferry in the Baltic Sea can pay for itself in 100 years
  11. qroz5
    +3
    14 May 2013 15: 41
    why did they order them at all? maybe he and the gay men have their own interests
    1. +6
      14 May 2013 17: 50
      EXTRACTS FROM THE ARTICLE "THE MISTRAL" SLEEPED UNSIGNED.
      ... former Minister of Defense Anatoly Serdyukov did not defend Russian interests at all, but Western ones ... By the way, the Russian press has already written that Mr. Serdyukov represented the interests of the West.

      “... we can recall the interview of deputy Evgeny Fedorov, who clearly said that our elite is controlled by the United States. Among all his predecessors, Anatoly Serdyukov made the greatest contribution to the collapse of the armed forces, his “successes” here are unprecedented. He suits the Americans - that's why we are unsinkable, ”wrote the KM journalist even before Serdyukov’s resignation.

      Perhaps it was sensing the cover from his possible “foreign patrons” (however, this is only a version) that Serdyukov felt truly invulnerable!

      And did Mr. Serdyukov work for foreign intelligence?

      And if this terrible fact finds confirmation, then who of the Russian high-ranking officials covered Anatoly Eduardovich?

      Source: http: //www.moscow-post.com/politics/mistral_podkralsja_nezametno10371/
      1. +3
        14 May 2013 18: 42
        these facts will never be confirmed, because it will not be Putin’s click on the nose, but the KGB knockout, who placed the high point of the enemy’s agent, anything like a thief, masochist, homosexual, but not an agent, although he’s normal with thieves relations
  12. UPStoyan
    +14
    14 May 2013 15: 54
    The Mistral may not be an ideal landing ship, but its combat qualities are at a significant level, and most are grossly underestimated. Especially when compared with the capabilities of the existing landing ships of projects 775 and 1171. Against their background, he can not only organize the landing of an assault force, including by the method of "vertical coverage", but also provide him with air support, which, without the use of "Admiral Kuznetsov", our Navy can do not able to.
    1. 0
      14 May 2013 19: 53
      Yes, no matter how cool this Mistral is, it’s just that our Navy tries to ... he doesn’t need it!
  13. +9
    14 May 2013 15: 59
    But this is a ship that should be used either in peacetime or in the pre-war period, "

    Perhaps this is the answer. In resolving modern military conflicts and tensions, the Mistral will be a kind of psychological weapon, letting the whole world know about Russia's intentions! If we had a Mistral now and would come to the shores of Syria! Who else would stick in there? The cleaner S-300 convinces!
  14. andsavichev2012
    +12
    14 May 2013 16: 03
    For border troops, it was actually ordered for local naval (Black Sea) operations. They’ll deliver electronics, not such a big problem, and even a weapon. Right now we have nowhere to build such! small shipyards were in the USSR in Nikolaev, Little Russians killed and dirtied them, like their entire circus republic. It’s better to buy boxes from Peter’s completely friendly France and equip them in St. Petersburg than restore shipyards to muddy saloids.
  15. +7
    14 May 2013 16: 04
    Of course, one can understand the offense of the general director of NPO Aurora. But now is not the time to wave fists after a fight, it is necessary to attach this vessel in any way to the fleet's economy, and do it as efficiently as possible.
    1. 0
      15 May 2013 17: 00
      Of course, one can understand the offense of the general director of NPO Aurora.

      here is a reasonable thought!
  16. waisson
    0
    14 May 2013 16: 04
    s-300 is a good argument and "mistral" is one good target
  17. +2
    14 May 2013 16: 06
    - And what about the ships of Project 1123? Or "there are no prophets in their own country"? Is it possible to refine such a ship to modern requirements, including to a landing helicopter carrier?
    1. +3
      14 May 2013 18: 24
      Project 1123 "MOSCOW"
  18. UFO
    +21
    14 May 2013 16: 06
    "The morning began in the village" .... Dmitrich will now come and explain everything, who has "why the heck goat button accordion". Until then:
    Quote: DEfindER
    and the first target for any RCC ..

    Isn't any other DCK a target for the RCC? fool
    Quote: Alekseev
    No need to make an attack ship out of it.

    And who said that it will be a cruiser? belay
    Quote: USNik
    In fact, Mistral is designed for overseas operations, and not for oncoming tank battles.

    Wonderful good
    Quote: regin
    Do we intend to attack anyone?

    Take a look at the map of our Far East, there is no scope? And what about peacekeeping operations, what about our refugees, or again the "Iron Curtain"? Although with him the Mistral will come in handy. wink
    Quote: 120352
    A purely cruise civilian ship. Girls ride along the beach and off the coast.

    Are you kidding me? The headquarters ship controlling the grouping of ships, if necessary, a hospital is equipped at 12! operating rooms. Or did the cataclysms on earth end? Or have the wars stopped? belay
    1. +4
      14 May 2013 20: 54
      drinks arguments of reason "hurray patriots" do not accept!
    2. +4
      14 May 2013 21: 08
      Quote: UFO
      no scope? And peacekeeping operations, and our refugees,?


      Flood yet
      1. +1
        15 May 2013 17: 05
        the same option ... places of humanitarian disasters, so to speak ...
        1. +2
          15 May 2013 17: 07
          Frenchies as "Emergency Situations" use UDC ...
    3. +1
      15 May 2013 17: 03
      UFO welcome! Everything is definitely said.
  19. +3
    14 May 2013 16: 07
    We do not need Mistrals as a military (we do not conquer the Papuans). Transfer them to the Ministry of Emergencies - as floating hospitals, to the FSB - to guard the borders. But it is better in the west of the Ministry of Emergency Situations, in the Far East - the FSB (using islands as a floating clinic and for protecting the territorial waters)
    1. +1
      15 May 2013 17: 09
      the Navy has such a function.
  20. +15
    14 May 2013 16: 10
    Mistral and should not appear in the war zone (under fire, so to speak). And even more so without cover!
    If judging ships in such a way, then the aircraft carrier is worthless crap!
    1. +2
      14 May 2013 20: 17
      Do not be famously! And then Oleg Kaptsov will come and explain to everyone popularly about the hefty flyable floating horseradish (that is, aircraft carriers) fellow
    2. ded10041948
      +1
      15 May 2013 13: 48
      Manager: Mistral and should not appear in the war zone (under fire, so to speak). And even more so without cover!
      If judging ships in such a way, then the aircraft carrier is worthless crap!

