Military Review

“Mistral” is not ready for battle. The story of one photo

245
“Mistral” is not ready for battle. The story of one photo



The visit of the French ship became a real "information bomb" that blew up news space - naval experts, analysts and ordinary people agreed that the Mistral’s entry into St. Petersburg was timed to coincide with a new round of Russian-French relations. In the near future, the purchase of a French helicopter carrier for the needs of the Russian Navy is expected.

Mistral for domestic fleet? How justified is the purchase of a ship of this class? How does French technology take root in Russian conditions? In what conflict is it possible to use a universal landing helicopter carrier with a docking chamber?

Perhaps the meaning of the Mistral deal should be searched deeper? Access to modern Western technologies, which are so in need of domestic shipbuilding. The latest construction materials and unique layout solutions, modular design, unique electronics and new personnel accommodation standards. It sounds convincing ... Or, as always, the interests of the sailors were sacrificed to the goals of the Big Politics?

There is still no clear answer - история with the purchase of "Mistral" became a rich ground for controversy and speculation. Estimates vary from vulgar Russophobic jokes in the style of "Russians, wipe the dirt from their bast shoes, stepping onto the deck of a democratic French ship." What would you do without French help? You cannot build a ship of this level on your own.

According to the opposite opinion, "the admirals bought themselves" foreign cars "of a billion euros each." Completely useless ships - "pink elephants" that do not fit into the concept of the use of the Russian Navy.



The Defense Ministry adds fuel to the fire of disputes, occasionally making unexpected statements: “the domestic diesel fuel is not suitable for French diesels”, “complete with a French ship, we will have to buy French landing gear — our boats do not fit in the Mistral docking chamber.

Who would doubt that the ship created according to NATO standards is poorly compatible with the infrastructure of the Russian Navy. It will be especially interesting when the combat information and control system Zenit-9 fails at the most crucial moment. If he simply refuses! - Overseas electronics can “dump” on the satellite all the information stored in its memory: combat squadron warrant, number, type and location of ships and aircraft, data on the operation of shipborne systems, information on combat damage, plans and tasks of the squadron (all this is stored in memory BIUS).

However, I need to exaggerate in vain - sabotage “bookmarks” are extremely rare: in marine history there are hardly a few cases in which foreign equipment carried such “surprises” in itself. The French are honest and responsible guys who care about their reputation. French weapons armed with a good half of the world. However…

Thousands of publications have already been written about the situation around the Russian Mistral and it makes no sense to plot another futile dispute, but indomitable in its rage, repeat hackneyed truths and give questionable assessments. Today I would like to talk about more simple and obvious things.

The event, which will be discussed, took place directly during the visit of “Mistral” to St. Petersburg: the French ship successfully “parked” on the embankment of Lieutenant Schmidt - directly opposite the 16-17 alignment of the Vasilyevsky Island lines. Here, the Frenchman was in the company of the Soviet submarine C-189 (diesel-electric submarines Ave 613, a floating museum from the year 2010). A panorama with a moored Mistral and a submarine standing nearby hit all the photo footage of the visit of the French helicopter carrier to Russia.



Take a close look at the Mistral, now translate a glance at the C-189. Again on the "Mistral" - and the submarine. I don’t know what kind of emotions this picture will have in the reader, but every time I look at the helicopter carrier and dizeluha, the same thought comes to me: the C-189 is just a sliver against the background of the Pink Elephant. The colossal contrast of size and cost, while the submarine is not as simple as it seems at first glance.

What is Mistral? A huge low-speed “steam” with a full displacement of 21 000 tons, built according to the standards of civil shipbuilding. Strictly speaking, "smoke of sea battles" is contraindicated to "Mistral" - it has neither the proper speed, nor armament, nor armor protection. Minimal fire contact with the enemy is destructive for a huge ship. The French paratrooper dock is only a vehicle capable of delivering a battalion of marines to the other end of the world along with their equipment and light armored vehicles. Fantasies about equipping the Mistral with cruise missiles and the C-400 anti-aircraft missile system look simply ridiculous - the ship is NOT INTENDED for conducting combat operations on the sea. The main function of "Mistral" - transportation equipment and personnel of the armed forces.



What is C-189? Former Soviet diesel-electric submarine of the 613 project ("Whiskey", according to NATO classification).
What is the 613 project? The most massive series of submarines of the USSR Navy - 215 built ships + another 21 boat was assembled in China from Soviet components. Simple as a bucket, cheap, like a Chinese tape recorder and ubiquitous, like air molecules - "Whiskey" became a real "scourge" of marine expanses.

An excellent pedigree - the Soviet "Whiskey" was a deep modernization of the German project XXI "Electrobot", the most advanced submarines, which were in service with Kriegsmarine. Surface displacement ~ 1000 tons, underwater ~ 1350 tons. The speed in the surface position of 18 nodes, in the underwater position - 13 nodes. Extreme depth of immersion 200 meters. Autonomy 30 day. Crew ~ 50 people.

Boat armament: 4 fore and 2 stern torpedo tubes, 12 torpedoes (standard). Until the middle of the 50, 57 and 25 mm anti-aircraft artillery were installed on boats. From 1960, some of the boats were equipped with the P-5 anti-ship complex (four cruise missiles in external containers, a nuclear or conventional warhead weighing 1000 kg).

Look again at the Mistral and the old Soviet submarine. If necessary, a flock of such submarines will deal with the Mistral, as with a helpless calf. "Pink Elephant" completely defenseless from attacks from under the water. Subsequently, even the destruction of 10 enemy submarines does not pay for the loss of the helicopter carrier and the equipment, helicopters and hundreds of marines on board. The submarine is the most deadly and effective naval weapon (once again look at the size of the C-189).



Unlike the Mistral, which poses a threat only to itself, even the smallest and oldest submarine poses a real danger to any enemy surface ship.
"Whiskey" and C-189 - passed stage. Currently, much more formidable and sophisticated boats of similar purpose have appeared (non-nuclear submarines with a small displacement - less than 2000 tons): the promising Russian project 677 "Lada", French-Spanish boats Scorpene, the legendary German "Type 209" and "Type 212", in service with 14 countries of the world ...

If the budget allows, you can make a higher bid - the Soviet-Russian diesel-electric submarines Varshavyanka (approximately 2 times larger than Whiskey-613), Japanese Soryu submarines with an air-independent Stirling engine, etc. invisible sea killers.

As for my beloved atomic ships, everything is fairly obvious here - the nuclear underwater killer has a high cost (comparable to the cost of the “Mistral”), at the same time, it has absolutely fantastic capabilities. The nuclear submarine is ideal for waging a sea war and terrorizing enemy communications.

Extreme secrecy allows the boat to “get” any naval target and crawl to where ordinary ships do not have access. The boat is able to open fire with cruise missiles at targets in the depths of the continent, carry out covert mining of communications, secretly deliver a special forces group to the enemy’s shore, provide covert surveillance of the enemy’s coast, install spy equipment in the territorial waters of another state, conduct a bottom survey in search of objects of interest ( fragments of enemy vehicles, search for shipwrecks, oceanographic surveys in the interests of the Navy, etc.). Finally, it is the boats entrusted with the honorable “honor” of being the grave-diggers of mankind - a strategic submarine can destroy life all over the continent (an exotic and unlikely variant, however, such strategic nuclear weapons are deployed only on submarines - a fact proving the highest secrecy and military stability of submarines nuclear ships).

The nuclear submarine is capable of operating anywhere in the world's oceans, the unquenchable flame of a nuclear reactor allows it to move even under multi-meter armor of Arctic ice and provides the NPS with complete independence from weather conditions on the ocean surface.

This axiom has been repeatedly proved by history:
In conditions when the budget and industry opportunities are limited - for causing maximum damage to the enemy, it is preferable to build boats. Of particular value are atomic "pikes" with exceptional combat capabilities. The boat has no equal by the criterion of cost / damage.

Sometimes, as evidence of the powerlessness of the submarine fleet, the Battle for the Atlantic is cited as an example. 783 German submarines did not return to the base, 28 of thousands of seamen were locked up in their “steel coffins”. Awful, isn't it?
During the same time, German submarines sank 2789 ships and ships of the Allies, the total tonnage of more than 14 MILLION tons !! The loss of Allied personnel exceeded 60 Thousands of people.

The pogrom on the naval base of Scapa Flow, the overturned strike aircraft carrier Ark Royal, the exploded battleship Barham, the cruiser Edinburgh with a cargo of gold — small angry fish “bitten down” on everyone who met on their way.

And these are flimsy, imperfect "pelvis" that spent 90% of their time on the surface! With the complete domination of the Allied aviation in the air, with regular bombing of the basing places, in the presence of hundreds of anti-submarine ships and frigates thrown to neutralize the "underwater threat" and the decrypted Enigma code - even in such unfavorable conditions, the omnipresent boats continued to pack bundles of ships and ships of the Allies.

Once again about the "Pink Elephant" and submarines

Now it’s time to return to our time and take another look at the Mistral ship. As noted above, the universal amphibious assault landing ship is no more than a vehicle. Ferry. Self-propelled barge for the delivery of expeditionary forces. But what is a marine battalion? 500 man and several dozen armored personnel carriers - these forces are enough to resolve the point of "colonial" conflicts. Conducting police special operations in the third world countries, pacifying the revolts of savages in the capital of the next "Zimbabwe". Convenient, comfortable "colonial" ship. Everything. For other tasks "Mistral" is not suitable.



For serious conflicts on foreign shores (invasion of Iraq, etc.) a completely different scale of forces and means is required: hundreds of tank landing ships, rocket ships and container ships. We need advanced air bases and seaports, destroyers and submarines with thousands of tactical cruise missiles, dozens of naval tankers, thousands of armored vehicles and the army, numbering a million people (compare this with the capacity of the Mistral premises).

Those. the presence of even four (even forty) Mistrals does not give any grounds for “global dominance” and operations far from home shores - this requires a giant fleet of many hundreds of modern warships + command of maritime transport with its high-speed container ships.

It is quite obvious that in the event of an acute shortage of the ship’s personnel, an attempt to “strengthen” the fleet with the help of Mistral-type assault helicopter carriers looks like inappropriate spending. The second plausible version - the interests of the sailors were in the tenth place after any foreign policy interests of Russia.

From the point of view of the existing economic and geopolitical conditions, it is obvious that the most realistic and effective way to strengthen the domestic fleet is the development, replenishment and modernization of the submarine component of the Russian Navy.

A small photo gallery. Mistral









Steel coffin. Submarine C-189




The boat C-189 was launched in the 1954 year. She regularly went on combat patrols, took part in combat training work of the fleet and testing new types of weapons. Before 1988 year it passed a diving school thousands of sailors, sergeants and officers. After serving almost 35 years, was withdrawn from the fleet in 1990 year. In 1999, the boat sank directly at the pier of the Merchant Harbor in Kronstadt, plunging into the ground due to loss of buoyancy.


In 2005, at the expense of the businessman and former submariner Andrey Artyushin, the C-189 submarine was raised and restored. 18 March 2010, a private museum of the submarine fleet opened near the Lieutenant Schmidt Embankment in St. Petersburg, in which the role of the main exhibit is played by C-189








The interior of the submarine, in comparison with the Mistral, can cause horror and bewilderment: "Are they rotting alive in a steel coffin?" Alas, the extremely dense layout is a tribute to the combat capabilities and safety of the boat: the smaller the dimensions (and, consequently, the wetted surface area), the less noise the submarine makes when it moves. A small boat requires a less powerful (and, therefore, quieter) power plant, smaller sizes provide a reduction of the magnetic field and other unmasking factors. In the end, this is not an entertainment cruise - this ship was created for the war, where it is important to complete the task and return safely to the home base. Everything else is of little importance.
It is worth noting that the C-189 DEPT was built 60 years ago - modern submarines have a much higher level of comfort for deploying personnel.
Author:
245 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. bulgurkhan
    bulgurkhan 21 May 2013 07: 22 New
    -17
    And how many ships sank the 236 submarines of the 613 project?
    1. bulgurkhan
      bulgurkhan 21 May 2013 08: 03 New
      31
      A few days ago, 2 BFKs from the Pacific Fleet arrived in the Mediterranean Sea with 450 marines on board, i.e. as much as the Mistral transports. It is not difficult to imagine the living conditions of the guys on these ships, and we must also take into account that the BDK 775 series do not have a helipad.
      Maybe the time has come for the Russian marines to have a ship with the possibility of helicopter landings, with living conditions no worse than the fleets of developed countries?
      I think the Russian marines have earned the Mistral and demagoguery must be stopped.
      1. bulgurkhan
        bulgurkhan 21 May 2013 08: 17 New
        +2
        Compare the interior of the BDK 775 with the interior of the Mistral. Your guys will live in these conditions for 6 months!
        1. bulgurkhan
          bulgurkhan 21 May 2013 08: 18 New
          -2
          Compare the interior of the BDK 775 with the interior of the Mistral. Your guys will live in these conditions for 6 months!
          1. bulgurkhan
            bulgurkhan 21 May 2013 08: 18 New
            -7
            Compare the interior of the BDK 775 with the interior of the Mistral. Your guys will live in these conditions for 6 months!
            1. shark
              shark 21 May 2013 09: 36 New
              14
              Do you really think that the interior of the warship should look like a hotel? Our guys and the BDK 775 feel fine on the Mistral. But put the Amerov’s “warriors” in our BDK and that’s all ... the combat readiness curve crept down. no...))))
              1. bulgurkhan
                bulgurkhan 21 May 2013 09: 56 New
                13
                And how will the Far Eastern marines feel this summer at 50 ° C on a 30 year old ship without any conditioning? Maybe treat soldiers like cattle?
                1. Alexander Romanov
                  Alexander Romanov 21 May 2013 09: 59 New
                  13
                  Quote: bulgurkhan
                  And how will the Far Eastern marines feel this summer at 50 ° C on a 30 year old ship without any conditioning?

                  And how do American marines feel in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 50C heat in full ammunition, conducting operations in cities?
                  1. bulgurkhan
                    bulgurkhan 21 May 2013 10: 29 New
                    -3
                    They have air-conditioned tents.
                    1. Vrungel78
                      Vrungel78 21 May 2013 11: 29 New
                      +8
                      Quote: bulgurkhan
                      They have air-conditioned tents.

