Military Review

Shame called "Mistral." This ship is a foreign body in the Russian Navy.

179
The first universal landing ship (UDC) of the Mistral type was launched in Saint-Nazaire. The ceremony was extensively covered by domestic media, especially television, attended by French and Russian senior officials, including the Commander-in-Chief of the Naval fleet Admiral Victor Chirkov. Both sides have repeatedly stated that the ships will have powerful weapons that will solve a wide range of tasks, including the transfer and landing of marine infantry, ensuring the management of operational fleet groups in various regions of the World Ocean, and performing the functions of a floating hospital and anti-submarine functions. However, upon closer examination of the situation, UDCs are a bluff.


It is especially emphasized that the Mistral armament will be of Russian production with high offensive and defensive potential. The composition is defined and presented to the general public, so that it is already possible to assess its real combat capabilities. Since this is primarily a universal landing ship, the main indicator is the number of troops being deployed and landed. That's all right - 450 Marines, 40 – 70 armored vehicles. It is worthy of opportunity, but only on paper.

Slightly facilitate the landing

The Ka-29 transport-combat helicopters based on board have a payload of up to four tons and can accept up to 16 soldiers. This means that no armored vehicles can be transferred by air, at best, light vehicles. All the rest will have to be delivered to the coast by landing craft, that is, by boats. But the UDC itself does not allow disembarking directly from its board to the unequipped coast.

Shame called "Mistral." This ship is a foreign body in the Russian Navy.

Helicopter assault in the enemy’s operational depth is intended to prevent the enemy reserves from approaching the area. It is supposed to have eight Ka-29 helicopters in the air group; this makes it possible at the same time to transfer up to two reinforced marines platoons with the necessary equipment and weapons for independent actions in the depth of the enemy defense. Re-departure will be associated with large losses and are likely to become impossible. Two reinforced platoons are clearly not enough to prevent the enemy's reserves approach and have a significant impact on the battlefield for landing. That is, the decisive action will be landing, landing from boats.

Then the question arises: why not take advantage of the large amphibious ships that are already in the Russian Navy or restore the 1174 project like "Ivan Rogov"? They will be able to carry out an attack on an unequipped coast more efficiently than the French UDC, since they not only use boats, but also land troops and equipment directly from the board through a ramp.

Further. The only thing that can have a significant impact on the course of the Mistral battle is fire support by eight full-time Ka-52 Alligator. However, helicopters are of great importance only out of reach. aviation coast-based, and in such areas landing is generally impossible. After all, landing operations without gaining dominance in the air are not carried out. And where front-line attack aircraft and bombers will fly, landing from the air to ensure an attack from the sea can be carried out by military transport aircraft on a larger scale.

So, the UDC will not give a significant increase in the effectiveness of landing operations against a little bit serious opponent. Their value increases where the enemy is unable to put up strong resistance and the UDC air group operates relatively freely. However, at the borders of Russia there are very militarily developed states and their blocks, in particular, NATO, and therefore there will be no opportunity to express themselves in all their glory with the domestic Mistrals. And the tasks to land the marines at remote theaters are not in front of our fleet and are unlikely to stand up.

In general, the direct (“neo-colonial”) purpose of the UDC is not needed. The competence of those officials who refer to amphibious actions is very doubtful.

Ship without means of self-defense

Mistral’s ability to defend itself is also in question. Judging by open sources, it is not supposed to have anti-torpedo protection at all. In addition to submarines, anti-ship missiles are dangerous at low and extremely low altitudes. And the air defense systems are represented only by four systems - two anti-aircraft artillery complexes (ZAK) AK-630 and two anti-aircraft missile systems (ZRK) 3М47 "Gibka", located on the sidelines in sponsons.

The AK-630 is a six-barreled 30-mm automatic gun placed in an uninhabited turret, which is controlled by firing radar data. The complex was adopted by the Soviet Navy at the end of the 60-s, and is widely used now. Its ability to defeat air targets, especially cruise missiles, is very limited. Immunity is low, so hitting targets with modern electronic warfare is very difficult.

3M47 “Bending” is six to eight containers of Igla MANPADS placed on a stabilized turntable with an optical electronic detection and tracking system for aerial targets. For the self-defense of a ship, the possibility of destroying air objects on a collision course is of importance. You can’t count on shooting in pursuit, as surely getting into the “Mistral”.

