Military Review

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 to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. fortunophile
    fortunophile 14 May 2013 15: 08
    69
    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. Prokop
      Prokop 14 May 2013 15: 20
      37
      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
        Captain Vrungel 14 May 2013 15: 46
        27
        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
          SlavakharitonoV 14 May 2013 15: 52
          +7
          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. Canep
          Canep 14 May 2013 16: 32
          35
          These minuses (mistral) have one key plus - the ROLL is normal.
          1. avt
            avt 14 May 2013 16: 46
            16
            Quote: Canep
            of these minuses (mistral) there is one key plus - rollback normal.

            The unkilled argument. laughing good
            1. dmitreach
              dmitreach 15 May 2013 16: 14
              0
              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. Botanologist
          Botanologist 14 May 2013 16: 59
          21
          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
            Captain Vrungel 14 May 2013 17: 16
            10
            Cheaper than imported.
            1. gispanec
              gispanec 14 May 2013 17: 44
              +9
              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. Retx
              Retx 14 May 2013 23: 48
              +5
              Quote: Captain Vrungel
              Cheaper than imported.

              Please name the domestic analogue of Mistral, which is "cheaper".
              1. Mhpv
                Mhpv 15 May 2013 00: 07
                +1
                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. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 15 May 2013 00: 15
                  +2
                  They seem to have been abandoned during the Soviet era. What does Afonchiki and Storetkin have to do with it?
                2. Retx
                  Retx 15 May 2013 00: 22
                  +3
                  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. Lopatov
                Lopatov 15 May 2013 00: 29
                +1
                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. Pimply
                  Pimply 15 May 2013 01: 42
                  0
                  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. vadimN
            vadimN 14 May 2013 18: 22
            +9
            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. Botanologist
              Botanologist 14 May 2013 20: 07
              14
              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. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 14 May 2013 23: 36
              +5
              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. dmitreach
                dmitreach 15 May 2013 16: 20
                +1
                And where are UDCs being built in Russia?

                They are building at the Baltzavod.
                1. saturn.mmm
                  saturn.mmm 15 May 2013 22: 47
                  -1
                  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. dmitreach
                    dmitreach 15 May 2013 23: 10
                    +1
                    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. dmitreach
              dmitreach 15 May 2013 16: 18
              0
              It is better! In at least two ways:
              1. Price.
              2. Support your shipbuilding.

              Is it built on the moon?
          3. Naval
            Naval 14 May 2013 19: 22
            10
            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. Botanologist
              Botanologist 14 May 2013 20: 13
              +8
              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. dmitreach
              dmitreach 15 May 2013 16: 21
              +1
              French economic support, damage to Russia,