      Do not contradict yourself
      If it is a floating headquarters or a delivery vehicle or an evacuation vehicle, where do you think it should be located? On Rublevka or what? In the Ministry of Emergency Situations - the very place, but the "gift" is too expensive.
  21. +6
    14 May 2013 16: 12
    These Mistrals do not know where to attach, but what kind of kickbacks rolled !!!
  22. +3
    14 May 2013 16: 22
    If they paid for these Mistrals, and they are not able to carry out their tasks in the conditions of our Navy, then it is necessary to convert them to KIKs (ships of the measuring complex), which at one time also managed to wiggle for the benefit of friendship with NATO.
  23. -1
    14 May 2013 16: 29
    The very fact that Russia buys corbles is a shame.
    1. evil hamster
      +14
      14 May 2013 16: 48
      And also the USSR built almost the entire landing and icebreaking fleet over the hill, in Poland and Finland - that’s a disgrace, isn’t it?
      1. +1
        14 May 2013 17: 15
        And did the Poles and Fins design the ships?
        1. evil hamster
          +5
          14 May 2013 17: 25
          Depending on which, BDK is our project, some of the icebreakers were Finnish. Does it change anything? because shame is your logic? or am I wrong? And here's another example of shame it’s scary to imagine the USSR buying the L39 and L410 in Czechoslovakia — which kaaaashmar and this is a great aviation power. Well, not a disgrace, agree !? Not?
          1. +3
            14 May 2013 18: 00
            Your irony is understood by the respected evil hamster, and the shame is that we buy from France, from the Finns, and not from the other side. Hope this is temporary.
            1. UFO
              +4
              14 May 2013 19: 49
              It is not a sin to buy a good (best), and the Russian Empire and the USSR did not disdain this. hi
              1. +4
                14 May 2013 21: 12
                Quote: UFO
                It is not a sin to buy a good (best), and the Russian Empire and the USSR did not disdain this.


                A lot of examples, from tanks, engines, planes, but the identity was the best, well, in general, we'll see
            2. evil hamster
              +4
              14 May 2013 22: 33
              You know you can’t be the best in absolutely everything - this is fundamentally unattainable. Even the USSR could not achieve this despite the planned economy and the titanic efforts of the people. There are things that should be produced in the country in spite of everything, there are many examples: ICBMs, SLBMs, helicopters, tanks, fighter jets, etc. - the main strategically important things, or production, affecting the rest of the economy (auto industry, engine building, production of rolling stock for railways, etc.) - this is not discussed: it should be its own, if not the best. But there are things in which it makes no sense to rest and overcome in spite of everything, in the end the resources are not infinite. And UDC, just such things. Well, we don’t have a relevant project and, for good, there is currently no way to build them quickly for adequate money and without surprises. Why there is no project - this is a separate question and it needs to be asked to certain officials in the RF Ministry of Defense, why they did not think about this in advance. So do we need to harness ourselves to NIIR and OCD for the sake of 2-4 ships? Here an analogy can be drawn from peaceful life: one man wants to build a brick house, and the other a city of brick houses, both can go in 2 ways to buy a brick on the side or build a brick factory, for the first man the second way is crazy and impossible, but for the second, it’s quite interesting and will help to save a lot of money, and then bargain with brick. That's why I am for the purchase of Mistral but against forever, because the first is highly specialized and is needed among the units, and the second is needed in a very decent series with prospects for the future.
              There is no shame about buying something - if it is justified economically, technologically, politically
              1. 0
                14 May 2013 23: 00
                The second is necessary now, given the mine war in the Caucasus and the development of tactics for working with such machines. At the time of purchase from Russia, there were no analogues in production, and now there is no. Holes need something to shut up. And in no case the lives of soldiers.
            3. 0
              14 May 2013 23: 51
              Quote: artist-mamluk
              at Finns, but not on a turn. Hope this is temporary.

              Yes, you will soon buy from yourself in Finland, Finnish shipyards seem to be buying out.
          2. +1
            14 May 2013 21: 19
            Quote: evil hamster
            Depending on which, BDK is our project, some of the icebreakers were Finnish. Does it change anything? because shame is your logic? or am I wrong? And here's another example of shame it’s scary to imagine the USSR buying the L39 and L410 in Czechoslovakia — which kaaaashmar and this is a great aviation power. Well, not a disgrace, agree !? Not?


            It was a political "deflection", an ugly and unnecessary action, all the flyers with the general's shoulder straps later admitted this, about the L-39. Yakovlev's design bureau had an incomparably better model then, but it did not go into the series, because it was necessary to butter up the Czechs, "friends", their mother! :(
  24. Rainman69
    +9
    14 May 2013 16: 38
    No matter how no one says that this is a full-fledged warship, the main purpose of the Mistrals is to carry Helicopters and various kinds of military equipment, it also has the name HELICOPTER, it was ordered for this purpose ... Author CEP
    1. MilaPhone
      +6
      14 May 2013 18: 42
      Quote: Rainman69
      Rainman69

      No, he can still land equipment and troops.
      1. MilaPhone
        +5
        14 May 2013 18: 46
        Imagine that it is our people who are slowly drying out on the "inhospitable" Syrian coast.
        1. UFO
          +4
          14 May 2013 19: 50
          For comment +, but avatar - blinnn belay
        2. ded10041948
          +1
          15 May 2013 14: 07
          As some people write: "Over-the-horizon landing with vertical coverage"
        3. +2
          15 May 2013 17: 12
          Milafon, good photo from EDA-R.
  25. -2
    14 May 2013 16: 42
    What’s good for fishing
    1. cyclist
      0
      14 May 2013 16: 54
      yeah, Serdyuk in your ear !!
  26. 0
    14 May 2013 16: 46
    And how many different hearts and swamp walkers can be loaded into them! And a cruise to the bay of the Cross.
  27. +1
    14 May 2013 16: 53
    We bought a barge .. and do it with ignorance
    1. -2
      14 May 2013 18: 11
      We bought a barge .. and do it with ignorance
    2. UFO
      +1
      14 May 2013 19: 52
      Who says they don’t know? negative
      1. +4
        14 May 2013 19: 56
        children in the kindergarten out of despair laid out the word "ENOUGH" from the lumps of semolina
      2. +1
        15 May 2013 17: 13
        UFO, those who do not want to know.

        TSAMTO, May 13. In the future, the command of the Russian Navy plans to include the Mistral UDC as headquarters ships in the Mediterranean Union. This was in an interview with RIA Novosti, the commander in chief of the Russian Navy, Admiral Viktor Chirkov.
        http://vpk.name/news/89467_udk_tipa_mistral_mogut_byit_vklyuchenyi_v_sostav_sred
        izemnomorskoi_eskadryi.html

        as expected initially ...
  28. +3
    14 May 2013 16: 53
    The French, of course, threw the Aurora. And this should be offensive not only to its CEO, but also to the country's leadership, and to all of us. And about the value of the Mistrals, incl. and in the event of a war, about promising options for combat use, it would be interesting to know the opinion of the Navy professionals.
    1. 0
      14 May 2013 18: 44
      Quote: matRoss
      The French, of course, threw Aurora. And this should be offensive not only to her general director, but also to the country's leadership, and to all of us.