The firing range of the “Needle”, especially at the front hemisphere of the target, is determined not so much by the rocket’s energy, as by the distance of its homing head operating in the infrared range. According to the open press, in polygon conditions with a clean atmosphere, such a range does not exceed three kilometers on a tactical aircraft of the Phantom type, and the probability of its destruction is 0,4 – 0,44. Accordingly, the capture of a cruise missile, even in ideal conditions, is even more problematic, not to mention defeat. Well, in the case of light haze or fog (such weather conditions prevail most of the year in our coastal seas, especially in the Pacific Ocean), the effectiveness of self-defense UDC tends to zero.

That is, regular air defense systems are incapable of providing security even from single attacks. At the same time, there are very modern models in Russia capable of repelling an air attack. For example, ships of the same 1174 project have the Osa-M air defense missile system, four ZAK AK-630, one ZAK AK-726 and the same Igla MANPADS. With such a composition of weapons they are not threatened with single air strikes.

It is not clear why the Mistral air defense system is so weak. Perhaps our modern and very effective means of defense are incompatible with the French combat information management system (CES) Zenit-9. Then why does Russia need this BIUS, and at the same time the Mistral itself?

Unwarranted weapon

Special equipment is caused by equipping this ship with long-range missile systems Onyx and Caliber. The ship with the main course of all 18 units, defenseless from an attack from the air and from under the water, has a powerful strike weapon, like a missile cruiser.

Against whom and how will the big stick be used? It cannot act as a part of large surface connections due to low-speed and weak self-defense. The calculation of independent actions in the interests of the warrant is also groundless, since the composition of the volley is limited (except for anti-ship missiles, the air group, troops, landing craft, etc., are stationed on Mistral, and the ship is not rubber), it cannot overcome air defense of modern fleets. In addition, the main means of destruction of large ship groups is likely to be aviation.

It is completely inexplicable to equip the UDC with the Caliber complex, which is focused on strikes against ground targets in the operational and strategic depth. The intersection of the snake and the hedgehog took place.

В stories military shipbuilding is an unprecedented case of meaninglessness. It seems that the ideologues and initiators of the Mistral purchase do not even have a rough idea why our fleet needs them. In order to somehow justify billions in spending, they were decided to equip them with weapons for all occasions, without operational and tactical justifications.

At the same time, ideologists could justify the deal with the prospect of having light aircraft carriers in the Navy that have a place in our Armed Forces. Unlike the Mistral.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/
179 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. PLO
    PLO 20 November 2013 08: 21
    +2
    absolutely true article, with one exception that on the Mistrals there will be no Caliber / Onyx missiles
    1. Natalia
      Natalia 20 November 2013 08: 29
      -2
      For this we must thank Comrade Serdyukov, who was so eager to re-equip our army to the standards of a "modern" army.
      Better to sell this garbage, and start building OWN, but only as my dad says: "we need aircraft carriers."
      1. shark
        shark 20 November 2013 08: 41
        15
        Do not forget yet Medvedev. Under his pressure, this contract was signed. It is still not clear how Putin could have been so cruelly mistaken. Russia was thrown back four years. And with regards to Mistral, let them be, once they have paid. They will carry humanitarian aid. Just remove the load from normal ships.
        1. Vadivak
          Vadivak 20 November 2013 09: 16
          26
          Quote: shark
          how Putin could have been so cruelly mistaken


          What makes you think that he was wrong? Faithful slave at the golden gallery.
          1. Ptah
            Ptah 20 November 2013 16: 44
            +6
            Quote: Vadivak
            Faithful slave at the golden gallery.

            Then maybe let it be the MAIN slave.
            "Drill" in the sides of the portholes, turning the "Mistral" into a trireme or quinkirem, put on the oars the then cab. mine.
            The ministers and the State Duma are rowing, Putin is beating the rhythm, and all sorts of "prokhorovs" are strolling on the deck.
            And you can fire and salutes on significant days ...
        2. Combitor
          Combitor 21 November 2013 06: 11
          +2
          Maybe remove weapons from these "ships" and sell them to Abramovich? Let him convert them into pleasure yachts. Judging by the way he equips his "fleet", he has more experience in this matter than our generals.
          And where was the author of the article four years ago?
          1. Vasyan1971
            Vasyan1971 25 November 2013 02: 41
            0
            And what a gorgeous floating casino will work! Little man! Monaco will go bankrupt ...
      2. zart_arn
        zart_arn 20 November 2013 08: 48
        30
        Natalia, before building aircraft carriers, we need to practically re-build a manufacturing economy - a pleasure too expensive - an aircraft carrier fleet with its numerous and inevitable support. Moreover, it is a means of attack, not defense. But landing ships we can and must build ourselves.
      3. Botanologist
        Botanologist 20 November 2013 08: 55
        45
        Quote: Natalia
        It’s better to sell this garbage, and start building YOUR