                      Are they also fighting in tents?
                      1. bulgurkhan
                        bulgurkhan 21 May 2013 13: 58 New
                        +5
                        No, after a hard and hot day, they normally sleep in them.
                      2. Pimply
                        Pimply 21 May 2013 14: 39 New
                        +2
                        No, but have the opportunity to relax in them.
                    2. old man54
                      old man54 22 May 2013 19: 18 New
                      -2
                      Quote: bulgurkhan
                      They have air-conditioned tents.

                      And the mama to them there, in this palaika, so that they would wipe their snot, right? The nightmare that this one writes ...
                      I watched the doc film on the central heating station, so there the fighters from the MP Amer complained that during the 2th war they were in the position in the gulf !!!, in the trenches i.e. !!!, the ice cream did not have time to deliver the frozen, melted, so they were so shitty in the war there was melt ice cream, already! They are poor, miserable! Are you out of our guys the same 3,14 ... you want to do, huh !!!
                  2. Pimply
                    Pimply 21 May 2013 14: 41 New
                    +5
                    Sash, what does the comparison of infantry with the fleet have to do with it, can you tell me?
                    Here we are talking about the fact that ships have the opportunity to create comfortable modern conditions. As, however, with the infantry - most of the premises in Iraq and Afghanistan are equipped with air conditioning.
                    1. Retx
                      Retx 21 May 2013 19: 03 New
                      +5
                      It is useless to argue. There is a complete counterbalance to the UDC with "cattle trucks".
                    2. Santa Fe
                      21 May 2013 19: 40 New
                      11
                      Quote: Pimply
                      We are talking about the fact that ships have the opportunity to create comfortable modern conditions.

                      Kayatonoset?))

                      Seriously, I’m only for, modern standards for the deployment of personnel, comfort and ergonomics, the "human factor" ...

                      BUT NOT AT DAMAGE TO SHIP BATTLE POSSIBILITIES
                      Exchange comfort for speed, stealth, weapons - this is the peak of stupidity

                      about 775 - these old galoshes surrendered to you.
                      In Russia, the BDK of the normal project is being built - "Ivan Gren"
                      1. Pimply
                        Pimply 21 May 2013 19: 58 New
                        +3
                        Do you know how much Ivan Gren is being built? How many problems are there with him? And what are its limitations? And how much does he differ from the same Mistral, at least conceptually?
                      2. Santa Fe
                        21 May 2013 20: 33 New
                        +3
                        Quote: Pimply
                        Do you know how much Ivan Gren is being built? How many problems are there with him? And what are its limitations?

                        It takes a long time to build, but what does the Mistral have to do with it?

                        If the ships will be built in 10 years - in a couple of years the surface component of the Russian Navy will cease to exist. Only three 20380 corvettes, a rook and a pair of Mistral will remain

                        it turns out that you need to buy a dozen escort destroyers and frigates to the Mistrals? Did I understand your point correctly?
                      3. Pimply
                        Pimply 21 May 2013 20: 42 New
                        +3
                        Oleg, can you see what is at the moment? And yes, if necessary, it is necessary.

                        Listen, explain to me:
                        States do not reflect when buying weapons and ships abroad
                        Not reflex in tsarist Russia.
                        Stalin quite successfully purchased warships for the USSR abroad.
                        In the USSR, Czech planes, Polish ships, etc. were bought.
                        Helicopters purchased from the USA in the 60s.

                        And then all of a sudden they became so proud and self-explanatory. Yes, if necessary, you need to purchase it, if your own shipbuilders can not cope with the volume of the order, build slowly, expensively, or can not complete the entire volume.

                        A watermark made in Russia, Oleg, stands primarily on a Russian soldier or sailor. And only then on technology.
                      4. Santa Fe
                        21 May 2013 20: 58 New
                        +5
                        Quote: Pimply
                        States do not reflect when buying weapons and ships abroad

                        3%, mostly from friends
                        Quote: Pimply
                        Not reflex in tsarist Russia.

                        A rotten through regime with a dead industry, a bad example
                        Quote: Pimply
                        Stalin quite successfully purchased warships for the USSR abroad.

                        His industry was in opera
                        Quote: Pimply
                        In the USSR, Czech planes, Polish ships, etc. were bought.

                        Purely economic and political reason, support for the allies
                        Quote: Pimply
                        And then all of a sudden they became so proud and self-explanatory. Yes, if necessary, you need to purchase it, if your own shipbuilders can not cope with the volume of the order, build slowly, expensively, or can not complete the entire volume.

                        everything needs to be done wisely and in moderation
                        as you can see, I am not opposed to the import of weapons, for objective reasons

                        But why buy a useless barge (and come up with excuses like a command center wink )? Buy Better Lafayette Frigate or 212 German Type
                      5. common man
                        common man 21 May 2013 21: 49 New
                        +3
                        Here, many are terribly afraid of bookmarks in electronics. Therefore, it is probably better to build nuclear submarines by themselves and buy barges such as Mistral than to build UDCs themselves and buy Ohio with Tridents who will not take off from there.
                        And the second. [quote = SWEET_SIXTEEN] Quote: Pimpled
                        Not reflex in tsarist Russia.

                        A rotten through regime with a dead industry, a bad example
                        Quote: Pimply
                        Stalin quite successfully purchased warships for the USSR abroad.

                        His industry was in opera

                        [quote = SWEET_SIXTEEN] Quote: Pimpled
                        In the USSR, Czech planes, Polish ships, etc. were bought.

                        Purely economic and political reason, support for the allies [/ quote]

                        And what is industry up to now? All such advanced, ready to do anything, quickly and efficiently, just do not give her? Let's be realistic. And the French, albeit relatively, are all the same allies. I mean they don’t get stuck.
        2. shark
          shark 21 May 2013 16: 43 New
          +5
          In the text of the oath of the USSR it was said-to bear the burdens and deprivations of military service. And it doesn’t seem to you that forced Spartanism is only beneficial. It’s not for nothing that all the great world commanders kept their soldiers in ascetic conditions. An outraged fighter is not a fighter
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 21 May 2013 17: 39 New
            +7
            This is a great fairy tale myth. A fighter living under normal conditions is an excellent fighter primarily because he is a rested and healthy fighter. Based on your logic, a soldier should be kept on a chain and not fed.
            1. poizor
              poizor 21 May 2013 17: 46 New
              +9
              and if you still ask what were the sanitary losses (yeah, from elementary dysentery - diarrhea) of the USSR in Afghanistan, then there will generally be a gap in the pattern.
            2. poizor
              poizor 21 May 2013 18: 49 New
              +8
              Quote: Pimply
              This is a great fairy tale myth.

              well, the person does not know that during the Napoleonic wars the “soldiers” ate the ration better than their siblings who remained in the village. that the vast majority of "peasant soldiers" tried meat for the first time in the army, not at home.

              ps about life expectancy at that time in 30-40 years and in general it is better not to tell, it’s how it will tear down a tower!
              1. Pimply
                Pimply 21 May 2013 19: 29 New
                +7
                Exactly. The combat readiness of a fighter is primarily affected by training, caring for him and fighting spirit. From living in shit fighting spirit is not particularly strengthened.
            3. olegyurjewitch
              olegyurjewitch 21 May 2013 21: 24 New
              -2
              Quote: Pimply
              Pimply

              Do you know how service is carried on ships during a military campaign? That's right, on camp. With a daily shift is familiar for sure? Is there a lot of time for rest? Fighting for that and fighting, so that you would be ready at any second to take your place according to the schedule, in case of an alarm you’ll run straight to the BP with weights? Conditions The conditions of military service require constant combat readiness, and not coolness in luxury rooms.
              1. Pimply
                Pimply 21 May 2013 21: 44 New
                +7
                This suggests not to wash in the shower, for example - after a daily shift? Or not support physical form? Lack of personal time? And the combat readiness in the "luxury" room is higher than in a crowded room, where the soldier has fewer opportunities to relax. I don’t need to hang noodles on the ears of the navy.
              2. olegyurjewitch
                olegyurjewitch 21 May 2013 22: 33 New
                0
                Quote: Pimply
                I don’t need to hang noodles on the ears of the navy.

                In the fleet, pasta is "navy", granny has noodles.
              3. Pimply
                Pimply 21 May 2013 23: 22 New
                +4
                In this case, this is noodles. Navy pasta is food, noodle navy is what you hang on my ears right now.
            4. Mhpv
              Mhpv 21 May 2013 22: 54 New
              +2
              Pimply, are you really so stupid?
              I served on the 1124 project and I won’t describe it myself. Look at the performance characteristics and dimensions. The ship had everything necessary for normal living:
              washstand (wash for seven people), latrine (for three), showers (three showers), dining room, galley, two cubicles, feed four times a day, daytime sleep (admiral's hour). If a person is a pig and does not want to wash, then this is another question but believe me on the corbels, they quickly get accustomed to follow their things, because no one will tolerate srach and stink in a limited space. Judging by you, you fell under the influence of Western values ​​(pools, saunas, condos). But by the way, the guys went to PSKR "Volga" to celebrate the XNMXth Coast Guard in San Francisco and were on and Coast Guard ship it there really srach cockpit and the captain said that there does not come down as this private space matrosov.No I believe that this should not be a combat unit and not a personal bedroom.
              And in the end, did you hear complaints from our sailors about the poor conditions on the ship? I didn’t even think about it before these opuses with the Mistrals. You can read all that I remember about the service in the commentary on the Pacific Fleet’s day today.
            5. Pimply
              Pimply 21 May 2013 23: 31 New
              +3
              You know, in personal conversations I heard. Cramped, hot, etc. Grandfather was kapdva.
              Do you think that condos, pools and saunas are something bad for soldiers and sailors. Then I'm sorry, I'm not stupid. It's just that these are normal values ​​- so that a soldier or a sailor, if possible, would live in good conditions, and not in bad ones. A person gets used to bad quickly. But here is whether life in shit or in fig conditions brings something good - to me, personally, it is doubtful. You know the joke when two worms crawl out of a pile of manure.
              - Dad, is it dark, crowded and stinks here? Maybe we should live elsewhere.
              - How can. This is our homeland, son.
              So, here it is not about the homeland, but a little about something else.

              If possible, the living conditions of the fighters need to be improved. Better to feed, better to dress and so on. Because you have to take care of the fighter. He is the most expensive technique. Without it, any ship is nothing.
      2. nerd.su
        nerd.su 1 June 2013 21: 11 New
        0
        Quote: Pimply
        A fighter living under normal conditions is an excellent fighter primarily because he is a rested and healthy fighter.

        Here are the Germans, while they fought in Europe, that was all. But Russian mud and frost sipped, so broke ...
    2. Ramadan
      Ramadan 21 May 2013 18: 38 New
      +7
      That's why few people want to serve in such conditions and with such an attitude towards people ...
      1. old man54
        old man54 22 May 2013 19: 30 New
        -2
        no, it’s just people, conscripts, rotten people who went, like the “Pimpled” one.: (((They don’t want to, they are comfortable, luxury and other things come on!
  2. old man54
    old man54 22 May 2013 19: 13 New
    +1
    normal will feel like soldiers !! if something falls into a drift and swims in the sea, it always has been so, if t water allows!
  3. old man54
    old man54 22 May 2013 21: 26 New
    0
    Well, yes, and let’s buy double-decker luxury tourist buses for the infantry, there is also a washbasin in the toilet, as much as armored personnel carriers and tilted airborne LILs can be transported, it’s uncomfortable!
    1. poizor
      poizor 22 May 2013 21: 32 New
      +3
      if you look at Afghanistan, then half of the soldiers lay on a hospital bed with diarrhea - which of them are fighters?
      and at the checkpoint "suddenly" instead of a company, they are able to keep a couple of people from each platoon automatically.
      funny huh
      1. nerd.su
        nerd.su 2 June 2013 17: 19 New
        0
        Quote: poizor
        half of the soldiers lay in a hospital bed with diarrhea - which of them are fighters?

        So half? Constantly?
  • Joker
    Joker 21 May 2013 12: 29 New
    +3
    Do you really think that the interior of a warship should resemble a hotel?

    Why not? 21 century in the yard, you can learn how to collect everything without the help of a hammer, this not only concerns ships, but everything else, as if they were not going to the factory, but in the garage of Uncle Vanya, while the price is the same as for abroad.
    But shove amerovskih "warriors" in our BDK and everything ... the curve of readiness crawled down. There even trainers are not there ...)))))

    What are you happy about? What our government does not care about the soldiers? So I will surprise you, years through 15 already and we will have hotels to demand, because the Pepsi generation is growing up.
  • Pimply
    Pimply 21 May 2013 14: 38 New
    +1
    Do you see anything bad in this? Or should a soldier live in the worst possible conditions?
  • Gromila78
    Gromila78 21 May 2013 19: 25 New
    10
    You would spend a couple of months in the cockpit of the paratroopers at a deck temperature of 60-70 degrees (inside the hull, even with operating air conditioners about 40) and endure all the hardships and hardships. Howl in a week. And when fresh water is scheduled. Only a shower from a fireman saves, but all the time under it you can’t just stand. And in general I set the minus article. I propose to compare the aircraft carrier and the torpedo boat or SSBN with the "Piranha" laughing
  • Anat1974
    Anat1974 21 May 2013 22: 52 New
    +5
    Yes, railway station full at BDK 775 in the summer in the southern latitudes. I served in the Marine Corps, but it’s true in 1992-1997, when I didn’t go to military campaigns especially (not really, but at all), for well-known reasons. But there were officers and warrant officers who were in Angola and other warm countries with developing socialism. So the hardest thing was to withstand the heat in the BDK during the transitions.
  • olegyurjewitch
    olegyurjewitch 21 May 2013 21: 12 New
    +2
    Quote: bulgurkhan
    .Your guys for 6 months will live in these conditions!

    Was it specially that they placed a picture with a dead flash, they say he’s a six-month-old hell, and the professional’s pictures, which were also made not by a “soap box” and with artificial lighting, are they a resort and a service at the same time?
  • old man54
    old man54 22 May 2013 19: 09 New
    -1
    MP does not live in the BDK regularly, if that, but only transported to the landing site. Very much you look like a troll from the command of the Navy, dear! :))
  • shark
    shark 21 May 2013 09: 38 New
    +2
    yeah, and she also deserved a cruise ship. That's sure it will be comfortable there. Again, the pool is present
  • smprofi
    smprofi 21 May 2013 17: 10 New
    15
    Quote: bulgurkhan
    BDK 775 series do not have a helipad.

    and in this ALL grief? and is the BPC Mistral capable of landing / landing on an uninhabited coast?