      I completely agree. I would impose certain sanctions against the “mistralists”.
  29. +3
    14 May 2013 16: 54
    Correctly noticed Mistral is not a warship ... it is a colonial-police ship, created to support the administrations of the overseas territories of France. Where it is used there is no strong enemy as such ... it is to disperse dissatisfied Aborigines, such as in Mali, they did and back to the metropolis.
  30. +18
    14 May 2013 16: 57
    I read the comments of people who write supposedly Mistral bullshit, we will re-equip their cruise ships, they’ll come off for fishing! And I realized what kind of people began to fill the site. Want to minus, but I will speak out! If you guys don’t rummage in military affairs at all, if you don’t give a damn about our army, if you’re worthless historians, the whole fleet was built only in native shipyards before, if you really think that the Mistral should be protected almost from a frontal attack and is comfortable Feel yourself in the war zone - GO YOU ALL TO OPU FROM THE SITE! I am disgusted that people like you put pros and cons on the site.
    1. cyclist
      +3
      14 May 2013 17: 42
      let those who lobby for the interests of "buy and sell" military equipment go to the opu from the site, the collapse and betrayal of "Serdyukovschina" was enough
    2. +9
      14 May 2013 18: 27
      Quote: Manager
      If you guys don’t rummage in military affairs at all, if you don’t give a damn about our army, if you’re worthless historians, the whole fleet was built only in native shipyards before, if you really think that the Mistral should be protected almost from a frontal attack and is comfortable Feel yourself in the war zone - GO YOU ALL TO OPU FROM THE SITE! I am disgusted that people like you put pros and cons on the site.

      Good day, Manager! Basically I agree with you, regarding some incorrect posts. It is clear that the deal itself gives away a serious darling, but as they say, what is done is done. Now to the Mistrals. A ship of this type is not an active combat unit of the fleet, but the main purpose of the ships of this class is: 1) The headquarters ship of the combat command of a naval group, 2) The base for the delivery, cover and evacuation of special forces at problem points on the planet 3) Evacuation of diplomatic and civilian personnel from hot spots. These are, as it were, the basic tasks.
      Taking into account the creation of a Mediterranean squadron of a non-permanent composition, i.e., an inter-naval group, the question of finding the headquarters for managing this squadron naturally arises. And here Mistral comes in handy, just equipped with domestic BIOS and weapons. Here you have the guard ships and the use of this ship for its intended purpose, plus the Marines or MTR units on board. Naturally, one ship cannot always be in the sea, and so they will change each other — they will change their friends in the Mediterranean, where they are supposed to be based on performance characteristics. All this, of course, does not justify Serdyukov and were with him. But now it’s too late to shout the guard, we must correctly apply them. Somehow I see their future.
      1. +3
        14 May 2013 18: 34
        Quote: Victor
        Victor

        Good evening, Victor!
        About that and speech! All right, you said.
      2. +3
        14 May 2013 22: 21
        Quote: Victor
        Now to the Mistrals

        Thanks for the comprehensive clarification. good
        And then, however, the comments are completely full of unreasonable despair
      3. 0
        15 May 2013 00: 04
        Quote: Victor
        Mistral, only equipped with domestic BIOS and weapons

        Judging by the article, he will not have a domestic BIUS, the company did not dare to take on increased obligations, this is understandable in principle, the degree of risk with Russian subcontractors is too high. Let the French do the normal ship to the end.
        1. +1
          15 May 2013 22: 09
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          Judging by the article, he will not have a domestic BIOS

          Believe me, there will be a domestic BIOS. Nowhere to go. If they give the French, it is greatly stripped down and possibly with surprises. And his weapons will be. The Commander-in-Chief of the Navy has already confirmed that Mistral will play the role of the head ship in the Mediterranean group of the Russian Navy.
      4. +2
        15 May 2013 17: 15
        Victor I share your point of view.
    3. +2
      14 May 2013 21: 00
      but why logic? brains are needed for it! You can blame me, but if the Americans had built us an aircraft carrier of the Nimitz type, I would be just glad!
    4. +7
      15 May 2013 00: 09
      Judging by the comments, everyone wants something like this from these ships.
      1. +1
        15 May 2013 17: 16
        Super Wunderwafers! laughing
  31. KononAV
    +1
    14 May 2013 17: 01
    From the first second it was clear that all this would not lead to anything good.
    1. UFO
      0
      14 May 2013 19: 56
      Who knows? What will not lead? "All this" - what? wassat
  32. vitas
    0
    14 May 2013 17: 13
    Would raise domestic shipbuilding, would order our helicopter carriers. Serdyukov s..ka, God forbid that they put him !!!
  33. +1
    14 May 2013 17: 13
    Stupid deal, but the problems are serious.
  34. +1
    14 May 2013 17: 15
    Since the appearance of the name "Mistral" landing helicopter ship dock, no one really knows what we need it for, especially if it is purchased according to the 2 + 2 formula (2 we buy, 2 we build). The program was voiced by the past leadership of the defense - the then department of Serdyukov knew why it was buying. So let him get a toy - to roll, i.e. walk with your harem across the seas - oceans. Everything goes to the fact that he is not judged. So let him pay off.
  35. +5
    14 May 2013 17: 18
    Why hysteria like that! What did someone who posted someone else’s opinion want to hear about the Mistral?
    Gentlemen, who were given minuses, it turns out that you had to clap your hands and shout "Ay yes Mistrali", "Ay yes Frenchmen".
    People expressed their opinion, and if it doesn’t coincide with someone else, then learn to respect it, but in general lately there have been a lot of stupid minuses that the person who just set cannot justify.
    The minus should be only with a comment and not a spit out of the silence.
    Let's get the minusers further laughing
    1. MilaPhone
      +5
      14 May 2013 18: 37
      Quote: mhpv
      Mhpv

      This is understandable. Nevertheless, to consider a narrow-profile ship as dermatism, only because our officials have pathological embezzlers, is also wrong.
      1. 77bor1973
        +3
        15 May 2013 12: 11
        Well, at the expense of a narrow profile, it’s for nothing that he and UDC.
    2. +3
      15 May 2013 09: 22
      Quote: mhpv
      Mhpv

      I do not agree! (Minus with me)
      We don’t have ships on like Mistral. And we would order them even ours, there would not be another 10 years at best! Ships of this kind are needed. I don’t care who got what kind of kickback. But we now have ships of this class. And before it was not. And it is not yet known where and when they may come in handy.
      1. +2
        15 May 2013 12: 53
        Well let's analyze:
        1. The speed of the Mistral max 19 nodes for many of our warships is a combat economical move, therefore this vessel will be very limited in maneuvering in combat conditions. Hence, there will be no headquarters there except for a sauna-spent day. In the Soviet 11780 project, max speed should was to make 30 bonds.
        2. If Russia adheres to defensive tactics, let me ask where are we going to move so many helicopters to the Mistral? From the Black Sea Fleet to the Pacific Fleet or Northern Fleet. The French need to carry helicopters to hold their colonies, and we have enough ground-based helicopter connections.
        3. Horizontal landing, the mechanic correctly said that like death or the BDK would land all the power of the landing at once, or Mistral would carry 20 people with carts standing over the horizon.
        The question is not what they bought over the hill, but exactly what they bought.
        You look at us the Indians completely bald eating at Vikramaditya, and then the French are pumping the rights for our own money, do we really need such ships and such partners?
        1. ded10041948
          0
          15 May 2013 13: 25
          Reptile technique does not allow to put more than one plus!
          It’s a pity, I didn’t see the comment of the Mechanic, I wouldn’t write my own, but just plus.
        2. +2
          15 May 2013 17: 19
          1. The speed of the Mistral max 19 knots for many of our warships is a combat economical move,