              we also "support" the Finns, against the wishes of the Ukrainians ...
          4. Beck
            Beck 14 May 2013 20: 31
            14
            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
              sergaivenski 14 May 2013 20: 56
              +7
              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. Pimply
                Pimply 14 May 2013 22: 05
                +1
                Do you know about how many ships of foreign construction were then in the USSR?
            2. Retx
              Retx 14 May 2013 22: 13
              +9
              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. dmitreach
              dmitreach 15 May 2013 16: 23
              0
              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_vremya.html
        4. Kadet-1975
          Kadet-1975 14 May 2013 19: 55
          0
          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. Vadivak
          Vadivak 14 May 2013 20: 56
          +3
          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
          Rustiger 15 May 2013 01: 32
          +2
          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. Retx
            Retx 15 May 2013 01: 47
            +3
            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. dmitreach
              dmitreach 15 May 2013 16: 40
              +2
              same DIXMUDE, pictured
          2. dmitreach
            dmitreach 15 May 2013 16: 36
            +3
            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. dmitreach
              dmitreach 15 May 2013 16: 55
              0
              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
              Rustiger 15 May 2013 22: 11
              0
              -"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. Krilion
          Krilion 15 May 2013 03: 55
          +3
          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. dmitreach
            dmitreach 15 May 2013 16: 44
            0
            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
        Ivan Pavlov 14 May 2013 16: 02
        +2
        but the main fault on the then president
        1. pavlo007
          pavlo007 14 May 2013 16: 54
          +6
          On the present, on the present. Do you really think that this degenerate with Ai Her was a prezik?
          1. bezumnyiPIT
            bezumnyiPIT 14 May 2013 17: 56
            +2
            And what did you achieve?
      3. Denis
        Denis 14 May 2013 16: 17
        +5
        Maybe it’s enough to write about the Mistrals, it’s sick of them already ..
        1. Anat1974
          Anat1974 14 May 2013 21: 52
          +1
          I fully support YOUR proposal, and the symptoms of malaise are also similar for me. In almost all materials, water, water, water ..........
      4. Garrin
        Garrin 14 May 2013 18: 31
        12
        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
          Mikado 14 May 2013 19: 03
          +1
          after the top
        2. Naval
          Naval 14 May 2013 19: 24
          +6
          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. old man54
          old man54 14 May 2013 20: 53
          +1
          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
          sergaivenski 14 May 2013 21: 02
          +1
          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. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg 15 May 2013 12: 58
        0
        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. queen
      queen 14 May 2013 15: 26
      +7
      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. strannik595
        strannik595 14 May 2013 15: 39
        +8
        this is our national money swelled into this squalor
    3. Kovrovsky
      Kovrovsky 14 May 2013 15: 52
      +5
      Who to ask? After all, it’s not 1937 ...
    4. Vashestambid2
      Vashestambid2 14 May 2013 16: 04
      30
      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. klimpopov
        klimpopov 14 May 2013 16: 21
        10
        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
          MilaPhone 14 May 2013 19: 07
          10
          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. Pimply
            Pimply 14 May 2013 22: 06
            +5
            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. Kars
              Kars 14 May 2013 22: 14
              +5
              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. Pimply
                Pimply 14 May 2013 22: 58
                -2
                And don’t say 8))) True, that Nimitz without an aircraft carrier group ...
            2. Rustiger
              Rustiger 15 May 2013 02: 06
              0
              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. dmitreach
                dmitreach 15 May 2013 16: 51
                0
                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. dmitreach
            dmitreach 15 May 2013 16: 49
            +3
            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. dmitreach
          dmitreach 15 May 2013 16: 47
          +2
          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. DEfindER
        DEfindER 14 May 2013 16: 53
        +5
        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. elmir15
        elmir15 14 May 2013 17: 07
        +3
        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. klimpopov
          klimpopov 14 May 2013 17: 12
          +7
          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. Vadivak
            Vadivak 14 May 2013 20: 58
            +5
            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. queen
          queen 14 May 2013 17: 51
          +5
          Quote: elmir15
          . We have Yak 141 vertical take-off aircraft