    Quote: bulgurkhan
    Compare the interior of the BDK 775 with the interior of the Mistral

    so I’ll add!



    but here’s the question: God forbid, you have to put out the fire and fight for survivability (and this is still a warship!) What words will remember “unfortunate sailors” all this “beauty”? But it will burn even more fun than burning HMS Sheffield

    1. Mhpv
      Mhpv 21 May 2013 17: 20 New
      12
      When at sea the carrying out of 4h combat rotations through 8ch begins, believe me, there is no longer a gym there, if only to get to bed more quickly and get enough sleep before another shift.
      Therefore, a warship is not a cruise ship.
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 21 May 2013 17: 41 New
        0
        It was necessary to do 2-2, and 2-4, and 4-8. If you normally build a schedule, you can quite easily do everything.
        1. Mhpv
          Mhpv 21 May 2013 22: 33 New
          +4
          Well, you’re a direct monster of some kind (2-2,2-4), I don’t know what kind of watch you carried there, but between the watches no one canceled the inspection and turning of guns, tidy and chores, and also the service attire. You probably were special the country in your person has "lost" Peter the Great.
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 21 May 2013 23: 36 New
            0
            I'm not talking about the fleet now, dear. I'm talking about infantry, and real combat conditions. Full-time combat duty is there for a day. As well as work, studies, exercises, examinations - no one canceled. Do not assume that the ship has something super unique in this regard. With all these points, there was relaxation, sports, and personal time. So do not bend your fingers - with normal officers all these issues are resolved.
            1. Mhpv
              Mhpv 22 May 2013 00: 36 New
              +2
              I explained to you what I saw with my own eyes and experienced and never equal the service of a sailor and a soldier, believe the sailors will not reciprocate for the comparison.
              Here you have your saunas, gym and everything else:
              http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F
    2. tlauicol
      tlauicol 21 May 2013 18: 06 New
      0
      The Mistral is capable of landing on a much higher percentage of the coast than the BDK.
      And then, remember how many ships we burned to the ground without any war
      1. smprofi
        smprofi 21 May 2013 18: 43 New
        -1
        Quote: Tlauicol
        Mistral capable of landing on a much larger percentage of the coast

        um ... interesting and fresh wording! those. if the battalion is scattered somewhere on 10 km of shore - is this the key to the success of the landing operation?
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 21 May 2013 18: 48 New
          +7
          This means that he has the opportunity to LAND this same battalion on a much larger percentage of the coast. You don’t even have an understanding of the situation.
    3. Gromila78
      Gromila78 21 May 2013 19: 33 New
      +5
      Do you think that if RCC flies into the BDK, it will burn in a different color? For reference, the 775 superstructure is dural. When landing on the coast occupied by the enemy, the chances of reaching the landing point are very small. In the case of using Mistral, the chance of losing the ship itself is reduced (losses in any case are not excluded). In terms of landing capacity, Mistral is better; there are helicopters again.
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 21 May 2013 20: 00 New
        +3
        And also a hospital, which most hospitals will envy, and a coordination center capable of linking the entire shock force into one chain.
  • Geisenberg
    Geisenberg 22 May 2013 01: 46 New
    0
    Quote: bulgurkhan
    I think the Russian marines have earned the Mistral and demagoguery must be stopped.


    It would just be necessary to step on the tongue of every such clever man who compares a submarine and a landing liner.

    A normal ship, its only cant in what the French designed it. In our place it is necessary to build a series of such landing ships, or rather hulls, but to equip them completely with our equipment. And there will be happiness for everyone, especially for the infantry with the support of helicopters.
  • old man54
    old man54 22 May 2013 19: 05 New
    +1
    Quote: bulgurkhan
    BDK 775 series do not have a helipad.
    Maybe the time has come for the Russian marines to have a ship with the possibility of helicopter landings, with living conditions no worse than the fleets of developed countries?
    I think the Russian marines have earned the Mistral and demagoguery must be stopped.

    Enough dimagogy already, bulgurkhan! In the Navy of the USSR and Russia there were BDK of the project "Ivan Rogov", with the possibility of helicopter landing, it was just necessary for the government and the command of the Navy not to bring them to disastrous condition, and others just did not have to scrap for 15 years of age !!! If not in the subject, enlighten, read!
    Maybe for MP still buy modern cruise liners, with saunas, pools and whores to them? BDK is a warship and the level of comfort on it for the MP should be appropriate! And your attempts are akin to the cries of the beginning of the 90's that they say what cool tanks are in the West, they even have refrigerators in them, they say nothing to ours! Sorry, but write nonsense!
  • T-100
    T-100 21 May 2013 20: 58 New
    +1
    Quote: bulgurkhan
    And how many ships sank the 236 submarines of the 613 project?

    And how many helicopter carriers of the Mistral have sunk surface ships and who is even afraid of these ships ????
  • Denis
    Denis 21 May 2013 07: 24 New
    +7
    About Mistral, everything has been said and chewed for a long time, and then again ... For info and a photo about the submarine plus.
  • Captain Vrungel
    Captain Vrungel 21 May 2013 08: 22 New
    21
    According to the "Mistral" it is necessary to put an end to the bold. They sit in their places unsinkable (by big stars), “cabinet” naval commanders, asses of “strategy and tactics” of sea battles on a cabinet table with a panorama of the water element in the window. With such an iconostasis on his chest that Nakhimov and Ushakov rest. Here they should be seriously asked what place they thought and for how much, when they fainted at the sight of imported trinket, which can easily be replaced, as at all times, by a merchant fleet transport vessel. Even the richest America, with its worst fleet, attracted civilian vessels in Operation Desert Storm. They had the honor of transporting a repair battalion from Iraq to Spain to RO-RO under a corrupt flag.
    When they finally understand "all of these", that stylish furniture in spacious offices, in prestigious areas, their shirts and shoulder straps are paid by ordinary people who do not serve them, but whom they MUST serve. But in life it’s the opposite. What generates a mess, not order.
    1. old man54
      old man54 22 May 2013 19: 43 New
      0
      Quote: Captain Vrungel

      They sit in their places unsinkable (by big stars), “cabinet” naval commanders, asses of “strategy and tactics” of sea battles on a cabinet table with a panorama of the water element in the window. With such an iconostasis on his chest that Nakhimov and Ushakov rest.

      When they finally understand "all of these", that stylish furniture in spacious offices, in prestigious areas, their shirts and shoulder straps are paid by ordinary people who do not serve them, but whom they MUST serve. But in life it’s the opposite. What generates a mess, not order.


      Comment "+" and more "+" !! I have not read this here for a long time!
  • smart ass
    smart ass 21 May 2013 08: 23 New
    +4
    The article is no use, what is the use of comparing POPU with the FINGER ???? Different ships, different tasks)
    1. Max otto
      Max otto 21 May 2013 09: 47 New
      26
      The author does not compare ships, he is trying to explain that the Mistral in wartime is unlikely to deliver anything. Because there is always some kind of submarine. Remember shipping and convoys during WWII. The article is about this. That is, a decent escort to this floating docking ship is unlikely.
      1. luiswoo
        luiswoo 21 May 2013 11: 36 New
        +3
        Quote: Max Otto
        The author does not compare ships ...

        The interior of the submarine, compared с "Mistral" can cause horror and bewilderment: "Is it rotting alive in a steel coffin?"

        You won’t throw words out of a song.
        By the way, yes, C-189 is not so close when there is something to compare .. :)
      2. smart ass
        smart ass 21 May 2013 12: 37 New
        0
        In the conditions of what wartime and what kind of conflict ??? If the war is 08.08.08., Then the mistral would be very useful.
        1. Val_y
          Val_y 21 May 2013 15: 17 New
          11
          Not “Mistral” but “Rhinoceros” 1174, that’s who would be useful, but no, the enemy and the christian soldier Serdyuk, wrote off all the BDK 1174, “Ivan Rogov”, Alexander Nikolaev ““ Mitrofan Enko ”, and then let's get 2–4 whistled Mistral, worth 1-4 billion euros, what would it be that they would have soldered years so ... to him as an enemy of the people, and then to the entire leadership of the Moscow Region, in descending ordersoldier
        2. Max otto
          Max otto 21 May 2013 19: 28 New
          +5
          Here the author writes - that it is suitable for wars with a weak, undeveloped adversary, i.e. for colonial wars. How did you read? I don’t remember something, and I never heard that Russia waged colonial wars, Russia only defended itself to victory, but then full-scale hostilities are taking place.
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 21 May 2013 20: 01 New
            +1
            I can recall not one or two. I advise you to look into the history textbook.
        3. old man54
          old man54 22 May 2013 19: 51 New
          0
          Quote: Clever man
          In the conditions of what wartime and what kind of conflict ??? If the war is 08.08.08., Then the mistral would be very useful.

          Well, and why the heck there and at that time, this galosh, I am embarrassed to ask ???? With the size of the Black Sea, the old BDKs did a great job there, 12 hours go there, and then, depending on where to go! If you beat up the show-offs, then you could set up a Nimitz-type UA there, and then shake, as if it weren’t ...
      3. Gromila78
        Gromila78 21 May 2013 19: 38 New
        +4
        In wartime conditions, without air cover and long-range and near air defense and anti-aircraft defense, the chances of any paratrooper are the same. Or do you think that the BDK of project 775 is able to independently repel an air raid (anti-submarine weapons are absent as a class) laughing By the way, about civilian origin: 1171 the project is also redone from a timber truck, Ivan Gren has similar roots.
      4. old man54
        old man54 22 May 2013 19: 46 New
        0
        and also the author, as I understand it, tried to explain with examples and fingers that there is such a thing as efficiency, not only in production and economics, but also in military weapons! And that’s not a trace for us, with our current economy, to try to copy copy of the Navy of Amer or even of France! it would be simpler for us, but more efficiently, as after the Second World War, because Joseph Vissarionovich was a fool! :))
  • Dima190579
    Dima190579 21 May 2013 08: 35 New
    +3
    And the fleet also needs a helicopter carrier, well, maybe not so expensive. I don’t know why Medvedev liked the French ship so much, maybe with nostalgia for his childhood and a film about phantom. Who knows.
    1. afire
      afire 21 May 2013 09: 23 New
      10
      and who said that Dima liked the boat? in my opinion, he doesn’t give a damn about the object of the transaction, he and his jump gop stop team cares $ the result on their accounts after the transaction is completed
  • vitas
    vitas 21 May 2013 08: 36 New
    +8
    Throughout history, Russia has always defended itself (well, in most cases), I don’t think that something will change in the near future. The Soviet fleet was designed to conduct military operations near its shores and our ships were stuffed with all sorts of weapons. Maybe now you also need to build ships stuffed with weapons, and not buy Mistral from the "blue" state!

    Z.Y. And yet, on the topic of all kinds of sea landings, I don’t think that in today's conditions it is possible to carry out successful landings from the sea, now is not the year 1944 (although they screwed up there). Today, all this landing can be extinguished without straining, so it’s better to attack on land, although if you can fight with monkeys you can also land from the sea.
    1. stas52
      stas52 21 May 2013 10: 47 New
      14
      Here the main question is, who are we going to capture with the forces of the landing man in 500?
    2. Santa Fe
      21 May 2013 11: 22 New
      +6
      Quote: vitas
      on the topic of all kinds of sea landings there, I don’t think that in today's conditions it is possible to carry out successful landings from the sea, now is not 1944 year

      "Classic" naval landing operations have not been 50 years.
      They land either on a completely cleaned shore (after weeks of bombardment) or in neighboring states - six months of preparation and an army of a million people will flood across the border.
      Quote: vitas
      although if you can fight with monkeys, you can also land from the sea.

      What for? Too complicated and expensive way.
      It’s easier and more efficient to seize the capital’s airport than climbing onto a strait-covered coast is the standard scenario for all modern “colonial” wars (Hungary-56, Czechoslovakia-68, Afghanistan-79, Afghanistan-2001, Bosnia-95, Mali-2013, Samali- 93 ..)
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 21 May 2013 15: 50 New
        +1
        The question is that the airport is a very vulnerable place. The problem is also working at remote borders. Besides, who says that you need to act in only one direction, Oleg?
        1. Santa Fe
          21 May 2013 19: 49 New
          +3
          Quote: Pimply
          The question is that the airport is a very vulnerable place.

          if the enemy is Papuans, then not very
          if the enemy is Iraq arr. 1991 of the year, you can’t even dream of any “landing at the airport”: it took a millionth army to storm Iraq

          Chronicle of the war in Afghanistan: The vicinity of the Shindad airfield was planted with millions of frog mines scattered from Soviet helicopters
          + patrols
          + electronic perimeter control systems, spirits called them “shaitan eyes” (these are not video cameras, this is a lattice around the perimeter that measures the magnetic field of the earth, there is a deviation - a signal to undermine established mine traps in this sector)

          For 9 years - isolated cases of attacks. Norm.
          Quote: Pimply
          The problem is also working at remote borders

          Is there an airfield? Yes
          Is there a transport aircraft? YES
          Enough to supply 500 French legionnaires
          Quote: Pimply
          then you need to act from only one direction, Oleg?

          What do you want to say, Zhenya?
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 21 May 2013 20: 09 New
            +2
            I want to say that instead of a conceptual consideration of the issue, you take a convenient thesis and build facts under it.
            Undoubtedly, some of your calculations are correct. But those that are uncomfortable - you just drop. For example, that in the war in Libya, in Yugoslavia, in Iraq, NATO used both aircraft carriers and stationary airfields. This allowed the coalition troops, if they wanted to, to sharply increase the group, move it, and transfer them - if such a need arose. You question the very existence of several classes of ships, in fact, excluding them from the equation - and in their place you are going to buy something that is generally not appropriate, and not able to perform the same tasks.

            Will your boat be a command center, a hospital, anything else?
            Are you aware that there are peacekeeping operations, support operations, reinforcements?
            1. Santa Fe
              21 May 2013 20: 43 New
              +1
              Quote: Pimply
              I want to say that instead of a conceptual consideration of the issue, you take a convenient thesis and build facts under it.

              Concept - brazen capture of the airport in third world countries
              Only suitable for a weak opponent - I gave you examples

              Don't you like the facts?
              Quote: Pimply
              For example, that in the war in Libya, in Yugoslavia, in Iraq, NATO used both aircraft carriers and stationary airfields.