          And what is the speed of the BDK 775? that's it.
          such partners are needed. For there are no others.
      2. ded10041948
        +1
        15 May 2013 13: 29
        The Navy needs ships of different classes and purposes, but, excuse me, in what staffing table is a "whore with conveniences" indicated, and even in such a nightmarish performance? And about "where and when they can come in handy", this is a question for the initiators of this purchase. You can guarantee that they will not answer anything understandable. Do not write in plain text: "Not enough for women!"
  36. +2
    14 May 2013 17: 33
    For what purpose initially Mistral bought?
  37. +3
    14 May 2013 17: 33
    It is better to have your own, "not very good" than someone else's and seemingly beautiful - (Advertising and money work not without success). Foreign equipment needs to be bought, but not to replenish OUR ARMED FORCES, but to study all technical solutions.
    1. UFO
      +2
      14 May 2013 20: 00
      Well, yes, like - "sell me 2 kg. Electronics, and keep the trough?" Where are such fools found? what
  38. +6
    14 May 2013 17: 38
    Quote: Botanologist
    Are our better?


    As the Foreign Minister of the British Empire Lord George Nathaniel Curzon once said "BAD OR GOOD IS MY COUNTRY"

    HOW EVERYTHING BEAUTIFULLY ADVERTISED! I REMEMBER IF WHO HAD TO FORGET:

    17.02.2010
    Mistral-class French military helicopter carrier in St. Petersburg
    MOSCOW, 17 Feb - RIA Novosti. Mistral-class helicopter carriers in all respects are three times superior to Russian ships, domestic manufacturers can create such ships only in 5-10 years, Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces General of the Army Nikolai Makarov told reporters on Thursday.
    "The ships of the Mistral type have a very high versatility and they greatly outperform our ships in all parameters - three times," Makarov said.
    According to him, over the past 15-20 years, Russia has lost many positions in the development of military equipment and weapons.
    The French Mistral-class helicopter carrier, in particular, is three times more economical than Russian ships, it uses three times less fuel, the army general said.
    Despite the fact that the French helicopter carrier Mistral consumes significantly less fuel than Russian ships, its displacement is 21 tons, while domestic counterparts have 600-4 tons, Makarov said.
    "Its range of application is very wide: it can be a helicopter carrier or a landing ship, it can be used as a command ship, as a hospital, and simply as a conventional vehicle for carrying some kind of cargo," added Makarov.
    "Of course, our industry can create such a ship, but it will take about 5-7-10 years," said Makarov.

    On November 17, 2011, the Chief of the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces, General of the Army Nikolai Makarov, said that some samples of Russian weapons and military equipment are inferior to the most successful foreign counterparts in terms of their tactical and technical characteristics. In order to clarify his statement, Makarov compared the Russian T-90 main battle tank with the Israeli Merkava MK4, and the Smerch multiple launch rocket system with the American HIMARS missile and artillery system. According to him, the firing range of the T-90 and Smerch is much shorter than that of foreign counterparts.

    BTW: Initially, the price of the contract with the French was estimated at 980 million euros. And for the French Navy, such ships are built at all for 400 million euros, that is, three times cheaper than the amount for which the Mistral was ultimately sold to Russia.

    NO ROLLBACK EXPLICITLY WASN'T CLEAR!
    And the presidential spokesman D. Peskov said that there is not enough evidence to transfer Serdyukov to the status of the accused.

    AND CORRECTLY! We are not 37 years old ...
    1. +1
      14 May 2013 23: 35
      Quote: AleksUkr
      HOW EVERYTHING BEAUTIFULLY ADVERTISED! I REMEMBER IF WHO HAD TO FORGET:


      Well, why did you write your opus? I remember all this very well from the very beginning. But an article about whether Misral is good or bad. Saying that is bad, I would not. And I did not see the arguments, including from you. What, we will continue to water all the snot infinitely long?
      1. 0
        15 May 2013 10: 06
        Quote: Botanologist
        But an article about whether Misral is good or bad. Saying that is bad, I would not. Yes, and did not see the arguments

        Good or bad, we will know only after his trip somewhere, albeit a training one, immediately then everything will come out, (if even without a trip problems with low temperatures are already detected) we will bring it to mind with a file ..
  39. +1
    14 May 2013 17: 41
    And minus in his impotent malice. The Bay of the Cross is our territory and water area and was named by V. Bering in honor of the Holy Cross of Life. Maybe Serdyukov was never there
    so let him look and for the bog walkers there is an electorate - the Eskimos however. At the same time, he measured the depths, studied the fairway and other hydrography.
  40. +1
    14 May 2013 17: 41
    They wrote a lot. Everyone. Is it realistic to use it in the Baltic? Ordinary ferry boat DKBF? Transport military goods? In Kaliningrad?. By sediment after all it seems to pass? In this case, at least some real uselessness?
  41. serpentine fist
    +3
    14 May 2013 17: 47
    armed with a mistral with whom can I fight? Is it only with the countries of Africa with their pirates and no one else? against which army can only helicopters and paratroopers be sent? only for special operations. maybe someday when Russia begins to participate in local conflicts away from its shores. then there will be sense, and so only the maintenance of one's EGO. Russia has its own aircraft carriers, hell take it off instead of MiGs Mi instead of Dryers Ka.
    1. 0
      14 May 2013 21: 41
      Aircraft carrier in the amount of 1 piece (Admiral Kuznetsov). Em. All request
      1. 0
        15 May 2013 11: 36
        Kuznetsov is a heavy aircraft carrier cruiser. Do not confuse with an aircraft carrier. The application is different.
        1. Beck
          +2
          15 May 2013 20: 16
          Quote: JIaIIoTb
          Kuznetsov is a heavy aircraft carrier cruiser. Do not confuse with an aircraft carrier. The application is different.


          Wrong you say. What is TAKR, what is an aircraft carrier, NO fundamental difference. Both have the same tasks, the same functions and the same purpose. They differ only in size. Well, like the MiG-29 and Su-27, but both fighters.

          If the USSR had built an aircraft carrier twice the size of the Nimitz, it would still be called the aircraft carrier. And that's why.

          Soviet aircraft carriers built at Nikolaev shipyards. And of course not for the Black Sea Fleet. Carriers need leading fleets - the North and the Pacific. But there is an international agreement under which through the Bosphorus and Dardanelles the passage of aircraft carriers, back and forth, is STRICTLY prohibited. Therefore, US aircraft carriers never entered the Black Sea.

          So, in order to withdraw the built aircraft carriers from the Black Sea, through the Bosporus and the Dardanelles, they were called the Heavy Aircraft Carriers.