        Its being built. Industry does not have time, the constant transfer of all deadlines.
        And maybe it's enough to discuss Mistral already 10001 times? All the more so stupidly, as the author does - "Mistral will not be able to break through the defense" ... Show me our BDK, which tears up some defense like Tuzik a heating pad ... The landing ship, if we are talking about it, is intended a little for another.
        In general, the author, according to my observations, is quite specific.
        1. PLO
          PLO 20 November 2013 09: 12
          +2
          At the moment, the Russian Federation has neither the ability nor the need to land troops in the oceans.
          to perform landing tasks where it may be necessary (near our borders), the Mistral is redundant and not needed. and the construction of these ships now one big mistake.
          and in this the author is right.
          1. 77bor1973
            77bor1973 20 November 2013 11: 07
            22
            Let's consider the UDC "Mistral" as a good addition to a good fleet, there have never been ships of this class in our renowned fleet, and to say that the dish is bad without trying it would really be a big mistake.
            1. PLO
              PLO 20 November 2013 11: 21
              +5
              Mistral would be a good addition if it went to us for free.

              now the Mistral is a real "suitcase without a handle" and it is a pity to throw it away and carry it
              1. rolik2
                rolik2 20 November 2013 14: 33
                +6
                The disadvantage of Mistral is that it was not originally built to fulfill specific tasks, but is urged to perform these tasks after the purchase.
            2. Walker1975
              Walker1975 20 November 2013 16: 12
              +1
              This supplement requires, for its effective use (if not against Georgia), protection against anti-ship missiles, aircraft, light missile ships and enemy submarines. Otherwise, a couple of billions will end up in a super popular target (large, slow, weak and expensive). What do you offer? How to protect?
              1. wirbeln
                wirbeln 20 November 2013 21: 19
                -4
                Against Ukraine, which entered the EU
            3. bereg
              bereg 20 November 2013 16: 16
              +3
              how do you all like him, not a week goes by no matter how anyone remembers him, a normal hospital with a long range
        2. Vadivak
          Vadivak 20 November 2013 09: 33
          +6
          Quote: Botanologist
          Its being built.


          You first write where and by whom aircraft carriers are built by us, and then publish your competent comments.
          1. Retx
            Retx 20 November 2013 10: 56
            +3
            Comrade landing ships means. He is right, they are building.
            1. Vadivak
              Vadivak 20 November 2013 12: 06
              10
              Quote: RETX
              Comrade landing ships means.


              Well, let him write about them. July 2013 The main large landing ship, project 11711 Ivan Gren, being built by the Yantar plant, according to the design of the Nevsky Design Bureau. The ship is lowered and is being completed afloat. Accepted cars, the compartments are saturated. This year should move in, next year running and surrender. The low rate is due to the forcing of the frigate order.
              1. Drosselmeyer
                Drosselmeyer 20 November 2013 20: 04
                +2
                That's just "Ivan Gren" this is a suitcase without a handle. And it’s TEN years to build such a ship, but it’s not yet 100% ready.
                1. spravochnik
                  spravochnik 23 November 2013 23: 33
                  0
                  As financed, it is being built.
        3. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 20 November 2013 11: 19
          +2
          Greetings. hi
          Quote: Botanologist
          Its being built. Industry does not have time, the constant transfer of all deadlines.

          If not a secret, then what? Ivan Gren all ears already buzzed. Mistral and the truth, the ship is very small-town, considering how many people dumped for it. hi
          1. Retx
            Retx 20 November 2013 11: 32
            +2
            Quote: Ingvar 72
            If not a secret, then what? Ivan Gren

            He is the most, dear. There is simply no money for designing anything else. So hope for 2015, Polish livestock will need to be changed.
          2. ivshubarin
            ivshubarin 20 November 2013 12: 15
            +1
            And how Gren with his bow bulb will come ashore
            1. spravochnik
              spravochnik 23 November 2013 23: 39
              0
              Like the rest, for example 773, 775. The bulb is specific there, it allows, plus a trim system. System
          3. ka5280
            ka5280 20 November 2013 14: 34
            +3
            So much money has been paid for Mistral, taking into account the transfer of the construction technologies of Russia.
          4. Botanologist
            Botanologist 20 November 2013 21: 16
            +2
            Quote: Ingvar 72
            If not a secret, then which