              Look at the situation on combat sorties and you will understand that aircraft carriers (Yugoslavia - 1 from 10, amers did not use them at all in Libya) turned out to be superfluous there - 10% of sorties, the air forces could do without their help
              In 1999, Roosevelt was driven to the Adriatic only because he is and must be used at least somewhere
              Quote: Pimply
              This allowed the coalition forces, if you want to dramatically increase the grouping, move it, transfer it - if the need arises

              Yeah, where there.
              70 Roosevelt Aircraft vs 1000 Air Force Machines
              Aren't you funny yourself, Eugene?
              Quote: Pimply
              You question the very existence of several classes of ships, in fact, excluding them from the equation

              what is this about?
              if they are not effective, wasteful and in fact useless?
              Quote: Pimply
              Will your boat be a command center, a hospital, anything else?

              Command Center - A Good Example of USS Mount Whitney
              Hospital - a hospital ship under the protectorate of the Red Cross. Hundreds of wounded are preferably not kept on a warship
              1. Pimply
                Pimply 21 May 2013 22: 00 New
                +3
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                Concept - brazen capture of the airport in third world countries
                Only suitable for a weak opponent - I gave you examples

                Don't you like the facts?


                Oleg, I love the facts. Until they are customized to fit the idea.

                The Russian army now has no special opportunities to fight with a really strong enemy. 680 thousand people in America with a declared million.
                And yes, most interests are in third countries. Do you recall where the Soviet military advisers fought, or where the USSR itself or Russia belonged? It is in such countries or in such territories.
                And this is normal. Because the war between a strong country and a strong country is already something else. This is the level to which the army must be returned step by step.
                Here are the facts. Do not like?

                In Libya, Americans actively used UAVs. And, if you didn’t notice, the Americans did not play the first or even the second violin there. Italy and France - that’s who came off completely in the air, and on the earth - the Arabs. And can you remember not only the numerical ratio, but also the number of sorties? A dispute with you about this went back during the last article, right?


                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                70 Roosevelt Aircraft vs 1000 Air Force Machines
                Aren't you funny yourself, Eugene?

                No, Oleg, not funny. Because 70 airplanes are the air forces of a medium-sized country.
                1. Santa Fe
                  22 May 2013 12: 14 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Pimply
                  Remind you where the Soviet military advisers fought

                  The USSR was a superpower. One BDK was 150 pieces + a huge dual-purpose civilian fleet

                  Modern Russia has none of this except Mistral
                  Quote: Pimply
                  And, if you didn’t notice, the Americans did not play the first or even the second violin there. Italy and France - that's who came off completely in the air,

                  No, Zhenya, here you are definitely wrong

                  Italian Air Force allocated 8 combat aircraft
                  US Air Force allocated 30 + support vehicles (EW, AWACS, RT reconnaissance)

                  The shock capabilities of "Raphael" and B-1B will not be compared))
                  Quote: Pimply
                  And can you remember not only the numerical ratio, but also the number of sorties?

                  there was a complete star. Andrew, barely saw the numbers, leaked the topic

                  In total, NATO aircraft carried out 26156 sorties. France share - 4500 sorties or 17,2% of the total
                  Quote: Pimply
                  No, Oleg, not funny. Because 70 airplanes are the air forces of a medium-sized country.

                  Eugene, do not try to twist. Here we are talking about something else:
                  Quote: Pimply
                  This allowed the coalition forces, if desired, to sharply increase the group, move it, transfer

                  70 carrier-based aircraft - a complete insignificance against the backdrop of NATO
    3. Pimply
      Pimply 21 May 2013 15: 49 New
      -3
      Read the story. There was a minimum of purely defensive wars in Russia. Take at least the 20 century.
      1. Santa Fe
        21 May 2013 19: 51 New
        +3
        Quote: Pimply
        Read the story. There was a minimum of purely defensive wars in Russia. Take at least the 20 century.

        Marine landings on foreign shores often landed?

        (now there is no need to give an example of landings in Linnahamari, fighting over the Tunturi Bridge, crossing the Dnieper and Malaya Zemlya) - these are operations in the immediate vicinity of their shores, where Mistral and Tarav are not required)
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 21 May 2013 20: 17 New
          -2
          Will we remember? Take the same Pacific Ocean, the war for the islands. Take the Norman operation. Take Haiti after the earthquake (ships do not only perform military functions). Various missions in Africa. The fight against the pirates.
          1. Santa Fe
            21 May 2013 20: 46 New
            0
            Quote: Pimply
            Will we remember? Take the same Pacific Ocean, the war for the islands. Take the Norman operation.

            Quote: Pimply
            There was a minimum of purely defensive wars in Russia. Take at least the 20 century.

            )))

            Quote: Pimply
            Take Haiti after the earthquake

            IL-76 MES
            Quote: Pimply
            The fight against the pirates.

            Private Militarized Security Moran Security Group
            1. Pimply
              Pimply 21 May 2013 21: 34 New
              +4
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              There was a minimum of purely defensive wars in Russia. Take at least the 20 century.


              Let's separate the flies from the cutlets. This is your mistake - you are trying to mix things that are essentially different. For some reason, you mix airborne operations with the notion of what kind of war Russia or the USSR waged.

              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Private Militarized Security Moran Security Group


              Private militarized security. Sometimes you need her, sometimes you need to show your presence in a particular region. You exclude the fact that the fleet is also an instrument of politics and diplomacy.
              1. Santa Fe
                22 May 2013 12: 04 New
                0
                Quote: Pimply
                For some reason, you mix airborne operations with the notion of what kind of war Russia or the USSR waged.

                Naturally, this is Russia going to buy Mistral
                For a long time SSS / RF landed amphibious assault forces on the other side of the world?
                Quote: Pimply
                Sometimes you need her, sometimes you need to show your presence in a particular region.

                Stop, stop, you talked about fighting piracy
                The Only Right Way - Private Security
                Neither the BOD, nor Mistral, nor the frigate Undaunted - they are all equally useless
                Quote: Pimply
                You exclude the fact that the fleet is also an instrument of politics and diplomacy.

                Where did I say that?
  • shurup
    shurup 21 May 2013 08: 37 New
    16
    Landing ships are not the main ones. The noise was raised due to the size of the amounts allocated to auxiliary equipment, moreover, going abroad.
    Kings in coffins are turned over from anger, and submariners in strong cases lick their lips in anticipation. Well come home and say - today I drowned a billion dollars.
    Did I understand the meaning of the article correctly?
    1. Ramadan
      Ramadan 21 May 2013 18: 48 New
      0
      Part of the ship’s hull is manufactured in Russia, part of the amount for any is returned to us.
  • Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 21 May 2013 09: 11 New
    +3
    It’s interesting, when did the French fleet win any victory after Trafalgar? Why buy ships from naval outsiders? Then let us buy tanks from the Poles and planes from the Poles.
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 21 May 2013 15: 51 New
      0
      And why do you think their ships are outsiders?
  • not good
    not good 21 May 2013 09: 23 New
    +7
    What is bought, something bought, will not be returned. But two misrals will not solve the problem of troop transfer, but it’s a shame that Rogovs who are still alive will not be modernized, although even an amateur can understand that three ships, albeit smaller ones, will deliver troops from 3 a multiple guarantee in comparison with one large and beautiful ferry. Well, something, and landing ships during modernization require much less investment during repairs than any destroyer or BDK. Apparently, the MO has a lot of money, it’s not its own money, but government money, why count them.
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 21 May 2013 15: 52 New
      0
      The Mistral is not only and not so much a landing ship.
      1. Borodko
        Borodko 21 May 2013 16: 38 New
        +1
        Keep it simple
      2. Santa Fe
        21 May 2013 19: 52 New
        +1
        Quote: Pimply
        The Mistral is not only and not so much a landing ship.

        But what is it?

        Strategic missile cruiser?
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 21 May 2013 20: 18 New
          -3
          First of all, this is the coordination command center, Oleg. What you diligently miss. And the hospital, which the regional hospital can envy.
          1. Santa Fe
            21 May 2013 20: 50 New
            +3
            Quote: Pimply
            First of all, this is the coordination command center, Oleg.

            Zhenya is advertising booklets and boltology. There is no sense behind a beautiful phrase
            Quote: Pimply
            And the hospital, which the regional hospital can envy.

            For this, a hospital ship is preferable, rather than a warship. Hospitals have an important advantage - increased security and the protectorate of the Red Cross (white color, three red crosses)
            1. Blackgrifon
              Blackgrifon 21 May 2013 23: 43 New
              0
              "protectorate of the Red Cross (white color, three red crosses)" during the First World War and World War II, many hospital ships went to the bottom - there are no rules in the war.
              1. Santa Fe
                22 May 2013 03: 24 New
                +2
                Quote: Blackgrifon
                protectorate of the Red Cross (white color, three red crosses) "during the First World War and World War II, many hospital ships went to the bottom - there are no rules in the war.

                Did I talk about complete safety?
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Hospitals have an important advantage - increased security and the protectorate of the Red Cross (white color, three red crosses)

                Only a few times less likely to be hit
                Hundreds of wounded have nothing to do on a warship.
        2. Blackgrifon
          Blackgrifon 21 May 2013 23: 41 New
          +1
          Pupyrchaty is right - UDC is at least a mobile base for special forces - who do not believe, read the information about the latest operations of the French special forces in Somalia.
          It is often argued that the UDC "Mistral" does not carry substantial weapons, etc.
          UDC is not intended for linear combat; its weapons are a landing group and a helicopter wing. And believe me - on Earth there are few objects that can stop our Ka-52 with proper use.
          1. Santa Fe
            22 May 2013 03: 25 New
            0
            Quote: Blackgrifon
            UDC is not intended for linear combat; its weapons are a landing group and a helicopter wing

            Who is the opponent?
            Quote: Blackgrifon
            And believe me - on Earth there are few objects that can stop our Ka-52 with proper use.

            All clear. Another dreamer
            1. Blackgrifon
              Blackgrifon 25 May 2013 23: 59 New
              0
              A good argument is the "next dreamer." :) Kindly compare the performance characteristics of the Cobra of the latest modifications (the main KMP helicopter), the Tiger (the main helicopter at the UDC in France) and the Ka-52, and only then start rushing with phrases.

              Now about "who is the opponent?" - in general, in your opinion, what are landing ships intended for? (Judging by your comment, the Russian Navy does not need landing ships and transports at all).
    2. El13
      El13 21 May 2013 17: 36 New
      +1
      Quote: Negoro
      landing ships during modernization require much less investment during repairs than any ... BDK

      laughing
      And on the topic: repairs are not always cheaper than building a new one, sometimes repairs are more expensive.
      1. not good
        not good 21 May 2013 18: 30 New
        +2
        I apologize, the black-eyed BOD ran into the text. request
  • gallville
    gallville 21 May 2013 09: 26 New
    +5
    The article is about nothing.
    No one doubted the abilities and the need for submarines.
    But a helicopter carrier is also needed. Remember the same Georgia. Such a ship at the Black Sea Fleet, and it would be better if two would be useful.
    In addition, the Mistral is not so defenseless as the author describes it here:
    1. The Mistral is escorted. It is most important.
    2. The Mistral is still a helicopter carrier, and therefore it can have reconnaissance helicopters and helicopters carrying bombs (not many, but still).
    1. avt
      avt 21 May 2013 10: 17 New
      +5
      Quote: gallville
      The article is about nothing.
      How about anything !? request Everything big with a deck capable of receiving aircraft should be destroyed and banned for production. laughing
      Quote: shark
      You can’t compare these two types of warships. Well, you can’t do that. They have very different purposes.

      This is not for you, but the only purpose is death for aircraft carriers and their minions UDC! laughing
    2. Santa Fe
      21 May 2013 11: 28 New
      +6
      Quote: gallville
      But a helicopter carrier is also needed. Remember the same Georgia.

      To carry troops to Georgia on the Mistral?
      But this is a very difficult route, much easier by air from Murmansk via Brazil
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 21 May 2013 15: 57 New
        0
        Mistral is not only a landing ship, Oleg. In each article, you miss several directions at once to please the main idea of ​​the article. Is that bad. Because a ship like Mistral is operational flexibility.
        The main unannounced question is the escort group. What and who will enter it. And the combat qualities of the ship and its operational flexibility are quite sufficient
        1. smprofi
          smprofi 21 May 2013 17: 15 New
          +3
          Quote: Pimply
          Mistral type ship - it's operational flexibility

          I would like to see this thesis in expanded form
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 21 May 2013 17: 43 New
            0
            Chewing more than once or twice. Sori, tired of it. A command post, a hospital of the highest level, helicopter support, an effective landing ship - are you not enough? Need a beautiful little label?
            1. smprofi
              smprofi 21 May 2013 18: 01 New
              +1
              Quote: Pimply
              Helicopter support, effective landing craft

              hmm ... 8 GP - super power? very doubt I doubt it
              according to the second "thesis" - without the ability to "work" directly to the ship (without boats) on an unequipped coast effective goes away. in addition, the BPC Mistral itself is simply unable to provide fire support to the landing. for there is nothing.
              Quote: Pimply
              Command post, top level hospital

              Well, what do you mean then landing ship - wunderwaffle?
              1. Pimply
                Pimply 21 May 2013 18: 10 New
                +1
                The Soviet concept assumed essentially hedgehog ships. Crammed with weapons to the limit. You can’t realize that a ship doesn’t have to be a prodigy armed to the teeth? 16 helicopters - not capable? The battle group going with him is not capable? What nonsense. If this ship was developed in Russia, there would be waving flags and beating against the walls with the chest for how this ship megacrew. Stop talking nonsense.
                1. Larus
                  Larus 21 May 2013 18: 18 New
                  +6
                  The Soviet concept involves the protection of landing and equipment, and unlike Western-style barges, it meets the real requirements of the war, rather than sail, calmly unload and scare the Papuans.
                  1. Pimply
                    Pimply 21 May 2013 18: 22 New
                    -1
                    Are you laughing? It simply assumes greater autonomy. But you are not aware that such autonomy has a number of serious drawbacks?
                    1. Larus
                      Larus 21 May 2013 19: 27 New
                      0
                      No one expects our ships to be sent alone to explore the expanses of the ocean floor, but he is able to defend himself.
                      1. Blackgrifon
                        Blackgrifon 21 May 2013 23: 52 New
                        +1
                        Protect from whom? Being in the middle of an order of full-fledged warships, nothing threatens him, and if the order is destroyed, then, believe me, nothing will help the landing ship (regardless of class and tap).
                  2. Blackgrifon
                    Blackgrifon 21 May 2013 23: 50 New
                    +1
                    And what kind of protection?
                    The landing ship is not able to independently and effectively support landing forces. If you don’t agree, I’ll ask you to justify your position and cite historical facts as arguments.
                2. smprofi
                  smprofi 21 May 2013 19: 02 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Pimply
                  16 helicopters - not capable?