          They were not (serial), only tests
      4. chunga-changa
        chunga-changa 15 May 2013 00: 29
        +1
        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. Ezhaak
      Ezhaak 14 May 2013 18: 21
      +4
      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
        Rustiger 15 May 2013 02: 27
        +2
        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
      opkozak 14 May 2013 19: 05
      14
      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. Ezhaak
        Ezhaak 14 May 2013 20: 12
        +4
        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
        Captain Vrungel 14 May 2013 21: 07
        +5
        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. chunga-changa
        chunga-changa 15 May 2013 00: 37
        +4
        Still would have saved Nikolaev, and the country.
        But the drawings, of course, are also cool, scaring enemies.
    7. starshina78
      starshina78 14 May 2013 20: 32
      +6
      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
        sergaivenski 14 May 2013 21: 25
        0
        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
      Reasonable, 2,3 15 May 2013 04: 15
      +1
      Well, why so?. At the Black Sea Fleet, they are in place.
    9. Combitor
      Combitor 15 May 2013 06: 04
      +5
      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. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 15 May 2013 06: 57
      +1
      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. Combitor
        Combitor 15 May 2013 12: 21
        0
        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. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 15 May 2013 13: 04
      +1
      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. GELEZNII_KAPUT
    GELEZNII_KAPUT 14 May 2013 15: 20
    +1
    It is already visible that ento truck! laughing
  3. DEfindER
    DEfindER 14 May 2013 15: 22
    +4
    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. BARKAS
      BARKAS 14 May 2013 15: 31
      +5
      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. killganoff
        killganoff 14 May 2013 17: 52
        +8
        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. FREGATENKAPITAN
      FREGATENKAPITAN 14 May 2013 16: 10
      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. DEfindER
        DEfindER 14 May 2013 16: 39
        +7
        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. Mcsim
          Mcsim 14 May 2013 17: 04
          +2
          Don't you like the Bugatti Veyron too?
          1. DEfindER
            DEfindER 14 May 2013 17: 27
            +4
            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
            avt 14 May 2013 17: 53
            +3
            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
            77bob1973 14 May 2013 23: 00
            0
            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. gispanec
          gispanec 14 May 2013 17: 54
          +2
          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. FREGATENKAPITAN
          FREGATENKAPITAN 14 May 2013 20: 19
          +5
          ..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. TSOOBER
            TSOOBER 14 May 2013 20: 49
            +4
            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. Alekseev
    Alekseev 14 May 2013 15: 25
    +7
    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. krez-74
    krez-74 14 May 2013 15: 25
    +7
    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
      KPACHA9_3BE3DA 14 May 2013 15: 57
      +7
      So far, unfortunately, I can’t put any advantages, but I completely agree with you!
    2. Tatanka Yotanka
      Tatanka Yotanka 14 May 2013 18: 31
      10
      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. ale-x
    ale-x 14 May 2013 15: 26
    +6
    First they threw it, well then, as always, they threw it ... Vile. In the spirit of Anglo-Saxon "morality".
  8. USNik
    USNik 14 May 2013 15: 26
    20
    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. queen
      queen 14 May 2013 15: 31
      +2
      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
        USNik 14 May 2013 15: 38
        10
        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
          Captain Vrungel 14 May 2013 16: 01
          +8
          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
          ed65b 14 May 2013 18: 07
          +6
          On the mistral will be better.
      2. Retx
        Retx 14 May 2013 20: 37
        +1
        I dare to ask, do we need an ocean fleet?
    2. aksai61
      aksai61 14 May 2013 15: 39
      +9
      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
      waisson 14 May 2013 15: 43
      +4
      without support ships he is helpless
    4. Alekseev
      Alekseev 14 May 2013 17: 07
      +7
      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. DEfindER
      DEfindER 15 May 2013 09: 54
      +2
      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. dmitreach
        dmitreach 15 May 2013 16: 59
        0
        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
    120352 14 May 2013 15: 29
    +7
    A purely cruise civilian ship. Girls ride along the beach and off the coast. But what a cool kickback Serdyukov did!
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak 14 May 2013 21: 06
      +6
      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
    waisson 14 May 2013 15: 37
    +3
    well, why a cruise can be used as a ferry in the Baltic Sea can pay for itself in 100 years
  11. qroz5
    qroz5 14 May 2013 15: 41
    +3
    why did they order them at all? maybe he and the gay men have their own interests
    1. AleksUkr
      AleksUkr 14 May 2013 17: 50
      +6
      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. Tatanka Yotanka
        Tatanka Yotanka 14 May 2013 18: 42
        +3
        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
    UPStoyan 14 May 2013 15: 54
    14
    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. slav4ikus
      slav4ikus 14 May 2013 19: 53
      0
      Yes, no matter how cool this Mistral is, it’s just that our Navy tries to ... he doesn’t need it!
  13. treskoed
    treskoed 14 May 2013 15: 59
    +9
    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
    andsavichev2012 14 May 2013 16: 03
    12
    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. Stiletto
    Stiletto 14 May 2013 16: 04
    +7
    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. dmitreach
      dmitreach 15 May 2013 17: 00
      0
      Of course, one can understand the offense of the general director of NPO Aurora.

      here is a reasonable thought!
  16. waisson
    waisson 14 May 2013 16: 04
    0
    s-300 is a good argument and "mistral" is one good target
  17. saygon66
    saygon66 14 May 2013 16: 06
    +2
    - 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. saygon66
      saygon66 14 May 2013 18: 24
      +3
      Project 1123 "MOSCOW"
  18. UFO
    UFO 14 May 2013 16: 06
    21
    "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. TSOOBER
      TSOOBER 14 May 2013 20: 54
      +4
      drinks arguments of reason "hurray patriots" do not accept!
    2. Vadivak
      Vadivak 14 May 2013 21: 08
      +4
      Quote: UFO
      no scope? And peacekeeping operations, and our refugees,?