          That is, they did not violate the contract, but masterfully circumvented it.
          1. +1
            15 May 2013 22: 58
            Here, rather, politics influenced ... Ships exceeding the established displacement or total displacement for warships and auxiliary vessels cannot go through the Bosphorus / Dardanelles. "Montreux Convention on the Status of the Straits" is hard to read for a hundred years at lunchtime. Roughly speaking, formally, for NOT the Black Sea powers, if the "aircraft carrier" would have been 25.000 tons (I took the figure from the ceiling, I don't remember exactly), then welcome. There is no restriction on the word "aircraft carrier = ban". Maybe I read diagonally ... but did not see.


            It's just that "since the time of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of the Crimea," our "Woe from Wit - Leaders" branded the aircraft carriers as a weapon of the malicious, belligerent Kapitalizmu, and they didn’t want such an imperialist weapon in the Svetochek Kommunizm ... Lenin did not bequeath it.
            Thank you Khrushchev.

            it is written here humanly
            http://www.avianosec.com/086.shtml

            full text Montreux Convention on the Status of the Straits (1936)
            http://zakon1.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_228/print1308136931080180
            1. 0
              16 May 2013 14: 13
              but no ... there is still a limitation on submarines and aircraft carriers for NOT Black Sea powers ... Because Omeriganssy shoved Helicopter carrier, in 888 ... there is probably no such word or concept in the original document. (there were no combat or serial helicopters at the time of the conclusion of the Convention)
    2. 0
      14 May 2013 22: 34
      Quote: serpent-fist
      against which army can only helicopters and paratroopers be sent?

      Where does this conclusion come from? Why "only"? The command helicopter dock ship must and will operate as part of the fleet force grouping for its intended purpose. And not dreadnoughts of the enemy with artillery fire!
      1. +2
        14 May 2013 23: 02
        Do not forget that this is still a fully-functional hospital with such a set of equipment that it does not have in any stationary district hospital. Peacekeeping missions, disaster relief, projecting their influence in different countries.
  42. de_Torquemada
    0
    14 May 2013 17: 54
    Colleagues, sometimes you turn on the intellect, and not just eat in the head, all the courts, our fee is France for her help in breaking through the information blockade after the events of 08.08.08/XNUMX/XNUMX, and if someone doesn’t understand, then he’d better read the murder and grunt about the mistral completely in vain occupation, they should be taken as a gift, but they don’t look in the teeth of a gift horse, though the French threw us with their native BIUS, and figs with her.
    1. +3
      14 May 2013 18: 05
      Well, the fact that military purchases from France (Sarkozy) and Italy (Berlusconi) are not random, it probably is.
      but to which gift horse and most importantly who should not look his teeth?))
      1. -1
        14 May 2013 23: 03
        The horse is good. And on the technologies that go with the horse, engineers lick their lips.
  43. Foreman
    +1
    14 May 2013 17: 55
    In our country, the Furniture-maker was thinking about the military use of the Mistral. Yes, even with their "Sh". And they have one thing in mind - commerce. Just like all our "statesmen", the civil service is business for them.
  44. 0
    14 May 2013 17: 57
    Dear MANAGER! Is it your lack of vitamins or you yourself participated in this scam with the Mistrals?
    And to send you far - so we are not welcome here!
    1. 0
      14 May 2013 21: 03
      justify with examples!
  45. ed65b
    +3
    14 May 2013 18: 14
    Yes, they’ve already bought everything, period. Do not throw lightning, good, bad, the stump is clear that good. we’ll arm, we will land an assault, we will organize an escort and we will show off in the Mediterranean, and maybe we’ll give a snot where. So there are more ships large and small.
    And don’t spare the money; they’d go to sleep.
    1. +1
      14 May 2013 19: 47
      Yes, they’ve already bought everything, period. Do not throw lightning, good, bad, the stump is clear that good. we’ll arm, we will land an assault, we will organize an escort and we will show off in the Mediterranean, and maybe we’ll give a snot where. So there are more ships large and small.
      And don’t spare the money; they’d go to sleep.
      I absolutely agree with you, you bought it like that, now you need to try to get some benefit from it, and not smear the snot on the table. good
  46. +1
    14 May 2013 18: 15
    Are worn out. We ordered it and we are building - it’s bad, if it weren’t built, they would say like “but France has it, it’s no match for us sivolapy”. They will hand over, it looks like - there it will be seen whether the decision is correct or not. All the same, the boats are clearly not superfluous.
  47. aleckbond
    +3
    14 May 2013 18: 16
    I’m not defending Serdyukov, he did a lot for the Army, but when he signed the contract for the purchase of Mistral where everyone else looked. It’s not two cars to buy, it’s a lot of money. And he is not the only one to blame.
  48. ded10041948
    0
    14 May 2013 18: 23
    The author should be responsible for this nonsense. That. that Stoolka was the initiator, everyone knows. The fact that the order was not calculated is also understandable. But wait for the phrase from the rulers: "I am to blame and I will answer for it"? Yes, for you, people, the psychiatric hospital does not cry - it sobs! As you can imagine, the furniture maker will be protected. It's sad when in the country for which your father fought to you they turn to you in the style: "Well, you,! Eat the pig that you cooked and do not grunt!"
  49. +2
    14 May 2013 18: 41
    Vote for the Mistral with upholstered furniture only!
  50. +4
    14 May 2013 18: 56
    Damn Serdyukov !!
  51. +1
    14 May 2013 19: 06
    I’m not a seaman and I understand that we don’t need them
  52. +1
    14 May 2013 19: 20
    Serdyukov made a lot of mistakes. Thank God they stopped us in time. Russia has modern shipyards that can build ships larger than the Mistrals. And if we consider that the construction of these ships in France will deprive thousands of our workers of work, the question arises: who needs this? Why did the leadership of the Ministry of Defense conclude this a completely unnecessary contract? Doesn't it smell like corruption here?
    1. +3
      14 May 2013 20: 48
      This smacks of betrayal and stupidity.
  53. Donkeykong
    -2
    14 May 2013 19: 25
    This Shilov doesn’t understand what he’s talking about. Even the class of the ship does not know: Mistral is a universal landing ship (udk), not a landing ship.
    1. +2
      14 May 2013 22: 49
      Maybe you can explain what the differences are? Read something. At least Wikipedia.
  54. AdAAkRuSS
    +1
    14 May 2013 19: 27
    Quote: Garrin
    Quote: Prokop
    And if they start to be indignant, give them to the tear of Serdyukov,