                  16 GPs on the DVKD type "Vladivostok" - will not. this is the general contractor of DCNS [Direction Technique des Constructions Navales] announced.
                  there will be a total of 16 helicopters. if you load 16 GPs, then how do I land? 2 boats?
                  and on Ka-29, on their weapons, I would not particularly trust: it is unlikely that he will be able to take a lot of weapons if there is a landing in it.
                  1. Pimply
                    Pimply 21 May 2013 19: 33 New
                    -4
                    From 8 to 16, let's say this.
                    1. Santa Fe
                      21 May 2013 19: 54 New
                      +5
                      Quote: Pimply
                      From 8 to 16, let's say this.

                      Falklands 82

                      The operation involved 130 British rotorcraft
                      1. Pimply
                        Pimply 21 May 2013 20: 48 New
                        -1
                        So what? And remember aviation. Are you going to fight Argentina? Four Mistral will allow to bring the total number of helicopters only on the Mistral to 64. Is that not enough for you?
                      2. Santa Fe
                        21 May 2013 21: 02 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Pimply
                        Are you going to fight Argentina? Four Mistral will allow to bring the total number of helicopters only on the Mistral to 64. Is that not enough for you?

                        Of course not enough
                        Only half the amount needed

                        And this is for a small mess with a beggar Argentina !!!
                      3. Blackgrifon
                        Blackgrifon 21 May 2013 23: 55 New
                        +1
                        Compare the fleet of Argentina and Britain in 1982. The forces were almost equal.
                  2. Blackgrifon
                    Blackgrifon 21 May 2013 23: 54 New
                    +2
                    During the Falkland conflict, the British used container ships as the UDC.
              2. Blackgrifon
                Blackgrifon 21 May 2013 23: 53 New
                0
                As the air group in the sources indicated - Ka-52.
          2. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 21 May 2013 23: 48 New
            +1
            How can it not - and helicopters for what?
            In addition, you are missing out on the fact that None of the landing craft will operate alone.
        2. Santa Fe
          21 May 2013 20: 02 New
          +2
          Quote: Pimply
          Command post,

          command post can be placed on any destroyer or CER
          in the end, the FKP can successfully be located in an underground bunker near Moscow - or the Russian Navy has refused satellite communications and do you need to semaphore the flags ??
          Quote: Pimply
          the highest level hospital

          for this there are hospital ships with three red crosses on board

          much simpler, safer and more effective than mistral hospital
          Quote: Pimply
          helicopter support

          16 cars are nothing
          In a real operation, their score usually goes to hundreds
          Quote: Pimply
          effective landing ship

          This is Zhenya, your fantasies
          Quote: Pimply
          Need a beautiful little label?

          No, you need an 2-3 item (to choose) from this list:
          - built-in self-defense systems
          - speed up to 30 nodes
          - nose ramp for unloading heavy armored vehicles
          - the ability to take on board at least the MBT battalion
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 21 May 2013 21: 13 New
            +2
            Yeah. And here we continue to increase the grouping. This is about hospital ships.

            16 cars is nothing. This is a serious firepower. Most countries on the planet do not have such air forces at all. Most countries have several helicopters as the Air Force.
            1. Santa Fe
              22 May 2013 11: 59 New
              +2
              Quote: Pimply
              Yeah. And here we continue to increase the grouping. This is about hospital ships.

              And you thought I came with a beak to click?

              I have a material expenditure per fighter of about 100 kg per day. Required tonnage per paratrooper: if during World War II it amounted to 5 - 7 gross, then in the Anglo-Argentine conflict - more than 50 gross. Are you kidding?

              There, besides Mistral, there will be 5 container ships, a group of naval tankers, a KSS, an ocean tugboat (rescue complex of the Fotiy Krylov type), and an escort - surface / submarine forces. Surely, minesweepers and a lighter carrier with armored vehicles will be required
              Quote: Pimply
              16 cars are nothing. This is serious firepower.

              this is Zhenya your fantasies
          2. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 22 May 2013 00: 01 New
            +1
            1. "for this there are hospital ships with three red crosses on board

            much simpler, safer and more effective than Mistral Hospital "

            Hospital ships do not live long in any of the violent conflicts.

            2. "16 cars is nothing
            In a real operation, their score usually goes to hundreds. "
            I agree - 16 vehicles are few, but in a full-scale landing operation one UDC should not be used - at least 2-3. In addition, we now do not have a single helicopter carrier.
            And lastly, UDC is an excellent mobile base for special forces.

            3. "No, you need 2-3 points (to choose) from this list:
            - built-in self-defense systems
            - speed up to 30 nodes
            - nose ramp for unloading heavy armored vehicles
            - the ability to take on board at least the MBT battalion "

            The nasal ramp impairs the strength of the structure. Cases when a large DC is able to use the nasal ramp are rare.
            The ability to take on board the MBT battalion is an excellent ability, but only transport vessels now possess it.
            1. Santa Fe
              22 May 2013 03: 28 New
              +1
              Quote: Blackgrifon
              Hospital ships do not live long in any of the violent conflicts.

              Does Mistral live longer?
              Quote: Blackgrifon
              I agree - 16 vehicles are few, but in a full-scale landing operation, one UDC should not be used - at least 2-3.

              Sense? 30-40 turntables

              The Britons needed 130 !!! And there were large SeaKings and heavy Chinook military transport
        3. olegyurjewitch
          olegyurjewitch 21 May 2013 21: 41 New
          -1
          Quote: Pimply
          The main unannounced question is the escort group.

          Mistral doesn’t even have a big move, which means that all those who will accompany him and provide him lose their mobility, what’s wrong?
      2. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 21 May 2013 23: 46 New
        +1
        Learn the latest French operations in Somalia - UDC was used there as a special forces base.
        Now take a “regular” recreation center and say what’s better - a vessel that can operate only in littoral waters or a ship capable of releasing a large landing force on small boats and still supporting it with a flock of very evil attack helicopters?
  • Mhpv
    Mhpv 21 May 2013 12: 12 New
    +5
    Well, calculate the cost of the ship itself, plus the cost of what it delivers, plus escort. If all this covers a flock of diesel-electric submarines, not to mention the nuclear submarines. The author of the article tried to convey this to you. Yesterday, "flea" O. Kaptsov's article about the aircraft carrier called Murzilka. Just read the article carefully to understand the essence. And Mistrals, of course, do not fall under the protection of consumer rights and are not subject to return.
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 21 May 2013 15: 58 New
      0
      AND? The army and navy are not cheap. Here either throw caps, or really promote their policies and interests in the world.
      1. Santa Fe
        21 May 2013 19: 56 New
        +2
        Quote: Pimply
        AND? Army and Navy are not cheap

        It happens and for a lot of money they push the bullshit (look at Serega Zverev - do you want to sew a suit with him? tongue )
        Everything needs to be done wisely, and not on the principle of “more expensive - better”
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 21 May 2013 20: 57 New
          -1
          Zverev is not a fashion designer. He is, first of all, a stylist and a stylist of stars - with his own specifics. Yes, I wouldn’t refuse to do his hair - my friend, who studied with him, says that the master is excellent.

          And here I bring Oleg to this - you put the label ahead of the functional. And it doesn’t come out of the mind at all.
          1. Santa Fe
            21 May 2013 22: 13 New
            0
            Quote: Pimply
            Yes, I wouldn’t refuse to do his hair - my friend, who studied with him, says that the master is excellent.

            In any lesser-known salon they will do no worse and, what is also important, a develle. Give the girls more tea - and they will flutter 3 hours around you, trim every hair with a razor

            Zverev and Yudashkin - all this is called show-offs, 600-th Merc and other jokes

            - How much did you take a tie?
            - for 300
            - loshara. I have the same for 800
            Quote: Pimply
            And here I bring Oleg to this - you put the label ahead of the functional. And it doesn’t come out of the mind at all.

            It is not true. Where did I write this?
            1. Pimply
              Pimply 21 May 2013 22: 26 New
              +2
              Oleg, you can’t write directly. I do not say what you put forward made in Russia. You just put a plus sign about one type of weapon, and absolutely exclude another.
              1. Santa Fe
                22 May 2013 11: 48 New
                +1
                Quote: Pimply
                You just put a plus sign about one type of weapon, and absolutely exclude another.

                naturally. if the weapon is useless, you need to get rid of it and find an adequate replacement
  • shark
    shark 21 May 2013 09: 34 New
    11
    You can’t compare these two types of warships. Well, you can’t do that. They have very different purposes. But you can’t really say good things about Mistral. A huge, useless barge. A tidbit for a little-armed boat. It seems to me that even an artillery boat will sink this monster. Those. to protect it, a large security warrant is required. Here and the air defense frigate, and the BOD or a couple of MPK and at least something anti-ship (destroyer or cooler) Only the protection of this monster will cost a pretty penny. And for what? 500 marines and a few armored personnel carriers? It’s clear that this is a stupid decision of a liberal-oriented president. Once again, the proven liberals have no place in power in Russia. For the sake of stupid imitation of their beloved west, they are ready to jeopardize the country's defense. Well, about the fact that they have profiled several billion budget money no longer coming
    1. Santa Fe
      21 May 2013 11: 30 New
      +4
      Quote: shark
      You can’t compare these two types of warships.

      From what?
      There is a certain amount of funds: there is a choice. Buy the mistral or build a wolf pack of submarines
      1. poizor
        poizor 21 May 2013 13: 50 New
        +5
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        There is a certain amount of funds: there is a choice. Buy the mistral or build a wolf pack of submarines

        will not bring, for comparison, how much does one submarine cost? diesel-electric and nuclear?
        1. poizor
          poizor 21 May 2013 17: 58 New
          +3
          ahh, already minusanuli for such a simple question!
          see the gap pattern in full passed, how did you see the price of submarines?
        2. Santa Fe
          21 May 2013 20: 06 New
          +4
          Quote: poizor
          will not bring, for comparison, how much does one submarine cost? diesel-electric and nuclear?

          DEPL Varshavyanka ~ 1 / 3 Mistral
          NPS Ash ~ Mistral
          1. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 26 May 2013 00: 08 New
            0
            Submarine type "Yasent" and UDC type "Mistral" are designed for various purposes. How will Ash help you if you urgently need to occupy the port, capture and hold an important object on the coast, land an landing, etc.?
      2. Pimply
        Pimply 21 May 2013 15: 59 New
        +1
        Oleg, this is ridiculous. These are ships for different tasks. RPGs, for example, are good weapons. Let's arm them all the soldiers and take away the guns? Well, if they have a grenade launcher?
        1. Santa Fe
          21 May 2013 20: 08 New
          +3
          Quote: Pimply
          Oleg, this is ridiculous. These are ships for different tasks.

          I argue with that
          Quote: Pimply
          RPGs, for example, are good weapons. Let's arm them all the soldiers and take away the guns? Well, if they have a grenade launcher?

          RPGs and machine guns are needed. for everyone there are tasks
          Another thing is that Russia does not need Mistrel, since the fleet has no tasks for it.
      3. old man54
        old man54 22 May 2013 20: 22 New
        0
        then it’s still not quite a comparison of TTX and BH of ships, but more of a financial and economic comparison of the effectiveness of investments depending on the geopolitical nuances and financial capabilities of the hoteliers. :)
      4. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 26 May 2013 00: 05 New
        0
        Wolf packs of the fascist submarine fleet were strangled as a result by packs of cheap hunters and escort aircraft carriers. Need to buy them? The tasks of the fleet cannot be reduced exclusively to submarine warfare - the doctrine of "Fleet in being" can bring quite a few dividends.
  • Strashila
    Strashila 21 May 2013 09: 46 New
    +9
    "The French are honest and responsible guys" ... do not tell. Bookmarks are there initially !!! They are laid by processor designers, then manufacturers (each seemingly with good intentions) ... how many scandals with Chinese electronics with detection ... and this is not in the domestic sphere, they also slap it for the Mistrals, so also add curiosity to NATO Chinese comrades ... do not forget to add more programmers ... even those workers, they will invest their contribution.
    1. Black Colonel
      Black Colonel 21 May 2013 13: 22 New
      +2
      Below similar pile. It turned out ahead. +
    2. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 26 May 2013 00: 10 New
      0
      "The French are honest and responsible guys"
      I have to agree - before the First World War, the Russian Empire ordered a large consignment of cirasses in France to protect the infantry. Franks put kirasses, but only defective.
  • EDW
    EDW 21 May 2013 09: 56 New
    +4
    the author said at first that the ferry and the submarine are incomparable, and then fervently set about comparing them :) well oh well, for the photo +
    1. Black Colonel
      Black Colonel 21 May 2013 14: 43 New
      +1
      HE MISTAKED A GOD'S GIFT WITH Fried Eggs
    2. carbofo
      carbofo 21 May 2013 17: 40 New
      +1
      There is such an expression, “Contrast background,” when they compare not the possibilities but the difference.
  • Larus
    Larus 21 May 2013 10: 05 New
    +4
    I very much agree with the author that the purchase of Mistral is not a targeted expenditure of funds, because we ourselves would be able to bungle a similar thread, give the task to our specialists, and our landing ships are adapted to our conditions, and here you still have to redo everything.
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 21 May 2013 16: 00 New
      +1
      You know that

      A) All shipyards are clogged
      B) Not only ships are bought, but also technologies
      C) Our specialists do for 7 years what the French can do in 2 years.
      1. Larus
        Larus 21 May 2013 18: 11 New
        +2
        All, or those that can?
        Technology, technology, strife, specifically on this ship?
        So such specialists, or even such troughs will be able to pile for 2.
        There is no plan in this economy what is needed and how much, because. a new one begins to build a new one. Technologies can be purchased in such a way that you don’t have to think later about where to attach it and how to use it.
        That's what our specialists would have work to do and they need to give out plans for what we want and what we need, and then both the designers and the workers will sculpt the boats at a pace and quality.
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 21 May 2013 18: 23 New
          -5
          And again he went with his tongue to grind. The main drawback of the ship is its watermark. It would be developed in Russia, and assembled in two years, and not in 7, as much less large-scale projects are being sculpted now - you would prove to me how good and beautiful it is. So do not smack nonsense.
          1. Larus
            Larus 21 May 2013 19: 25 New
            +3
            It’s you who grind, and I’m saying that you have to give yours to think and do.
            1. Pimply
              Pimply 21 May 2013 19: 46 New
              -1
              His need. But if you don’t have your own, or your own bad or unfinished, do you need to wave the flag in front of the enemy and yell “ours is better”? Those same Americans calmly and without complexing buy what they need - and do not worry. What does not stop them from creating their own designs. Russian shipyards are jammed, 40 ships are being built. Moreover, most of it is built for a long time, 6-7 years. The French, thanks to modern technology, build in two years.
              At the same time, modern construction technologies are being transferred, cooperation with the military-industrial complex of France, etc. So let's do it without boltology.
          2. Mhpv
            Mhpv 21 May 2013 22: 26 New
            -1
            Pimpy for starters, let your France try to survive our dashing 90s, and then see what it can build in two years. That you prove to us what is so good and wonderful bath and laundry plant with a French built.
            1. Pimply
              Pimply 21 May 2013 22: 43 New
              +1
              With what joy is she mine? We are talking now about the present and the restoration of the army and navy, and not about your personal complexes regarding the collapse of the USSR and the dashing 90s. We did not go to you.
              1. Mhpv
                Mhpv 21 May 2013 23: 04 New
                +1
                These are not my personal complexes, but the reality of life.
                But the reality is that “breaking not building” and Russia, although slowly (in your concept), is returning to its own course and if the next two Mistral are going to build in Russia, it means there is, and it means you could restore the 11780 project brought to the current needs of the fleet and in no way inferior in terms of performance characteristics to the painted Mistrals.
                Here it is clear to everyone that you won’t return it, but you have to think so that in the future they do not repeat such nonsense.
                1. Pimply
                  Pimply 21 May 2013 23: 37 New
                  -1
                  These are the complexes respected. Live in the past.