            Greetings!
            Today in the construction of 5 frigates of the 11356 project, 5 of the 22350 project, 5 corvettes (20380 and 20385), RTOs, Dugongs, not counting the submarine, reconnaissance ships, auxiliary and other. Just a shipyard to the eyeballs, you won’t especially accelerate good
            1. [comment-show]
              shpuntik
              shpuntik 20 November 2013 23: 28
              +3
              Botanologist (1) RU Today, 21:16 p.m. ↑
              Just a shipyard to the eyeballs, you won’t especially accelerate good

              Come on!!! fellow Give ASZ 1 billion 200 million for two ferry ships, without weapons, respectively, with control of the "roll-back" function, half of Komsomolsk will thank you unspeakably, within two years of construction and the same amount after it, you can include in the contract: they will be with to walk with flags, they did not get lost, if only the country was good.
              ... He was supposed to produce annually 6 submarines, 3 destroyers, 1 cruiser, 8 refrigerated vessels with a carrying capacity of up to 5000 tons, 4 crab-boats with a carrying capacity of up to 10000 tons, 12 transport vessels ...
              http://www.amurshipyard.ru/?page_id=119

              According to Mistral: Trade and price took into account BIUS. Now this is in question, since the BIUS comes with 4 ships, and ours questioned the need for the next two ships. They want to experience the first two, and then maybe two more. If not, then there will be no BIUS, for which there is an overpayment.
              Such are the collisions, "you understand."
              The Ministry of Defense, commenting on the launch of the Vladivostok, said that the decision to build the third and fourth ships would be made no earlier than a year after the first Mistral began operating. "
              http://www.utro.ru/articles/2013/10/15/1150351.shtml
              http://lenta.ru/news/2012/09/06/serna

              As told Interfax source in the military-industrial complex of Russia, "the problem with boats is completely contrived".
              http://bastion-karpenko.narod.ru/Mistral.html
              “The decision to purchase Mistral-class ships in France is“ ridiculous ”, damaging the shipbuilding industry and the state, said Ivan Kharchenko, First Deputy Head of the Military-Industrial Commission under the government. reports RIA Novosti, “This is Serdyukov’s initiative. This is not the only damage he inflicted on the industry and the state, ”Kharchenko stressed at a meeting of the League for Assistance to Defense Enterprises in Moscow. "

              Here is the video, 2006, the anniversary of the plant and the birthday of the city of Komsomolsk-on-Amur, people still hoped:
              [/ comment-show] [comment-deleted]
              The comment was deleted.
              [/ comment-deleted]
  • lelikas
    lelikas 20 November 2013 12: 39
    16
    . Show me our BDK, which is tearing some kind of defense like a Tuzik hot-water bottle ... The landing ship, if we were talking about it, is intended a little for another.

    Golden words, otherwise all the theorists of the fleet gathered, having made hundreds of landings .....
    1. Fin
      Fin 20 November 2013 18: 32
      +5
      Quote: lelikas
      Show me our BDK, which is tearing some kind of defense like a Tuzik hot-water bottle ... The landing ship, if we were talking about it, is intended a little for another.

      And also I liked it
      anti-torpedo protection is not supposed to have at all. In addition to submarines, anti-ship missiles at low and extremely low altitudes are dangerous.

      Masterpiece.
    2. alone
      alone 20 November 2013 20: 13
      +4
      Quote: lelikas
      Show me our BDK, which is tearing some kind of defense like a Tuzik hot-water bottle ... The landing ship, if we were talking about it, is intended a little for another.

      Golden words, otherwise all the theorists of the fleet gathered, having made hundreds of landings .....



      hi well, what do you blame the people sitting here. as we know the strike force of the fleet, which stands near Syria, consists almost half of the BDK. well, naturally, people who are unfamiliar with the fleet quite consider the BDK a full-fledged offensive weapon of the fleet wink
  • Natalia
    Natalia 20 November 2013 19: 38
    +2
    Quote: Botanologist
    Its being built. Industry doesn’t have time,