    I understand that this is not the 37 year. But, still, when will he be shot?
    Half the country is waiting for this, maybe closer to the elections? Then our “benefactor” will have another 6 years of “benevolence” without any problems.
  55. 0
    14 May 2013 19: 40
    To break the contract means to incur big losses. So we have to “sip” the consequences of Serdyukov’s reforms. The following thought comes to mind: who will be responsible for this? Or will Russia survive this next one? adventure?
  56. -1
    14 May 2013 19: 43
    So maybe our naval commanders are building the Mistrals as non-military scarecrows?
    1. 0
      14 May 2013 20: 05
      Yes, it’s not our “naval officers” who are building this, it’s a trough, but the skinny ones...
  57. +2
    14 May 2013 20: 35
    Well, as much as you can !!!
    Which article is about "Mistrmli"? It’s like there’s nothing else to discuss.. Nooo - they’re deliberately hammering home - THIS IS BAD.. No one remembers the expression - WHO BENEFIT.... I’ve already written on this topic several times, and I’m already tired.. It sets the teeth on edge.. Reminds me of something from the series - everything is bad in Russia, we are the biggest drinking nation, we have the worst democracy, crappy tanks, etc.
    Nobody wonders WHY such articles are thrown out on the same topic, but under different sauces? Oh, how many are encouraged by negativity... And they even find the bad and the bad... Skillfully, I see the thinking of the crowd is directed in the right direction..
    One thought comes to mind - we don’t need Mistrals...
    Is this so???? Only honestly, and without emotions.........
    1. +1
      14 May 2013 21: 16
      at the moment, when there are no corvettes, frigates, or destroyers in the required quantity, Mistrals are not needed. Who were they going to attack? where to land? When soon there will be nothing to defend your shores with. For this money you could order 5 corvettes or 3 frigates or almost 1 destroyer wink
      1. 0
        14 May 2013 22: 29
        Do you already know exactly how much construction will cost and what it will cost??... And are you sure that we are not currently building anything similar from small and medium-sized ships? Then be more attentive... And if you think along similar lines, then you shouldn’t even think about more than one large ship... What if something goes wrong... And you’re probably a great naval tactician - you know how many escort ships this or that ship needs.. Oh, how many skeptics there are...
        1. +1
          15 May 2013 00: 28
          winked prices are publicly available online (Mistral 2 ~ 1,2 billion euros, 20380 ~ 10 billion rubles, 11356 and 22350 ~ 18 billion rubles each, and 21956 ~ about 2 billion dollars), under construction: according to plans, 20 corvettes, 8 + 6 frigates and they plan to lay down a destroyer in 2016. So many??? How many will be written off by 2020? It’s worth thinking about, but everything has its time... and there’s not a lot about escort ships anyway, and also protecting the Mistral.
          1. 0
            15 May 2013 00: 32
            Money for additional ships does not increase the speed of their construction.
            1. +1
              15 May 2013 00: 37
              that is, quickly, but whatever is needed, rather than long, what is needed. If you hurry, you will make people laugh
              1. 0
                15 May 2013 00: 45
                What does “what you need” mean? And why doesn’t it take a long time for “what we need” to turn into “whatever”?
                1. +1
                  15 May 2013 00: 53
                  What does “what you need” mean?

                  Corvettes, frigates, destroyers
                  And why doesn’t it take a long time for “what we need” to turn into “whatever”?

                  2-3 years is not a long time for a ship, or do you expect that they will take 20 years to build?
                  1. 0
                    15 May 2013 01: 08
                    Quote: DucksWar
                    Corvettes, frigates, destroyers

                    You answered earlier, what’s wrong?
                    Quote: DucksWar
                    according to the plans, 20 corvettes, 8 + 6 frigates and from 2016 they plan to lay down a destroyer

                    I was not talking about construction, but about the further task for the Navy.
                    1. +1
                      15 May 2013 01: 17
                      I was not talking about construction, but about the further task for the Navy.

                      those. How can missions disappear for warships??? especially in our country with such a sea border. Look, they should have held off with the French ships, their own design bureaus provided a worthy option, demand creates supply.
                      1. 0
                        15 May 2013 01: 35
                        Why immediately go to extremes? Look at the USSR Navy, what tasks it has had throughout history: how it has changed and what it has come to. There were no UDCs or aircraft carriers, but by the 90s the task was set. The Russian Navy has set the task - “aircraft carrier”, and our design bureaus represented by the USC will not make their UDC in a hurry or in a hurry, which is why the Mistral is a poet.
  58. 0
    14 May 2013 20: 38
    Why the hell did they provide any information at all?
    We have too many idiots in the government who squander any information related to military issues.
  59. +6
    14 May 2013 20: 41
    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Finally, everyone who was in favor of the purchase realized that the “Pyzhik” is not a car, “The Mistral” is not a ship. Finally it dawned on me that an over-the-horizon landing with dubious cover is suicide. One question. Why change something that has been worked out for years and what the Marines are trained for?
    1. +3
      14 May 2013 21: 38
      Mechanic! Everything is short and clear. Fat plus for you
  60. +2
    14 May 2013 20: 51
    [/i] I want, as I can say, To you, Delink who needs to know the truth about the mistrals. The society and the country need it. They concluded a contract harmful to Russia and its people (shipbuilders).
    1. 0
      15 May 2013 06: 03
      The society and the country need it. They concluded a contract harmful to Russia and its people (shipbuilders).

      Which society? Which is called the government? MO? Who rob the country as best they can? And they waste billions of money. I have enough information. Or should you write separately in parentheses that this is sarcasm, irony).
  61. ded10041948
    +2
    14 May 2013 21: 00
    Quote: DonkeyKong
    This Shilov doesn’t understand what he’s talking about. Even the class of the ship does not know: Mistral is a universal landing ship (udk), not a landing ship.

    By class, this is not a ship, but a huge trough with weapons (the captain has a pistol!). Whatever you call it, the effectiveness of its use during war is highly questionable. Missing him is an unthinkable task, and while he is landing the delivered Marines, the fighting may end. And the success of the landing operation is in question. The landing party must influence the enemy with all its might, simultaneously, and not in a platoon every half hour.
  62. ded10041948
    +2
    14 May 2013 21: 06
    Quote: AdAAkRuSS
    Quote: Garrin
    Quote: Prokop
    And if they start to be indignant, give them to the tear of Serdyukov,

    I understand that this is not the 37 year. But, still, when will he be shot?
    Half the country is waiting for this, maybe closer to the elections? Then our “benefactor” will have another 6 years of “benevolence” without any problems.