      Flood yet
      1. dmitreach
        dmitreach 15 May 2013 17: 05
        +1
        the same option ... places of humanitarian disasters, so to speak ...
        1. dmitreach
          dmitreach 15 May 2013 17: 07
          +2
          Frenchies as "Emergency Situations" use UDC ...
    3. dmitreach
      dmitreach 15 May 2013 17: 03
      +1
      UFO welcome! Everything is definitely said.
  19. washi
    washi 14 May 2013 16: 07
    +3
    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. dmitreach
      dmitreach 15 May 2013 17: 09
      +1
      the Navy has such a function.
  20. Manager
    Manager 14 May 2013 16: 10
    15
    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. Raphael_83
      Raphael_83 14 May 2013 20: 17
      +2
      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
      ded10041948 15 May 2013 13: 48
      +1
      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. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 14 May 2013 16: 12
    +6
    These Mistrals do not know where to attach, but what kind of kickbacks rolled !!!
  22. Mhpv
    Mhpv 14 May 2013 16: 22
    +3
    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. artist-mamluk
    artist-mamluk 14 May 2013 16: 29
    -1
    The very fact that Russia buys corbles is a shame.
    1. evil hamster
      evil hamster 14 May 2013 16: 48
      14
      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. artist-mamluk
        artist-mamluk 14 May 2013 17: 15
        +1
        And did the Poles and Fins design the ships?
        1. evil hamster
          evil hamster 14 May 2013 17: 25
          +5
          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. artist-mamluk
            artist-mamluk 14 May 2013 18: 00
            +3
            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
              UFO 14 May 2013 19: 49
              +4
              It is not a sin to buy a good (best), and the Russian Empire and the USSR did not disdain this. hi
              1. Vadivak
                Vadivak 14 May 2013 21: 12
                +4
                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
              evil hamster 14 May 2013 22: 33
              +4
              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. Pimply
                Pimply 14 May 2013 23: 00
                0
                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. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 14 May 2013 23: 51
              0
              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. old man54
            old man54 14 May 2013 21: 19
            +1
            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
    Rainman69 14 May 2013 16: 38
    +9
    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
      MilaPhone 14 May 2013 18: 42
      +6
      Quote: Rainman69
      Rainman69

      No, he can still land equipment and troops.
      1. MilaPhone
        MilaPhone 14 May 2013 18: 46
        +5
        Imagine that it is our people who are slowly drying out on the "inhospitable" Syrian coast.
        1. UFO
          UFO 14 May 2013 19: 50
          +4
          For comment +, but avatar - blinnn belay
        2. ded10041948
          ded10041948 15 May 2013 14: 07
          +1
          As some people write: "Over-the-horizon landing with vertical coverage"
        3. dmitreach
          dmitreach 15 May 2013 17: 12
          +2
          Milafon, good photo from EDA-R.
  25. magadanets
    magadanets 14 May 2013 16: 42
    -2
    What’s good for fishing
    1. cyclist
      cyclist 14 May 2013 16: 54
      0
      yeah, Serdyuk in your ear !!
  26. a.hamster55
    a.hamster55 14 May 2013 16: 46
    0
    And how many different hearts and swamp walkers can be loaded into them! And a cruise to the bay of the Cross.
  27. stranik
    stranik 14 May 2013 16: 53
    +1
    We bought a barge .. and do it with ignorance
    1. Hleb
      Hleb 14 May 2013 18: 11
      -2
      We bought a barge .. and do it with ignorance
    2. UFO
      UFO 14 May 2013 19: 52
      +1
      Who says they don’t know? negative
      1. Hleb
        Hleb 14 May 2013 19: 56
        +4
        children in the kindergarten out of despair laid out the word "ENOUGH" from the lumps of semolina
      2. dmitreach
        dmitreach 15 May 2013 17: 13
        +1
        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. matross
    matross 14 May 2013 16: 53
    +3
    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. Garrin
      Garrin 14 May 2013 18: 44
      0
      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. Strashila
    Strashila 14 May 2013 16: 54
    +3
    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. Manager
    Manager 14 May 2013 16: 57
    18
    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
      cyclist 14 May 2013 17: 42
      +3
      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. Victor
      Victor 14 May 2013 18: 27
      +9
      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. Manager
        Manager 14 May 2013 18: 34
        +3
        Quote: Victor
        Victor