    Interesting .... where is it?) On which shipyard is the aircraft carrier intended for the Russian Navy being built? ..... not well, maybe I’m not in the know winked ))))
    1. Botanologist
      Botanologist 20 November 2013 21: 19
      +1
      Quote: Natalia
      Interesting .... this is where


      type in wikipedia "list of navy corals". The data, of course, are all different, but you can get a general idea.
      About the aircraft carrier crying . So far ... the crisis in the world.
  • Horst78
    Horst78 21 November 2013 13: 17
    0
    Show me our BDK, which tears some kind of defense like a Tuzik heating pad ...
    I completely agree with you. Our BDK type "Ivan Rogov" and the western UDC have in common only the purpose of the ships. Does the entire coast allow you to approach it for landing through ramps? These BDKs differ at the level of application, and each of them has its own advantages. Therefore, we must have ships of both concepts. Only the actual practice of operating the UDC "Mistral" will reveal all the pros and cons of the ship. Can someone name a weapon, a technique that will be completely without negative sides? I’ve got it. And to write that the UDC "Mistral" is not something not right for our fleet, it’s just populism and demagogy.
  • WASABI
    WASABI 20 November 2013 09: 53
    +6
    Quote: Natalia
    Better sell this trash

    Good morning everybody! It would be nice to sell it, but in modern conditions who can buy this illiquid asset? For what tasks can the Mistral be effectively used today? Perhaps they will be interested in today Somali pirates to create floating bases, or they can be used in the capture of Papua New Guinea.
    Quote: Natalia
    as my dad says, "we need aircraft carriers."

    Your dad is absolutely right! My dad only "spits" unflattering epithets against the ex-minister, and my uncle, who has extensive experience in amphibious operations, when I tried to find out his attitude to these "combat" ships, said that his legs would not be on this floating coffin!
    1. Ruslan67
      Ruslan67 20 November 2013 19: 28
      +6
      Quote: VASABI
      For what tasks can the Mistral be effectively used today?

      To send on combat duty to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and to shoot poachers from helicopters I do not see other tasks as an amateur for him request
      1. atalef
        atalef 20 November 2013 19: 35
        +1
        Quote: Ruslan67
        Quote: VASABI
        For what tasks can the Mistral be effectively used today?

        To send on combat duty to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and to shoot poachers from helicopters I do not see other tasks as an amateur for him request

        Exactly for the same as the Tu 160 or the nuclear submarine.
        Effectively laughing effectively on it you can drive cars from Japan to Vladik.
        In general, how appropriate is the question about * effective use * of a warship in peacetime fool
        1. Ruslan67
          Ruslan67 20 November 2013 19: 50
          +2
          Quote: atalef
          effectively on it you can drive cars from Japan to Vladik.

          Quote: atalef
          question about * effective use * warship in peacetime

          Well, still shoot from helicopters those who drive cars not on his beloved wassat
        2. Revolver
          Revolver 20 November 2013 21: 37
          +2
          Quote: atalef
          In general, how appropriate is the question about * effective use * of a warship in peacetime fool
          They use it somehow, but at least for ocean cruises by the bosses, and the assessment of "efficiency of use" will most likely be given by "effective managers". wassat
          1. atalef
            atalef 20 November 2013 21: 50
            +3
            Quote: Nagan
            Quote: atalef
            In general, how appropriate is the question about * effective use * of a warship in peacetime fool
            They use it somehow, but at least for ocean cruises by the bosses, and the assessment of "efficiency of use" will most likely be given by "effective managers". wassat

            well, in general, about "effectively using" this wasabi asked, a woman can be forgiven, a blonde, probably, I’ll explain 10 times to my daughter how to switch a TV set on Nintendo for my daughter, and here Mistral, efficiency, this is how effectively you can use a woman in a minefield, if you don't have a mine detector laughing
            1. Ruslan67
              Ruslan67 20 November 2013 23: 41
              +2
              Quote: atalef
              it's how efficiently you can use a woman in a minefield if you don’t have a mine detector

              If good vision and low weight, then reusable wassat And if to what remains of the carcass to tie a weight .... wassat
  • IRBIS
    IRBIS 20 November 2013 10: 33
    12
    Quote: Natalia
    to start building OWN, but only as my dad says: "we need aircraft carriers."

    Good morning girl with blue eyes!
    Your dad is right. But we cannot build ships of this class now, unfortunately.
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak 20 November 2013 10: 43
      +7
      Quote: IRBIS
      But we cannot build ships of this class now, unfortunately.


      Shipyards for aircraft carriers remained on the square.
      1. WASABI
        WASABI 20 November 2013 10: 53
        +4
        Quote: Vadivak
        Shipyards for aircraft carriers remained on the square.

        Quote: IRBIS
        we cannot build ships of this class now, unfortunately.