    I would gladly sign up for the firing squad for this case, but I’m afraid that by the time it comes time for my candidacy to be considered, I will have time to die, although I don’t seem to be an old man yet
  63. 0
    14 May 2013 21: 11
    No need to be bloodthirsty, gentlemen! But the seller of stools. it would be necessary plant on a stool.
  64. Svyatoslav72
    +3
    14 May 2013 21: 15
    Many times, and repeatedly, “local” steamship builders have been discussing the Mistral. Why they bought it: 1. The French are our political allies. 2. They sell "Mistral" + new technologies and "full stuffing". 3. They make adaptations to the needs of the Navy. 4. We don’t make such “products”. 5. “Products” are built quickly.
    Why is the Mistral needed: 1. Demonstration of force, any third-rate (second-rate) principality that has attacked the interests of the Russian Federation may encounter “tourists” who have arrived for a demonstrative holiday in autonomous conditions to conduct active and secret excursions. 2. Mobile Operational Base (Mistral) is an autonomous complex for conducting military and humanitarian operations, reconnaissance and sabotage or “special”.
    As for the critics-builders, steamships, they themselves successfully fail contracts, waste the money and do things for a long time without meeting deadlines and violating conditions. They offer outdated crap, or simplified crap, purely out of commercial interests. It’s better, of course, to teach such builders with rifle butts.
    As for the cost, even with changes in design and adaptation, the price is definitely too high. Anyone who is familiar with the simplest trading on the nearest market will understand that the price has been “inflated” thoroughly. In the conditions of the “global crisis” and private financial opportunities, as well as demand, the cost could remain at the previously announced price and, with skillful actions, move lower.
  65. +2
    14 May 2013 21: 20
    It is difficult for me, a landman, to judge the combat use and real capabilities of the Mistral. But it seems to me that we are politicizing the Mistrals and talking more and more about the foam surrounding the order for them. Comrade Shilov is somewhat unfounded. maybe offended by something? I would like a serious and detailed analysis, not replicas.
  66. +1
    14 May 2013 21: 21
    Mistral. Compared to the ships that our shipbuilders built - an expensive trough!!! We study the technical specifications of our ships on the Internet
  67. ded10041948
    +3
    14 May 2013 21: 21
    To the one who slapped a minus:
    By “author” we do not mean the author of the article, but the author of the idea with the purchase of this “top of engineering creativity.” If it’s not clear even now, then in plain text: Stool and Company.
  68. +1
    14 May 2013 21: 34
    There is no way to give money to our research and development complexes for the development of aircraft or helicopter carriers or to order a couple of normal ships, we had to buy these gay platforms from the French... although why should we be surprised by what Serdyukov did, everyone’s hair still stands on end, that’s just why this contract is not ours They canceled it’s not clear...they don’t want to spoil the relationship with the French? so why the hell we need them
  69. +1
    14 May 2013 21: 43
    I agree with many - the topic of "Mistrals" is already in the oven! It’s clear that many people stole there, so how much can you talk about it, huh? The fact that Serdyukov must be forced to work in uranium mines for life for his vile tricks is also clear to everyone! So what from empty to empty? Mistral is not only a rollback and ineffective waste of public money (on the verge of betrayal), but also an undermining of its already declining economy. I agree with “Mechanic”, since the 50s we have established and proven EXCELLENT tactics for landing MPs on a foreign shore and this ship does not fit into it AT ALL! At best, this is a ship for landing a second wave of troops, not a shock one, on a controlled coast! But then why does it cost so much? Did Sarkazy talk away the “little bear” by giving him a new iPhone model? More likely. They bought ours with the computer filling of the Mistral, I don’t think that Smerdyukov personally made such decisions.
    The flock as a whole is not about anything, but once again there were a lot of comments about it! I laughed heartily and sometimes to tears!!! NGO "Aurora" is offended? So screw her, this is her commercial interest and her business. :)
  70. 0
    14 May 2013 21: 45
    Recover from Taburetkin and his company the cost of the contract with penalties
  71. zaitsev
    +2
    14 May 2013 21: 53
    "Mistrals" may well fit into our Navy, the main thing is not to try to arm them with everything at once (attack anti-ship missile systems, zone air defense systems in addition to hangars for attack and landing helicopters + dock for STOL). Of course, an order is needed for cover (to carry an attack anti-ship missile system, a zonal air defense missile system, etc., etc.), for example, an anti-ship missile system or a BOD, a pair of EMs and 2-3 SKR (frigates). And the Mistrals should be armed exclusively with target air defense systems, the Kortik air defense system, anti-torpedo tubes and (most importantly) a BIUS to control the entire order. It is possible (in my opinion) to alternate the air group, depending on the mission (Ka-52 with SCRC for blockade of sea communications, for example, or a Ka-27 group for anti-aircraft defense and issuing a control order, or a group purely for landing operations). And the last thing: large ships take a long time to build and test, they need to start building earlier, then they will be joined (should) by cover and support ships. Of course, this requires consistency, will and military doctrine...
    PS: Soviet-style tank landing craft "MistRali", of course, will not be replaced)))
  72. -1
    14 May 2013 21: 53
    Damn Yoshkin's cat.
  73. +1
    14 May 2013 22: 02
    It seems to me that they are of no use as prime minister. Only to frighten in peacetime. Such a Khabazin requires support facilities, almost like an aircraft carrier. At least four guard ships only, two of them underwater. And all this for the landing of just one battalion of troops. Isn't it too greasy? And what coastline are Serdyukov and Medvedev planning to capture? It’s not clear why they need their own landing craft, other than to help Syria.
    Anyone can make a mistake and not all mistakes should be punished. But it is necessary to pay for these billions of dollars that have flown away, otherwise there will still be hunters for this.
  74. -1
    14 May 2013 22: 18
    JSC "MedvedaPut"
  75. 0
    14 May 2013 22: 21
    To the Entire Company zone.
  76. -1
    14 May 2013 22: 23
    For the Power is insulting
  77. The comment was deleted.
  78. 0
    14 May 2013 22: 28
    Why is the fat guy keeping silent? Where is he anyway? You can’t hear him or see him, maybe he’s already fled to the west? Invite him live and ask him about everything, maybe he just had a “brilliant plan” that we didn’t understand and will be his descendants in the future the monument will be erected in gold right on Red Square :-) Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich, please make the fat people explain to us, ignorant of military affairs, why they bought a floating piece of Mr. from France (they found it from someone), and why do we need it? .And if you don’t need it, then let him buy them at his own expense and then take his prostitutes around his pool with them.
  79. -1
    14 May 2013 22: 30
    Wake up people. Stop eating noodles out of your ears.
  80. The comment was deleted.
  81. +1
    14 May 2013 22: 46
    )))))) Yes, the bek said it right! Bile is gnawing at Mr. Shilov. Previously, he was silent, probably even praising the boat, but now the race and the money are gone, so patriotism has started playing ass! I suppose I wanted to shove the old stuff in and use up the money, but the old stuff didn’t fit) so it became a shame!! And as for the fact that it’s a barge!!! Well, yes, a barge! And are you going to ram aircraft carriers on it????? or the Americans are their troops on the Bismarcks “transporting? It’s another matter since we can’t cover such a ship, then that’s a different conversation!! but it’s a normal trough good
  82. -1
    14 May 2013 23: 03
    Comrade Putin is still here. The elections are coming soon, what will you come up with this time? I think we need to start with planting and renewing rows.
  83. 0
    14 May 2013 23: 07
    Here is a good link where the pros and cons of the Mistrals are better laid out:
    http://army-news.ru/2012/10/kto-glavnyj-konkurent-mistralya/
  84. NOBODY EXCEPT US
    0
    14 May 2013 23: 12
    But in my opinion, everything is simple, if memory serves, Volodya himself lobbied for the purchase of these troughs, wanting to help his friend Kolya Sarkozy and personally went to negotiate a contract and even fired a high-ranking military man who was slowing down the signing, although they already said that with the same performance characteristics the French were one and a half times more expensive than the others and the terms of the contract are very unprofitable, but what can’t you do from the breadth of the Russian soul... it’s strange that everyone suddenly forgot about this and is hammering a simple contractor, and it didn’t help Kolya anyway... but they’ll come up with something with the barges ,at least transporting cars from Japan is a thing...
    1. 0
      14 May 2013 23: 18
      Exactly. By the way, 100% no kickbacks.
  85. 0
    14 May 2013 23: 17
    The latest news in this style. Citizen Artyakov, who during the crisis used the bonus “earned” at AvtoVAZ to buy himself a yacht for approximately a billion rubles, was appointed chairman of the board of directors of the engine-building corporation. He earned money in the Samara region, changed the time there to suit his watch, was fired, served a year in the shadows, and was back on the horse... A relative of the president in a word. And you are all Serdyukov, Serdyukov... System!
  86. mawina01
    0
    14 May 2013 23: 21
    It’s clear that a deal is a deal, a barge for free, but if you try to install combat modules and air defense systems to be a little independent, there seems to be enough space - it might come in handy
    1. +1
      14 May 2013 23: 59
      And on the buoy? Mistral operates as part of the squadron, which protects him; he does not need independence.
  87. karimbaev
    0
    14 May 2013 23: 24
    In short, the money was taken over the hill and that’s it, an ordinary barge with helicopters on board!
  88. 0
    14 May 2013 23: 52
    Serdyukov also made useless purchases abroad from a military point of view for other types of weapons.
  89. evil hamster
    +5
    14 May 2013 23: 58
    Speaking of birds. At the base they are slandering that this is the French half of Vladivostok - this relates to the question of timing. They say the Baltzavodsk half will be lowered in June. So, my goodness, this ship should be part of the Navy, no matter what various emotional citizens are doing here :)
    http://forums.airbase.ru/2013/05/t77199,62--stroitelstvo-vertoletnostsev-mistral
    -dlya-rossijskogo-vmf.8089.html - so that copywriters don’t get excited
    1. 0
      15 May 2013 23: 20
      that's the thing.
  90. ded10041948
    0
    15 May 2013 00: 10
    Quote: Pimply
    That's right. At the same time, hysterical children here do not understand that the very USSR, when necessary, bought massively foreign ships, and was not at all embarrassed by this. And he did it right.