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

        Thanks for the comprehensive clarification. good
        And then, however, the comments are completely full of unreasonable despair
      3. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 15 May 2013 00: 04
        0
        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. Victor
          Victor 15 May 2013 22: 09
          +1
          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. dmitreach
        dmitreach 15 May 2013 17: 15
        +2
        Victor I share your point of view.
    3. TSOOBER
      TSOOBER 14 May 2013 21: 00
      +2
      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. Retx
      Retx 15 May 2013 00: 09
      +7
      Judging by the comments, everyone wants something like this from these ships.
      1. dmitreach
        dmitreach 15 May 2013 17: 16
        +1
        Super Wunderwafers! laughing
  31. KononAV
    KononAV 14 May 2013 17: 01
    +1
    From the first second it was clear that all this would not lead to anything good.
    1. UFO
      UFO 14 May 2013 19: 56
      0
      Who knows? What will not lead? "All this" - what? wassat
  32. vitas
    vitas 14 May 2013 17: 13
    0
    Would raise domestic shipbuilding, would order our helicopter carriers. Serdyukov s..ka, God forbid that they put him !!!
  33. Aristarch
    Aristarch 14 May 2013 17: 13
    +1
    Stupid deal, but the problems are serious.
  34. individual
    individual 14 May 2013 17: 15
    +1
    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. Mhpv
    Mhpv 14 May 2013 17: 18
    +5
    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
      MilaPhone 14 May 2013 18: 37
      +5
      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
        77bor1973 15 May 2013 12: 11
        +3
        Well, at the expense of a narrow profile, it’s for nothing that he and UDC.
    2. Manager
      Manager 15 May 2013 09: 22
      +3
      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. Mhpv
        Mhpv 15 May 2013 12: 53
        +2
        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
          ded10041948 15 May 2013 13: 25
          0
          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. dmitreach
          dmitreach 15 May 2013 17: 19
          +2
          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
        ded10041948 15 May 2013 13: 29
        +1
        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. rpek32
    rpek32 14 May 2013 17: 33
    +2
    For what purpose initially Mistral bought?
  37. Lecha57
    Lecha57 14 May 2013 17: 33
    +3
    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
      UFO 14 May 2013 20: 00
      +2
      Well, yes, like - "sell me 2 kg. Electronics, and keep the trough?" Where are such fools found? what
  38. AleksUkr
    AleksUkr 14 May 2013 17: 38
    +6
    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. Botanologist
      Botanologist 14 May 2013 23: 35
      +1
      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. DEfindER
        DEfindER 15 May 2013 10: 06
        0
        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. a.hamster55
    a.hamster55 14 May 2013 17: 41
    +1
    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. AIR-ZNAK
    AIR-ZNAK 14 May 2013 17: 41
    +1
    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
    serpentine fist 14 May 2013 17: 47
    +3
    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. rpek32
      rpek32 14 May 2013 21: 41
      0
      Aircraft carrier in the amount of 1 piece (Admiral Kuznetsov). Em. All request
      1. JIaIIoTb
        JIaIIoTb 15 May 2013 11: 36
        0
        Kuznetsov is a heavy aircraft carrier cruiser. Do not confuse with an aircraft carrier. The application is different.
        1. Beck
          Beck 15 May 2013 20: 16
          +2
          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. dmitreach
            dmitreach 15 May 2013 22: 58
            +1
            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. dmitreach
              dmitreach 16 May 2013 14: 13
              0
              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. matross
      matross 14 May 2013 22: 34
      0
      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. Pimply
        Pimply 14 May 2013 23: 02
        +2
        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
    de_Torquemada 14 May 2013 17: 54
    0
    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. Hleb
      Hleb 14 May 2013 18: 05
      +3
      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. Pimply
        Pimply 14 May 2013 23: 03
        -1
        The horse is good. And on the technologies that go with the horse, engineers lick their lips.
  43. Foreman
    Foreman 14 May 2013 17: 55
    +1
    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. a.hamster55
    a.hamster55 14 May 2013 17: 57
    0
    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. TSOOBER
      TSOOBER 14 May 2013 21: 03
      0
      justify with examples!
  45. ed65b
    ed65b 14 May 2013 18: 14
    +3
    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. Naval
      Naval 14 May 2013 19: 47
      +1
      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. DMB87
    DMB87 14 May 2013 18: 15
    +1
    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
    aleckbond 14 May 2013 18: 16
    +3
    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
    ded10041948 14 May 2013 18: 23
    0
    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. a.hamster55
    a.hamster55 14 May 2013 18: 41
    +2
    Vote for the Mistral with upholstered furniture only!
  50. avant-garde
    avant-garde 14 May 2013 18: 56
    +4
    Damn Serdyukov !!