        But what about the plant that modernized Admiral Gorshkov? Well, and how to evaluate Dmitry Rogozin's statement about "readiness to build ships of this class and even more"?
        Do not take this question for a "hairpin", I just would like to understand this issue!
        1. military
          military 20 November 2013 11: 58
          12
          Quote: VASABI
          Well, and how to evaluate Dmitry Rogozin's statement about "readiness to build ships of this class and even more"?

          as another parrot nonsense from the movie "Magnificent Gosha" ... and even more ...
          1. Ruslan67
            Ruslan67 20 November 2013 19: 30
            +3
            Quote: military
            another nonsense of a parrot from the movie "Magnificent Gosha"

            Maybe all the same, the Boatswain and the Parrot? wassat
            1. military
              military 21 November 2013 11: 14
              +1
              Quote: Ruslan67
              Maybe all the same, the Boatswain and the Parrot?

              this parrot is special ... it carries nonsense, even when the boatswain is silent in a rag ... wink
        2. ivshubarin
          ivshubarin 20 November 2013 12: 43
          +1
          Rosneft is going to buy back a 35% stake in the South Korean corporation which owns the shipyard in Saint-Nazaire where the Mistrals are being built.
        3. Ezhaak
          Ezhaak 20 November 2013 13: 37
          +3
          Quote: VASABI
          I just would like to understand this issue

          The thing is that first, on the shore, in the workshop (huge), the ship's hull is laid. After the completion of the construction of the hull, it is lowered into the water. And this is where the main work on completing the ship begins. I will not list everything, you can guess, but I will attach a picture with "Vikramaditya" at the wall of the plant. It was here that all the main work on completion and modernization took place. Just estimate from the picture what size the workshop should be and yourself, what height it should be. love
        4. Vadivak
          Vadivak 20 November 2013 15: 41
          +5
          Quote: VASABI
          Do not take this question for a "hairpin", I just would like to understand this issue!


          Fine. I will not accept. I know that aircraft carriers were laid and built in Nikolaev. And construction and modernization (especially afloat) are different things. In 2007, Putin promised to build aircraft carriers in Severodvinsk, by the way, the cruisers of the Black Sea and Pacific fleets Moscow and Varyag can undergo repairs and modernization there.
          1. Revolver
            Revolver 20 November 2013 22: 42
            +3
            Quote: Vadivak
            Construction and modernization (especially afloat) are different agree things. In 2007, Putin promised to build aircraft carriers in Severodvinsk
            Severodvinsk is not Alabama and not even Nikolaev, the winter is real there, and it’s not comfortable to work in the open air in spring or autumn, and therefore unproductive, so an indoor workshop is needed. So when you hear about the construction of a covered workshop of the appropriate size, then you can believe that the construction of aircraft carriers is planned in earnest. Until then, it’s only air shocks.
        5. Ptah
          Ptah 20 November 2013 16: 57
          +2
          Quote: VASABI
          But what about the plant that modernized Admiral Gorshkov?

          For its modernization, as I understand it, docking is not required, all work will take place on the already afloat hull.
          Cases of this magnitude are initially laid in floating / flooded docks. In the USSR was the largest in Nikolaev. Do docks seem to be occupied by submarines now?
        6. alone
          alone 20 November 2013 20: 17
          +5
          Quote: VASABI
          Well, and how to evaluate Dmitry Rogozin's statement about "readiness to build ships of this class and even more"?


          haven’t they really been able to find out yet that Rogozin is just an ordinary talker and PR man who is not able to distinguish m6 from m8?
      2. Walker1975
        Walker1975 20 November 2013 16: 15
        +4
        Well, agree, pay, use. Do you think shipbuilders will be against it?
        1. Fin
          Fin 20 November 2013 18: 36
          +2
          Quote: Walker1975
          Well, agree, pay, use. Do you think shipbuilders will be against it?

          They are no longer able to build them.
      3. Ascetic
        Ascetic 20 November 2013 18: 52
        +9
        Quote: Vadivak
        Shipyards for aircraft carriers remained on the square.


        The Baltic plant is working out a method of constructing large surface ships in sections with their subsequent transportation to the place of assembly. If you build with modules and assemble on the same Sevmash, you will have to drive from St. Petersburg to Severodvinsk, bypassing Scandinavia. It is both expensive and troublesome. There are many problems. For the same Gorshkov gathered workers from all over Russia. Then how is the design bureau of large surface ships doing in St. Petersburg. What about designing an electromagnetic catapult. All the same, first we need a shipbuilding base. We need a dry dock from scratch and indoor boathouses. So as not to stick out like Gorshkov in all winds and frosts. We need personnel and workers and engineers, and in order to attract them, housing and social facilities will have to be built for more than one year.
        Yes, ships like air are needed, but first you need a base so that they do not become obsolete before they are built on the knee and in different shipyards. Alas, we are not yet ready to build aircraft carriers on the existing base
    2. Natalia
      Natalia 20 November 2013 19: 40
      +1
      Quote: IRBIS
      Good morning girl with blue eyes!
      Your dad is right.