                  Because bringing the old projects to the condition will not give anything new. Living in the past is the first sign of old age. And weaknesses. Are you going to throw caps at a potential enemy?
                  1. Mhpv
                    Mhpv 22 May 2013 08: 51 New
                    +1
                    Piperchny do not be too lazy to see the performance characteristics of the 11780 project, it is in no way inferior to your modern Mistrals, plus the project can always be finalized, but it will be its own project and the opportunity to build the building for the future.
                  2. old man54
                    old man54 22 May 2013 20: 30 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Pimply
                    These are the complexes respected. Live in the past.

                    Because bringing the old projects to the condition will not give anything new. Living in the past is the first sign of old age. And weaknesses. Are you going to throw caps at a potential enemy?

                    YES??? And what about combat aircraft in all normal countries do not "pick up" what? Tanks? Our MiG-21 and Su-27 in various modifications are you an example?
      2. bugagich
        bugagich 21 May 2013 23: 36 New
        0
        Quote: Pimply
        A) All shipyards are clogged

        Quote: Pimply
        C) Our specialists do for 7 years what the French can do in 2 years.

        I won’t say that nothing is being done, but the shipyards are not jammed at all. example, the same Sevmash - how many orders are there at the moment on the stocks? But how much should it be if you “score” it? and this problem is much more not of a production nature, but of a systemic one. the Soviet system is killed, but in exchange, there is no new one working. and the mouse on the tail brought that 30% of its needs are allocated to the fleet.
        it turns out that the fleet is simply forced to put pressure on the production workers to “catch” at least some kind of freebie. and the foreheads of the industrialists and the military. and we hear cries - "shipbuilders snickered! over the hill is cheaper!", and in return - "you are underpaying to us! demanding the impossible!". here they agree amicably, but you won’t buy much for such love. the problem is not always obvious, but this is the first.
        Quote: Pimply
        B) Not only ships are bought, but also technologies

        what kind? ok, get the zenith ... and what else? there are no super technologies there. we need to develop the production base. and this is equipment. such as metal sheet processing lines, new welding and assembly lines, hoisting mechanisms that allow carrying around 1000 tons at a time ... in a word, all that is needed for the large-block method. all that was on the chsz, and profuca along with the collapse of the country. even in the union all this was collected by all sorts of untruths around the world. and now nobody will just give us this.
  • USNik
    USNik 21 May 2013 10: 09 New
    +2
    Look carefully at the Mistral, now turn your eyes to S-189

    Facespalm. How long to!? Author, one of the photos shows a white Ford Transit, let's compare it with Mistral? And, what, it is cheaper, more practical, more economical, it does not have “bookmarks”, it has a much longer history and better reputation, and if you put military swimmers with mines in it, they will drown the “pink elephant” (color blindness must be treated) as nothing to do ... This is not even funny negative
    1. Santa Fe
      21 May 2013 11: 39 New
      +4
      Quote: USNik
      How can!? Author, one of the photos shows a white Ford Transit, let's compare it with Mistral? And, what, it is cheaper, more practical, more economical

      You, dear USNik, do not understand the main thing - there were funds for the fleet, which should have been spent with the greatest efficiency. What for this: buy a Mistral or build a flock of submarines (based on today's realities and needs)? Which way is more efficient?

      And do not care three times that the “Mistral” has a different purpose - the capabilities of this ship are simply unclaimed. Strengthening the fleet requires warships armed to the teeth, rather than slow barges.
      1. poizor
        poizor 21 May 2013 14: 02 New
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Do not understand the main thing - there were funds for the fleet, which should have been spent with the greatest efficiency. What for this: buy a Mistral or build a flock of submarines (based on today's realities and needs)? Which way is more efficient?

        How much does a submarine cost?
        1. olegyurjewitch
          olegyurjewitch 21 May 2013 21: 47 New
          0
          Quote: poizor
          How much does a submarine cost?

          And how much are all the capabilities of submarines?
          1. poizor
            poizor 21 May 2013 23: 41 New
            0
            Quote: olegyurjewitch
            all the features of the submarine?

            and what do you mean by that?
      2. Atrix
        Atrix 21 May 2013 15: 28 New
        +5
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Quote: USNik
        How can!? Author, one of the photos shows a white Ford Transit, let's compare it with Mistral? And, what, it is cheaper, more practical, more economical

        You, dear USNik, do not understand the main thing - there were funds for the fleet, which should have been spent with the greatest efficiency. What for this: buy a Mistral or build a flock of submarines (based on today's realities and needs)? Which way is more efficient?

        And do not care three times that the “Mistral” has a different purpose - the capabilities of this ship are simply unclaimed. Strengthening the fleet requires warships armed to the teeth, rather than slow barges.

        They simply do not understand that these ships without normal cover are simply not operational. It is better to first build or buy independent combat units, and then from these units create an attack group where Mistral will fit.
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 21 May 2013 16: 02 New
          0
          At the time of the purchase of the Mistral, 40 warships were being built at Russian shipyards.
      3. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 21 May 2013 15: 47 New
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Strengthening the fleet requires warships armed to the teeth, rather than slow barges.

        So it is necessary to modernize Project 941 “Shark" 2 pieces for cruise missiles, instead of a sauna and a gym place mini-drones and combat swimmers, and cruise missiles in two tiers in two tiers, then conduct demonstration exercises, break some island in the Far East so that the world notices. After that, it will not be funny for the inhabitants of the Mediterranean the next time the Russian fleet enters the Mediterranean Sea. But let “Dmitry Donskoy” remain a testing platform, all the same, no one will offer anything better in the next 20 years. What I agree with the author, is that modern submarines are the most predatory animals in the ocean.
        And the Mistral is a normal landing transport ship, it will fit normally into the Mediterranean squadron and in the Far East it will not be out of place.
      4. Pimply
        Pimply 21 May 2013 16: 01 New
        0
        This flock of submarines is not needed. She is redundant. Submarines cannot serve as command centers, hospitals, provide air support and land troops.
        1. Sokol peruna
          Sokol peruna 21 May 2013 16: 06 New
          +1
          In the course of any modernization of the Sharks will not.

          MOSCOW, May 21. / ITAR-TASS /. The final decision was made, for financial reasons, to decommission and dispose of two of the three most difficult strategic nuclear submarines in the world of the Shark class of the Russian Navy - Arkhangelsk and Severstal.

          It was decided to leave the third one-of-a-kind modernized nuclear submarine Dmitry Donskoy in service until 2017, a source in the defense industry told ITAR-TASS.

          http://www.itar-tass.com/c9/742956.html
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 22 May 2013 11: 15 New
            0
            Quote: Sokol Peruna
            It was decided to leave the third one-of-a-kind modernized nuclear submarine Dmitry Donskoy in service until 2017, a source in the defense industry told ITAR-TASS.

            Unofficial source of the defense industry. He has seven Fridays a week. Interestingly, after 2017, what is he going to test rockets on?
            It seems to me more and more that the modernization of Sharks is a political issue and it will be dragged on until corrosion does its job.
        2. Mhpv
          Mhpv 21 May 2013 17: 08 New
          +1
          Wrong Pimple.
          “As you can see, all four Soviet projects of landing submarines remained on paper or, at best, in the form of several full-scale mock-ups of various parts of the structure. Several factors became the reason for this at once. Firstly, when creating the landing submarines, especially early projects, you had to do everything from scratch, because nowhere else in the world then there were similar works.Around the time of the development of the 621 project in the United States, the possibility of creating a similar submarine was being worked out.According to the most daring ideas, the submarine with a length of 220 meters, a width of 38 and a displacement of at least 10000 tons, it was supposed to carry up to 2200-2250 marines or several dozens of pieces of equipment, including armored, while it was planned to lay the landing on shore with some watercraft capable of accelerating to 80 -100 miles per hour After analyzing the capabilities, prospects and - most importantly - the technical difficulties, the command of the US Navy and ILC decided to continue the existing development of the landing fleet.

          The second reason why the Soviet Union never built a single amphibious submarine was the limited possibilities of industry. Even brought to mind the project 717, besides created at the peak of the country's power, did not go into the series. The military had to choose what to build: submarines with strategic missiles or amphibious submarines. As a result, the support fell on the first option.

          The third reason for the absence of landing craft in the USSR Navy is directly related to the second one and in a sense is a prerequisite for it. The Soviet Union, regularly patrolling remote areas, had no intention of attacking anyone first. Therefore, amphibious submarines, as well as all other classes of amphibious ships, were all the time, as they say, in secondary roles with respect to cruisers, as well as strategic and multi-purpose submarines. Moreover, until a certain time, for obvious reasons, there was no clear and objective concept of the use of landing craft.

          Ultimately, the complexity of development and construction, limited resources and not quite clear prospects led to the existing result. For many years to come, large and small landing ships, as well as ships and hovercraft, remained the main equipment for transporting and landing the Marine Corps. In the eighties there was a breakthrough in the field of landing shipbuilding: the Nevsky Design Bureau created the project of the universal landing ship “11780”. Unfortunately, due to political, economic and social disasters, it was not implemented in metal and added to the list of closed ship projects for the transportation and landing of marine corps. "
          http://topwar.ru/25964-sovetskie-desantnye-podlodki-chast-ii.html
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 21 May 2013 17: 46 New
            +1
            Do you have a landing submarine? Ready-made modern project?
            Which will be ready in a year or two?
            Which will serve both as a command post and a hospital, and will have the possibility of fire support? Will be able to transfer tanks and infantry fighting vehicles?
            1. igor.borov775
              igor.borov775 21 May 2013 19: 16 New
              +2
              You tired of pimpled with your question, We don’t have such a boat, and probably no one. Not promisingly, and we didn’t intend to conquer Africa, And even an Yankee serves as a command post, But he himself can snap back not weakly, not including the warrant that always him accompanies, There’s a misfortune in the other, we don’t have the capacity to mold such a barge, because as far as I understand it, they are trying to create the necessary infrastructure to build such large ships, Prime Minister Putin spoke about this, such a plant is being built in the east Yes, probably in the west of the country If we can build ships of 150-300 thousand tons of displacement, then the Mistrals will not be needed, It’s just a temporary measure, And yet, if they start building commercial ships of this size, it will be a jerk in the right direction, China’s path has been chosen here and I completely agree , This is the most important problem in our shipbuilding, They will solve it and there will be no more such disputes, And in order to understand it it is necessary to remember the main base of shipbuilding was left to so, life turned out
              1. Pimply
                Pimply 21 May 2013 19: 48 New
                -2
                Do you know how long such ships are being built? Or how much do they cost? Or when will the shipyard be ready? And how many ships can they build on it at a time?
                1. Aleksys2
                  Aleksys2 21 May 2013 22: 22 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Pimply
                  Do you know how long such ships are being built?