    A striking example is the leader of "Tashkent"
    1. shpuntik
      0
      15 May 2013 02: 50
      ded10041948 (1) Today, 00:10
      A striking example is the leader of "Tashkent"

      No one is belittling the ship's feat. But at that time, with such performance characteristics, we could not build the ship. Now we can build a Mistral-type ship ourselves.
      1. ded10041948
        0
        15 May 2013 09: 04
        I agree, perhaps the example is not the best. It’s just that this ship was the first to come to mind (in the first hour of the night, after a day alone with four grandchildren and two granddaughters of different calibers, I think a little badly and mainly on the topic of “sleep”!)
  91. shpuntik
    +2
    15 May 2013 02: 18
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wst-m82NMu8

    Punch your leg! How they have already finished these arguments! One thing, because...
    1) We can build the same one ourselves, and better. There is a project. There is a slipway. Everything is there, except the Russians in the government. Here is a video from the Admiral - the launch of the tanker: displacement 70000 tons, length 260 meters. Two slipways are idle. I will respond to some statements:
    "Pimply (1) Yesterday, 22:06 ↑
    Absolutely right. At the same time, the hysterical children here do not understand that the same USSR, when necessary, bought foreign ships en masse, and was not at all embarrassed by this. And he did the right thing."

    In the USSR, shipyards were loaded to capacity, they worked more than one shift, three - they tried to make it in time for every holiday. It wasn't a sin to order. Now shipbuilders are “sucking their paws,” and you want to drive them completely into the coffin with your good advice. It’s good, of course, to love Russia from Israel, there’s nothing to say.
    2) What kind of speed is this, 19 knots? By modern standards, this is nothing, to put it mildly.
    3) According to the Mistral hull type - closer to the ferry, we build technically more complex ships.
    4) The article says that the French threw it with the saturation of the ship. Why? Because there are no fools. We will be forced to buy spare parts and components throughout the entire service life, about 30 years.
    This includes annual maintenance, medium repairs, and major overhauls. We will wait for deliveries from abroad: from the switch to the main engine piston.
    5) In addition to this, landing boats are included in the kit.
    I conclude: Misssral is not our wind. We are being driven into fornication for three decades. And this, as some people think, does not guarantee the absence of a new Bonaparte.
    1. shpuntik
      0
      15 May 2013 02: 24
      Here they are, our hard workers, can’t wait, shouting: “Vova Putin, he’s confused everyone! Where are the helicopter carriers?!”
  92. 0
    15 May 2013 05: 54
    This is a pleasure boat for officers. Yes, and so, ride scooters. laughing
  93. Vanek
    -1
    15 May 2013 06: 06
    Ahhh, damn the ship. All that remains is to put the word “medical” in front of “vessel”. That's it.
  94. recruit
    0
    15 May 2013 08: 30
    One thing is clear, they were not laid down to increase the country’s defense capability.
  95. +2
    15 May 2013 11: 24
    GOOD MORNING!
    MISTRALS AS TRANSPORTATION CAN BE USED ONLY IF YOU HAVE A GOOD ESCORT
    1. +1
      15 May 2013 23: 22
      WE KNOW!!! (why shout? laughing )
  96. Dzhigurda
    +4
    15 May 2013 11: 32
    The Mistrals will be built in 4 years, huge ships. In our country, only the Steregushchy was built for 5 years, but I’m generally silent about the re-equipment of the former Gorshkov
  97. Ruslan_F38
    +1
    15 May 2013 11: 54
    So what now, break the contracts? Do you want the money back? Maybe it’s worth getting two ships, but think about building the rest? And will the resulting ships be brought to fruition in military terms? And don’t yell that everything is bad and in general! Having new ships is better than not having them at all.
  98. 0
    15 May 2013 13: 44
    Serdyukov can take foreign tourists on a Mistral ride on the Sea of ​​Azov with a view of his villa, and fly around his property in helicopters and the guide will talk about Serdyukov’s great reforms in the Russian Army.
  99. 0
    15 May 2013 15: 18
    What is considered “war time”? Is it now a time of “peace”?
  100. 0
    15 May 2013 16: 42
    Wartime `Dictionary of terms for emergency situations`
    War time
    the period during which the warring parties are actually in a state of war. Beginning of V.v. is considered a declaration of war by one belligerent side to the other or the actual commencement of hostilities between them. The actual cessation of hostilities between the warring parties or the signing of relevant agreements means its end. V.v. entails a number of international legal and domestic political, economic, social and legal. consequences - severance of diplomatic relations. Termination of political, economic and other treaties, entry into force of wartime laws, etc., is regulated by the provisions of the Hague Conventions of 1899, 1907.