      Hello!) wink
      My terrific dad rarely makes a mistake winked .... UTB yes))))
      1. Semen Semyonitch
        Semen Semyonitch 21 November 2013 04: 36
        +2
        Quote: Natalia
        Quote: IRBIS
        Good morning girl with blue eyes!
        Your dad is right.

        Hello!) wink
        My terrific dad rarely makes a mistake winked .... UTB yes))))


        I'll try to guess ... Is he a sapper? Or an electrician?
    3. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 21 November 2013 05: 06
      0
      Quote: IRBIS

      Good morning girl with blue eyes!

      She has hazel winked
      Hi san hi
  • Kushadasov
    Kushadasov 20 November 2013 11: 05
    +5
    but he didn’t want to rearm, but to get a super-mega-galactic rollback.
  • builder
    builder 20 November 2013 13: 01
    15
    For this, we must thank comrade Serdyukov

    joke: Serdyukov decided to withdraw recoilless guns from the armament of the Russian army. The name did not like.
  • Walker1975
    Walker1975 20 November 2013 16: 08
    +1
    And can it make a casino and an amusement park for ministers, various Vasilyevs, generals and admirals?
    1. ivshubarin
      ivshubarin 20 November 2013 16: 11
      -1
      Make a yacht for Yanukovych from your cruiser "Ukraine"
      1. Walker1975
        Walker1975 20 November 2013 17: 36
        +8
        For Yanukovych, I would have made a Submarine - I would have only set one task for the designers - so that it would not come up :)
        1. Ptah
          Ptah 20 November 2013 17: 54
          +2
          Quote: Walker1975
          For Yanukovych, I would make a Submarine

          Not too laborious and costly for one thing? It may cost a tarred barrel, following the example of Guidon.

          "We will put you in a tub,
          Let's throw in the sea and "adyu".
          Will cost and a tub -
          Don't give them a rook ... "(c)
          1. Walker1975
            Walker1975 20 November 2013 19: 41
            +2
            +1 :) Although you can have more than one .... there are many of them - servants of the homeland - without which the homeland would have sighed more freely
        2. not good
          not good 20 November 2013 22: 07
          +1
          DOES NOT GO OUT. Yanukovych himself will not drown and will not give the boat laughing
          1. Ptah
            Ptah 20 November 2013 23: 19
            +1
            Then urgently appoint this one as the commander.
            And push it from the wall into the sea ...
          2. Revolver
            Revolver 20 November 2013 23: 55
            +2
            Quote: Negoro
            DOES NOT GO OUT. Yanukovych himself will not drown and will not give the boat laughing

            And didn’t you try to drain into the sewers of Yanukovych?
  • Radoslav
    Radoslav 20 November 2013 17: 37
    +5
    Natalia, let me disagree with you and your dad. Aircraft carriers are also a large floating coffin on the water. First of all, it is necessary to build nuclear-powered cruisers, such as the "Orlan", which includes the cruiser "Peter the Great" with powerful weapons, and multi-purpose nuclear submarines, again with powerful long-range missiles.
  • Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 20 November 2013 18: 57
    +2
    the contract for the "mistrals" is a purely commercial deal, with the aim of putting "a little" money in your pocket, nothing more, they are trying to come up with tasks for these "pelvis" only now, because there is nowhere to go ...
  • alone
    alone 20 November 2013 20: 07
    +3
    I think Serdyukov himself took it and simply ordered ships for billions of dollars?
    he was just a performer.
  • Sasha 19871987
    Sasha 19871987 20 November 2013 09: 01
    +4
    I involuntarily recall the events in Libya, when the planes from France miraculously simply did not take off ... But in fact, you have to invest in your own, and not in the equipment of "Western partners"
  • user
    user 20 November 2013 09: 48
    +6
    Enough with kerosene to write about the Mistral. The contract has been signed, the contract is being implemented, there have never been any ships of this type in the USSR and the Russian Federation, there is no operational experience and application, the infrastructure for them is still being built, so no one knows the bottlenecks in the operation in our conditions, and they have not yet entered service, even weapons which will be installed on it is completely unknown.
    Then what is this 101 article about the Mistrals about, but here we’ll gain the experience of building ships of this class and with such speed, taking into account the manufacture of parts at our shipyards.
    1. PLO
      PLO 20 November 2013 09: 56
      11
      Anyone who has been interested in this topic for a long time knows everything
      Russian Mistrals will not have fundamental differences compared to the original
      it’s just funny to talk about operating experience