                  P-70046 - a series of arctic tankers with azipod propulsion system. A joint project of the Finnish company Aker Arctic Technology and the Russian Admiralty Shipyards. Built using the dual-action tanker technology. Displacement - 70 000 tons.
                  Key Features:
                  length: 260 m,
                  width: 34 m,
                  Draft: 13,6 m,
                  speed:
                  in open water: 16 nodes,
                  in ice xnumx thick stern forward: xnumx knot,
                  electric power plant capacity: 25 MW,
                  propulsion system: rotary helical steering column type azipode 2x8,5 MW,
                  number of places on board: 35.
                  On December 18 of 2009, at the Admiralty Shipyards OJSC in St. Petersburg, the second Arctic tanker of the P-70046 project, Kirill Lavrov, was launched (laid on November 10 of 2008 of the year).
              2. bugagich
                bugagich 21 May 2013 20: 16 New
                +1
                I agree. they remembered 11780 here. So they didn’t build it because the only slipway on which they could be built was occupied 1143. We always had a problem with slipways. and in order to spank large ships quickly, you need a base that was profiled with the collapse of the USSR. By the way, in general the only place where they managed to do this in the USSR is Nikolaev. but where is he now ...
              3. Aleksys2
                Aleksys2 21 May 2013 21: 57 New
                0
                Quote: igor.borov775
                After all, as I understand it, they are trying to create the necessary infrastructure for the construction of such large ships

                Dimensions Mistral:
                Displacement 21 300 t (full)
                32 300 t (limit)
                199 m length (longest)
                Width 32 m (waterline)

                Next:
                SLIDING AND TRANSMISSION PRODUCTION OJSC Admiralty Shipyards
                For the construction of surface ships, the Admiralty Shipyards OJSC has at its disposal two inclined berths that allow launching vessels with basic dimensions: length - max up to 259 m. and width - max up to 35 m., launching weight up to 22000 t.
                The berths are equipped with three gantry cranes of g / n 100 t., One gantry crane of g / n 80 t., Three gantry cranes of g / n 75 t., Which allows you to form a hull of slipway units weighing up to 200 t.
                The hull is formed using modern assembly and welding technologies:
                manufacturing slipway units without mounting allowances (the technology was developed and implemented at Admiralty Shipyards OJSC);
                welding on ceramic washers using cored wire;
                the formation of the body from pre-painted sections;
                the formation of a superstructure of large blocks with installed equipment and efficient things;
                There is also a closed horizontal slipway that allows you to collect and lower the hulls with dimensions L - max up to 104 m., B - max up to 18,5 m., N - up to 10 m. And launch weight up to 7000 t. The slipway is equipped with two overhead cranes by 50 t.
  • serge78
    serge78 21 May 2013 10: 31 New
    +5
    Apparently the Mistrals are intended to demonstrate the flag and for joint peacekeeping, humanitarian and rescue operations with NATO. Somewhere the tsunami and our Mistral around the clock on the TV screen.
  • Marconi41
    Marconi41 21 May 2013 10: 40 New
    +5
    Maybe enough about Mistral already !!! !!! Well, let's spawn a bunch of PL Whiskey again, let's say a billion !!! So what? Why compare the incomparable. Has anyone thought why the first Mister goes to TF? Yes, because Japan claims to the islands and as part of a group, the Frenchman can deliver a battalion of marines there and support it with combat helicopters. And what else do you want to deliver them there ??? Where are they our helicopter carriers ?! Or maybe our BDK carry them?
    1. Santa Fe
      21 May 2013 11: 58 New
      +5
      Quote: Marconi41
      Well, let's spawn a bunch of PL Whiskey again, let's say a billion !!!

      Russia is still not Turkey or Greece, it is able to provide its fleet with a nuclear submarine squadron (4 boats, each at the price of Mistral)
      Quote: Marconi41
      Why compare the incomparable.

      The cost is the same
      Quote: Marconi41
      Japan claims to the islands and as part of the group, the Frenchman can deliver a battalion of marines there

      If Japanese “Soryu” doesn't beat him right in the Golden Horn harbor
      Quote: Marconi41
      And what else do you want to deliver them there?

      On a high-speed ship - a BOD or a container ship (it will turn out faster and easier than on the Mistral - the Kuril Islands from Vladik a one and a half to two days journey)

      Japanese Navy Kure. Mistral, you got into bad company
      1. Marconi41
        Marconi41 21 May 2013 15: 47 New
        0
        Container ship helicopters? And the Marines on the BOD? Well, well, and how many landings you are going to shove on the BOD? How do you command them to drop them off later? BOD will not even come close to the shore, sediment will not. And the GAS of the latest systems and air defense in addition will probably be on the container ship? And the marines will jump overboard from him and get swimming.
        BOD must defend delivery vehicles, not implement it. He is imprisoned for this!
        1. Santa Fe
          21 May 2013 20: 20 New
          +3
          Quote: Marconi41
          Well, well, and how many landings you are going to shove on the BOD?

          100-200 person. there are reserved rooms for the Marines + it’s easy to prepare part of the living quarters for “new guests”. a couple of days to go (if we are discussing the Kuril Islands)
          Quote: Marconi41
          How do you command them to drop them off later?

          From a container ship - semi-rigid boats on the upper deck, launching using a standard crane boom
          With BOD it is similar (everything is there in advance, boats, RHIB)
          The landing of armored vehicles - using lighter carriers
          Quote: Marconi41
          Container ship helicopters?

          Atlantic Conveyor, delivered ~ 25 units of aircraft across the ocean
      2. Pimply
        Pimply 21 May 2013 16: 04 New
        -3
        Let's compare the Bugatti and branded watches, Oleg. For example, they will cost the same. AND?
    2. Pimply
      Pimply 21 May 2013 16: 03 New
      +1
      Everything with Japan is not so problematic there. But with China - more than.
      1. Santa Fe
        21 May 2013 20: 12 New
        +3
        Quote: Pimply
        Everything with Japan is not so problematic there. But with China - more than.

        This is a rhetorical question.
        The fact is that the Mistral banged at the exit from Vladik
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 21 May 2013 11: 20 New
    0
    The article is strange, the author again behaves like a child in love with one type of ship - apl. You can argue about the need or not the need for ships of this type in the Russian Navy or the need to build exactly the Mistrals in France, and not to cheat ours in Russia, but again the contrast of ships with different tasks began. The author’s logic is simple and understandable, since with the help of the Mistrals it is impossible to conquer any country, then they do not need anyway, cut everything, and eliminate the Marine Corps, well, where should they go and who to attack? The truth is incomprehensible the answer to the same question in relation to apl) About S-189 I did not understand at all, why?)
    1. Santa Fe
      21 May 2013 12: 10 New
      +5
      Quote: barbiturate
      but again the opposition of ships different in tasks began

      There are funds. There is a choice. Buy Mistral or build a nuclear submarine
      In fact, the opportunities that Mistral offers are simply unclaimed - the real strengthening of the fleet, which is in a deplorable state and requires immediate replenishment, can only be done with the help of submarines. Simple and effective.

      Pictures from UDC and C-189 are a clear example of cost and efficiency.
      Quote: barbiturate
      since with the help of the Mistral it is impossible to conquer any country, then they do not need anyway, cut everything, and liquidate the Marine Corps, well, where should they sail and who to attack?

      If the unit does not do its job, it is inefficient and requires reform, and if necessary, reductions. It is high time to understand that the Marine Corps is not the Marine Corps, but the usual elite units, like motorized rifles and special forces - it was the marines who took the port city of Grozny in 99.

      For Americans, the same thing happens - the famous Marine Corps - just an expeditionary force, a mini-army imprisoned for operations outside the United States, with its Abrams tanks, turntables and planes.

      Quote: barbiturate
      The truth is incomprehensible the answer to the same question in relation to Apple

      Well, it’s unclear here - the submarines play great both in attack and in defense
      1. poizor
        poizor 21 May 2013 14: 00 New
        -1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        There are funds. There is a choice. Buy Mistral or build a nuclear submarine

        how much does a nuclear submarine cost?
      2. Pimply
        Pimply 21 May 2013 16: 05 New
        -3
        Oleg, do you know how much the nuclear submarine costs, how much its contents cost, etc.? By 2020, 10 new nuclear submarines are already being built.
        1. Santa Fe
          21 May 2013 20: 22 New
          +2
          Quote: Pimply
          Oleg, do you know how much the nuclear submarine costs, how much its contents cost, etc.?

          multi-purpose submarine without extra show-offs costs like Mistral
          operating costs lower
  • altman
    altman 21 May 2013 11: 48 New
    +1
    The question is not entirely clear .. What is the point of comparing submarines and landing ships. Both the one and the other class are needed for the Navy, what is the debate about? The fact that our shipyards designed and built DVKD 10-12 years is for sure. So the Mistral is better than nothing at all.
  • Tektor
    Tektor 21 May 2013 11: 54 New
    0
    The strength of the American fleet is not so much in warships, such as aircraft carriers, but also in the ability to quickly transfer significant forces using high-speed giant transports. It seems to be not warships, and without them you cannot create the right military group ... We also need the “technology” for creating large, but cheap ships. And Senit-9 is also needed so that we can compare its capabilities with our counterparts ... And much more is needed in Mistral for analysis, moreover, in aggregate. And the mistral is, first of all, transport with good cargo protection ...
  • common man
    common man 21 May 2013 12: 08 New
    +7
    Someone once wrote on this site that the Mistral is not a warship, but a ship of the pre-war (threatened) period. I completely agree. Tasks? Evacuation of embassies and their other citizens from "troubled" countries under the guise of marines. Supporting friendly countries by one presence, and long-term, in ports with marines on board. It’s one thing to re-bomb just a city, another if a Russian warship is in port. It is possible, but fraught. An example of Yugoslavia, Syria. In general, a hospital, a foreign station. Now about the comparison with the BDK. Both are intended for transporting marines. That's comparable to intercity buses. Our BDK is Ikarus of the 80s. And Mistral is a tourist Setra. You can move from city to city on both. Ikarus will even have better cross in the mud. But Setra is nicer. And on a long tourist trip ... Will everyone agree with me? Like this.
    1. bulgurkhan
      bulgurkhan 21 May 2013 14: 17 New
      +4
      The funny thing is that there are currently 4 BDKs in the Mediterranean Sea, in which 900 marines are fried and people support the deployment of the Mediterranean squadron on an ongoing basis.
      It turns out like in a joke about cowards and a cross.))
      Wouldn’t it be prestigious for Russia if the Mistral would have sailed there and the marines would have served under normal conditions?
      1. Marconi41
        Marconi41 21 May 2013 16: 11 New
        0
        I support. And for some reason, the people of Mystra are compared with a submarine and not with a BDK. In addition, no one is discussing what is actually armed with this BDK? Or is someone sure that he will destroy enemy submarines or aircraft with his farts (intended for fire support of the landing)? Strange judgments ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Abakanets
    Abakanets 21 May 2013 12: 59 New
    +1
    The purchase of the Mistral is a huge step forward for our fleet, in 6 years we will receive 2 huge and ultramodern ships, with the technologies and invaluable experience of our shipbuilders who participated in the construction of this ship. Pacific Fleet will receive at least one such ship, which is very good.
  • Mhpv
    Mhpv 21 May 2013 13: 01 New
    +1

    Dimensions don't matter hi
  • Algor73
    Algor73 21 May 2013 13: 02 New
    +6
    Each ship has a direct purpose, "Mistral" one, another submarine. Both are needed for the fleet. Both those and others need more.
  • Black Colonel
    Black Colonel 21 May 2013 13: 21 New
    +6
    The French are honest and responsible guys who care about their reputation. It was the French radars that were remotely disabled at Saddam. And the use of aviation was radically curtailed. The result is known.
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 21 May 2013 16: 08 New
      -1
      Can you find a real source, not an urban legend? What radars, how, when exactly were turned off.
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 21 May 2013 13: 27 New
    -2
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    There are funds. There is a choice. Buy a Mistral or build a nuclear submarine. In fact, the opportunities that Mistral offers are simply unclaimed - the real strengthening of the fleet, which is in a deplorable state and requires immediate replenishment, can only be done with the help of submarines. Simple and effective. Pictures with UDC and S-189 are a good example of cost and effectiveness.

    The real strengthening of the fleet only with the help of submarines will lead to a skew in the composition and will make our fleet too one-sided, which means little effective. Cost and effectiveness cannot be measured in such a straightforward and unambiguous way that it is better to say a control ship with an amphibious assault, support helicopters, an excellent hospital and a large stock of weapons in infantry holds on the shore or a modern airliner in the depths of the ocean. The ocean fleet of a strong country must include both this and that.

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    If the unit does not do its job, it is inefficient and requires reform, and if necessary, reductions.

    I’m afraid that with this approach you should start with just Apple, because most of the time our boats are wiped off the piers, but they weren’t created for this at all) This is true, by the way.

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Well, it’s unclear here - the submarines play great both in attack and in defense

    I don’t share your optimism about this at all, I haven’t seen a hefty game of apl in an attack in wartime, but to protect my waters, I am a supporter of such plots as Sorya in your picture, cheaper apl and just as angry)
    1. Santa Fe
      21 May 2013 20: 26 New
      +1
      Quote: barbiturate
      The real strengthening of the fleet only with the help of submarines will lead to a skew in the composition and will make our fleet too one-sided, which means little effective.

      Slow-moving Mistral without weapons will make it more effective?
      Quote: barbiturate
      I’m afraid that with this approach you should start with just Apple, because most of the time our boats are wiped off the piers, but they weren’t created for this at all) This is true, by the way.

      Mistral will also stand
      This is called the absence of any external threat.
      Quote: barbiturate
      did not see a healthy game apl in a wartime attack

      Gunther Prien - Not?
      Conqueror?
      Quote: barbiturate
      to protect my waters, I am a supporter of such submarines as Sorya in your picture, cheaper apl and just as angry)

      Agree
  • poizor
    poizor 21 May 2013 13: 56 New
    -2
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    What for this: buy a Mistral or build a flock of submarines (based on today's realities and needs)? Which way is more efficient?

    how much does one submarine cost?
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 21 May 2013 14: 11 New
      +3
      The Germans built a dolphin of 700 million apiece to Israel. This is not a nuclear-powered ship. Expensively shorter. plus to prepare 500 more difficult submariners than 5oo Marines
      1. poizor
        poizor 21 May 2013 14: 15 New
        +1
        so some believe that it’s possible to build a whole flock of "billion" laughing
        1. bugagich
          bugagich 21 May 2013 19: 56 New
          +2
          Well, you can have the same Warsaw 3-5 pieces ... Vietnam for 2 billion ordered 6 pieces. but before I heard the approximate price of about 200 million apiece. By the way, now they’re not putting club-s on the ones under construction for the Black Sea Fleet, but a new complex, as on pr.677
          1. poizor
            poizor 21 May 2013 20: 10 New
            0
            Quote: bugagich
            Well, you can have the same Warsaw pieces 3-5

            so 3 or 5? with what filling?

            Quote: bugagich
            Vietnam ordered 2 units for 6 billion.

            and what is their filling? how far does the NATO anti-submarine ship find them?

            Quote: bugagich
            but before I heard the approximate price of about 200 million apiece.

            and again the question is - with what filling?
            Indians aircraft carrier already 3 or 5 times more expensive?
            I'm waiting for the next series with the Vietnamese, who will be told that the submarines are no longer 300 million, but 500 ...

            Well, it’s cool that you have chosen the cheapest submarines which are already over 30 years old. drinks
            Well, the price of the submarine has not yet included the cost of weapons, right?

            Quote: bugagich
            now they’re not putting club-s on the ones under construction for the Black Sea Fleet, but a new complex, as on pr.677

            how much does it cost?
            1. bugagich
              bugagich 21 May 2013 20: 46 New
              +3
              You were interested. I outlined the approximate prices for export Warsaw. this is Vietnam for 2 billion 6 pieces, previously China about 200 million apiece. here and practice in "arithmetic on the fingers" I will not say more, because this is not my part.
              I'm sorry for the filling of the boat itself, what else does the customer want ... for example, such trifles as VIPs - if the Indians were done with one, then the Chinese from the 2nd ... you can pick up such trifles ...
              club-s are exported. but you don’t need to wait for a huge difference (or something super-nice) in export.
              and the complex itself - well, what is the question "what kind of filling"? This is not a new Chinese gadget. This is a new torpedo missile system. he will shoot the same, but he is more profitable in technical terms, + in operation will be much more convenient. I can also say that when the fret was sawed, a new torpedo was dragged under it, but something did not work out with it then. but if you are interested in a bius, then you still haven’t decided on it at all, like they want to shove it from 677 ...
              Quote: poizor
              I'm waiting for the next series with the Vietnamese, who will be told that the submarines are no longer 300 million, but 500 ..

              there is no need to wait for the epic with Vikramaditya. Warsaw has been stamped for export for a long time and in good flow. the price will not take off. but the fact that they are old does not mean that there is no demand for them. and not so bad.
              Quote: poizor
              Well, the price of the submarine has not yet included the cost of weapons, right?

              the price that I called was announced to me as the final ...
    2. Pimply
      Pimply 21 May 2013 16: 09 New
      +1
      Yuri Dolgoruky cost 23 billion rubles.
      1. Santa Fe
        21 May 2013 20: 28 New
        +2
        Quote: Pimply
        Yuri Dolgoruky cost 23 billion rubles.

        Strategic missile submarine was cheaper than Mistral

        C.T.D.
  • Wolf3000
    Wolf3000 21 May 2013 14: 32 New
    +9
    What an illiterate article full of cliches like: “self-propelled barge”, “ferry”, “no reservation”, “built according to the standards of civil shipbuilding”, etc. If you approach ships of this class from the perspective of a lack of reservation, defensive missile weapons and strike systems, then the same can be said about aircraft carriers - they say barges, without reservation and weapons. Mistrals are wonderful ships in their class to carry out the tasks assigned to them, such as transporting marines or special forces. operations with armored vehicles in the combat zone or conducting peacekeeping operations, over-the-horizon landing on a fortified shore, with the preliminary use of attack helicopters, and landing of airborne landing forces from helicopters, including SPN groups deep in the enemy’s territory, attack helicopter operations, and also don’t forget that Mistral is also a command ship with the appropriate infrastructure and equipment, as well as a floating hospital with a large number of beds, which allows it to be used in peacekeeping , humanitarian, rescue and evacuation operations.
    Do not forget that, besides transport, attack and anti-submarine helicopters, promising reconnaissance and attack drones can take off from the deck of Mistral, which will allow for reconnaissance and anti-terrorist activities over the entire sea (for example, the Black or Mediterranean).
    As for countering possible attacks from the air, from under water, or anti-ship missiles, these functions are assigned to escort ships (yes, helicopter carriers, like aircraft carriers, go in an order that includes a ship with the air defense function and anti-submarine ships). Although, as far as I heard, we ordered the French to prepare sites on the Mistral for the installation of short-range air defense systems.
    The Mistral warrant should consist of at least one destroyer or two air defense / missile frigates, one anti-submarine ship, one strike missile ship, supply vessel, and ideally 1-2 submarines. Such a squadron, with Mistral as the flagship and command ship (with the deployment of attack, landing, anti-submarine helicopters and UAVs, using special operations with armored vehicles and over-the-horizon landing facilities), as well as with the temporary inclusion of another 2-3 frigates / guard corvettes will be a serious force both in the Mediterranean Sea and in the Pacific Fleet.
  • sys-1985
    sys-1985 21 May 2013 14: 51 New
    +1
    As a warrior, he is definitely not competent .., but at the time of the exercises - it will be very helpful. IMHO
  • Marconi41
    Marconi41 21 May 2013 15: 59 New
    +3
    The topic is exhausted! Article in the furnace!
  • 12061973
    12061973 21 May 2013 16: 05 New
    0
    Kaptsov believes that from the military point of view, the mistral is useless, I agree with this, but he does not know what the headache in headquarters is about, how he can evacuate citizens of the Russian Federation from hot spots, for example from Syria, for this the mistral is well suited.
    1. abc_alex
      abc_alex 21 May 2013 16: 27 New
      +4
      Yes, this asshole Kaptsov, if he thinks so. The navy is full of support vessels from minesweepers to tankers, which when meeting with 2MV diesel engines are guaranteed to go to the bottom. So what?
      The question is - what stupid person would launch such a ship without a warrant? And then, being in the war zone, such a ship MUST display anti-submarine patrols, for this they are doing new “Kamov” PLOs.

      The article is open defamation: a situation is described which simply SHOULD NOT BE. Fiction, such as meeting in the sky Su-27 and T-90 :)
      1. Retx
        Retx 21 May 2013 19: 05 New
        +3
        Speak correctly. Escort from anti-submarine ships for the author will be something new in his knowledge of the fleet laughing
    2. Santa Fe
      21 May 2013 20: 29 New
      0
      Quote: 12061973
      can how to evacuate citizens of the Russian Federation from hot spots, for example from Syria, for this the mistral is well suited.

      For this, the IL-76 MES fits well
      1. 12061973
        12061973 21 May 2013 21: 20 New
        +1
        and if it is impossible.
  • Ataman
    Ataman 21 May 2013 16: 40 New
    +5
    Self-propelled barge for the delivery of expeditionary forces. But what is a marine battalion? 500 people and several dozen armored personnel carriers - these forces are enough to resolve the point of "colonial" conflicts. Conducting police special operations in third world countries, pacifying the riots of savages in the capital of the next "Zimbabwe."

    Quite right, precisely for the delivery of a marine corps battalion to the shores of Syria, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, as well as for the support and supply of this battalion. What for? Only the exit of the squadron (although what kind of footage there) of Russian ships into the Mediterranean Sea crossed out the plans of our sworn "partners" for the invasion of Syria. Does Russia need this? Is it worth the money? Is military assistance needed? Is it necessary to help the allies? Is it worth “playing with muscles” or is it better to sit and “be silent in a rag”? Does the state really need prestige?
    Yes.
    Why a battalion of marines and not a salvo from a nuclear submarine? Because the salvo is the third world war, and the battalion will stand up quietly, frown and not let go.
  • Borodko
    Borodko 21 May 2013 16: 49 New
    -1
    Keep it simple
  • KononAV
    KononAV 21 May 2013 17: 30 New
    -2
    if you really want to, then anything can be crap, but still we do not need these ships. But on the other hand, we are not going to fight with anyone; they will not drown them. And how the flagship of the fleet looks quite worthy.
  • silver_roman
    silver_roman 21 May 2013 18: 01 New
    0
    it is rightly said: this deal is clearly not for the purposes of the Navy, but most likely political or, in extreme cases, technological.
    And, as we are all used to, most of the iceberg is under water and we will never see it
  • MaKeNa
    MaKeNa 21 May 2013 18: 28 New
    +4
    I believe that the main problem is different. As Kozma Prutkov said, “one cannot embrace the immense”! Everything should be determined by the military dock of the state, what we want at sea-dominance in the ocean, then we need aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, bases on the continents, etc. etc.One set of ships. If we provide for the protection of our maritime borders and only a different composition of ship groupings. If we want to show our presence sometime, I think the Mistrals will do. Because what’s good for the Northern Fleet is not good for Black Sea. On the Black Sea, we must keep all the ports and airfields of the enemy under the missile sight, not excluding the powerful naval group, with absolute dominance in the air. Something close to Cherny with its specifics is probably in the Baltic. I agree that priority should be given to submarines, especially since a set of weapons allows us to solve diverse tasks. In general, if you look at things really, in the event of a global war, all this mass of weapons there will be a few minutes and the AUT! The wandering ships in the ocean will look for shores that will no longer exist! Accordingly, all the potential that is created is designed for a local war of local importance! This is where we come from and use our strengths: rocket technology, aviation, underwater fleet, etc. We can’t stand the absolute symmetry with the enemy, and there’s nothing to it, our goals are different.
  • Clueless
    Clueless 21 May 2013 20: 07 New
    +1
    Gentlemen, I’m a patriot of our country myself ... but let's not rush to extremes, like everything should be domestic, etc. I don’t argue what should be, because the current knowing how we are being built, we would get the Mistral analogue in 10 years at least so. And we need now - for we are being crushed from all sides.

    Yes, and our shipbuilders got a good kick under the ass for acceleration, and they used to build five-year plans.
    1. aviamed90
      aviamed90 21 May 2013 21: 57 New
      +1
      If the country can make ships - so it is necessary to do them! And do not buy from adversaries. And excuses - such as corruption interferes or the KB dispersed did not roll. That was all! Why dispersed? Who is guilty? Who answered?
      And if there are no answers to these questions, then admit that you cannot build ships. And then you have to buy, but only what we ourselves can’t do for specific purposes. Otherwise, why the hell is a state that can’t do anything?

      And if the Mistral is a landing ship, and we do not plan landing operations, then a reasonable question arises: what then did it surrender to?
  • Clueless
    Clueless 21 May 2013 20: 10 New
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Another thing is that Russia does not need Mistrel, since the fleet has no tasks for it.


    What are you simple .. like if there are tasks, then bang and it will be launched into the water in a day :)
    1. Santa Fe
      21 May 2013 21: 04 New
      0
      Quote: Bad
      What are you simple .. like if there are tasks, then bang and it will be launched into the water in a day :)

      Yes, even let them down - what's next? Float on it to fight?))
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 21 May 2013 21: 45 New
    +2
    The fact that the purchase of the French Mistrals has more politics + possibly new technologies was spoken abundantly a few years ago. And only in 5-10 years will life show whether the customers are right in their hopes. And the private museum of the PL 613 project with its own money, restoration, ship lifting, etc. is strong! Dear!
    1. Santa Fe
      21 May 2013 22: 02 New
      +4
      Quote: xomaNN
      And the private museum of the 613 submarine project with its own money, restoration, ship lifting, etc., is strong!

      I am not familiar with Andrei Artyushin and I do not know how he earned his money. But it seemed that he was a decent man, a patriot and a popularizer of maritime affairs. All the same, I didn’t buy a football club, but created a life-size submarine fleet museum
  • Conepatus
    Conepatus 21 May 2013 22: 31 New
    -2
    I do not claim that the Mistral is the pinnacle of shipbuilding. But let's consider this option.
    Suppose a Mistral deal weren’t made. Where would the money go? To the country's defense?
    Not a fact, not a fact at all. And so Russia will have 2 not small ships + technologies.
    There would be ships, but they’ll come up with where to use them.
    I think so.
    1. bugagich
      bugagich 23 May 2013 01: 39 New
      +1
      Do you really believe in mythical "technology"? it's time to stop being so naive. I agree with the zenith ... but not with the azipods! Because there’s nothing more complicated in the technical plan there simply no! Therefore, it is not necessary to repeat advertising as a mantra; from this they will not appear.
  • Anat1974
    Anat1974 21 May 2013 22: 54 New
    0
    But the topic is actually quite annoying.
  • rumpeljschtizhen
    rumpeljschtizhen 21 May 2013 23: 07 New
    +2
    Look again at the Mistral and the old Soviet submarine. If necessary, a flock of such submarines will deal with the Mistral, as with a helpless calf. The "pink elephant" is completely defenseless against attacks from under the water.
    ... to the author minus !!!!!!!!!! nonsense what a habit to compare incomparable
    following his theory ........ the submarine will not deliver the battalion ashore, therefore the boat is useless !!!
    Well, tugs are not necessary and auxiliary vessels are also not needed. For they are defenseless for attacks !!!!!!!!!!!.
    make such crap
  • Spike
    Spike 21 May 2013 23: 12 New
    +3
    Quote: shark
    forced Spartanism is only good.
    So let's move across the ocean on boats laughing
  • okroshka79
    okroshka79 21 May 2013 23: 32 New
    +2
    Why argue, “Mystal is good or bad for our fleet? The author of the article made it clear that the purchase of these ships is a political decision of the Russian leadership. And now let’s recall 08.08.08. Sarkazi took up the settlement of this issue with the West, and, notice. whether it’s bad, but it’s settled. The conclusion by itself - coupled with a tail of billions of eureka in the interests of France, Russia had to fork out for the mediation services of the French president. And there already our naval commanders began to come up with various possible combat tasks for these ships. it was.
  • Argon
    Argon 22 May 2013 00: 06 New
    -1
    In general, I think that the article is a hidden advertisement of a private museum (submarine), Regarding the UDC: whoever believes that such a ship is not needed, our Navy is mistaken. Russia will have to defend the right to its territories in Antarctica until 2050 (we do not say that there will be a war but we don’t say the opposite). And the UDC is one of the main elements of the expeditionary force. Whoever doesn’t like the price, I advise you to remember how they arrived at Project 971, built the series from the 671th, then changed the light cases or elements of nuclear power plants throughout the series. That’s with noise fought. And as a result, the warriors are afraid of them at the pole, to send a “bowler” to them, one suddenly “cho.” Or how they went to the aircraft carrier, first “Leningrad” with “Moscow” then the capital of the republics (gradually evolving from one project to another) . Everything is very expensive and long. With "Mistral" there is an opportunity to shorten the path through the "thorns to the stars." Having ready-made ships (some of the best in their class) and the technology of their construction, gain experience in their operation, and create your own project, saving time (at least) avoiding a bunch of technical risks. fellow
  • harrymur
    harrymur 22 May 2013 01: 36 New
    -4
    oh spring, you are spring like that)) the author didn’t give a damn, compare the ferry and the boat, it’s like comparing a tank with a plane or a shuttle with a carcass, you even check the adequacy of the pasters for the pasters, because they’re throwing complete nonsense, or are you getting ready next summer too, springaaa)))
  • Mr. Truth
    Mr. Truth 22 May 2013 01: 55 New
    0
    I agree with the article. In my opinion, against a strong adversary, that parachute and amphibious operations are dangerous to conduct, it’s just a waste of people and equipment. And for colonial wars, you can find a cheaper alternative. The raid forces of the marine corps or special forces of the Navy would be more useful seaplanes.
  • NickitaDembelnulsa
    NickitaDembelnulsa 22 May 2013 04: 40 New
    +2
    We bought a ferry with a slingshot.
  • vanderhaas
    vanderhaas 22 May 2013 05: 23 New
    0
    The stump is clear, the Ministry of Construction desperately needs the Ministry of Defense for counter-terrorist operations in the North Caucasus, all four of them.
    It’s not clear just what fleet they bought for?