      these ships are not needed now, there are no tasks for them and will not be soon
      in this situation, diverting money from the necessary programs to these ships to a foreign manufacturer is nothing more than idiocy
      1. Walker1975
        Walker1975 20 November 2013 16: 18
        +2
        Not only does it take money to distract from useful programs - you also need to think about security ships, otherwise this super-expensive suitcase will sink some missile boat, and the submarines will float on it from half the ocean, just to see :)
    2. Turkestan
      Turkestan 20 November 2013 12: 26
      +7
      This target will cost the Russian treasury 720 million euros; you will agree that the amount is not small. And there are many questions on this ship. And no one really can not explain for what purpose they bought it.
    3. sasska
      sasska 20 November 2013 16: 33
      +2
      and still not armed with pirogens of the natives and war chariots. and what, you also have to try?
      there are many things in the world that our sages have not dreamed of. only, but do we need it?
  • Orel
    Orel 20 November 2013 10: 07
    +6
    absolutely true article


    If we assume that the Mistrals were bought exactly as "powerful" ships, then the article is correct, but if the goal was different, then the article no longer makes sense. It seems to me that they purchased large-tonnage ships only for access to technologies and, most importantly, to modern BIUS systems, which the French seem to be giving up if they buy 4 Mistrals. Under the terms of the contract, some work, including assembly, was carried out in Russia and by our workers. We just re-learn how to build big ships, we bought technologies and are striving to buy, not Mistrals ...
    1. PLO
      PLO 20 November 2013 10: 14
      +3
      It seems to me that they acquired large-capacity ships only for access to technologies and, most importantly, to modern BIUS systems, which the French would seem to give away if they purchase 4 Mistrals

      kind of like give .. already funny
      not to mention the fact that apparently the second pair of ships will not be procured
      so there will be no technology
      the source code for the necessary technologies will not be transferred, we will get everything in the form of black boxes and that's it.
      BZ built our part of Mistral as usual
      if we talk about the construction of large-capacity ships, the best training was the modernization of Vikra, and in the future Nakhimov
      1. bddrus
        bddrus 20 November 2013 19: 13
        +3
        how Makar modernization at the wall will help to build in the shops and docks ???
    2. ivshubarin
      ivshubarin 20 November 2013 10: 18
      +1
      UDC decided to purchase after the events of 08.08.08
      1. Orel
        Orel 20 November 2013 10: 35
        +7
        the best training was the modernization of Vikra, and in the future Nakhimov


        Write complete nonsense. Upgrading and building a ship from scratch is, to put it mildly, two big differences ...
        1. leon-iv
          leon-iv 20 November 2013 10: 39
          0
          but no.
          Look at the same Gorshkov case riveted quickly. But the stuffing is still busy.
        2. PLO
          PLO 20 November 2013 10: 51
          +3
          you should familiarize yourself with the modernization of Gorshkov in Wikrmadity
          he was shaken up very thoroughly
      2. not good
        not good 20 November 2013 22: 49
        +1
        UDC decided to buy when they realized that the French would roll back more than their military-industrial complex, and nobody needed to see if he needed it or not. It’s a pity Mr. Makarov didn’t appear on the site anymore, that’s all a question for him. Although Taburetkin didn’t give a damn what the GS was against, who were against pensions.
    3. Radoslav
      Radoslav 20 November 2013 23: 19
      +1
      Nonsense Russia does not need to learn how to build large ships and there is no technology in France that is unknown in Russia. In terms of the "size" of the ships, "Petya" surpasses "Mudakostroal" almost twice, I think in something else, we can probably talk about a major kickback (in the common people this is called a bribe) which he took without hesitation, the statesman the darling of the authorities, the spoiled unreasonable child of this power.
  • saruman
    saruman 20 November 2013 13: 33
    10
    Quote: olp
    absolutely true article, with one exception that on the Mistrals there will be no Caliber / Onyx missiles


    Yes, crazy article. To compare the UDC with a classic landing ship is nonsense of the "Sivkovo" mare. UDC is designed for over-the-horizon landing of troops.

    The topic of the necessity and uselessness of the Mistral UDC has already been discussed 100500 times. The main complaints were:
    1. UDC - a new class of ships for the Russian Navy, which does not fit into its appearance and the subtle answers of the Navy leadership about the doctrine of its application.
    2. They gave a large military order to a foreign state, and even a NATO member.
    The rest is already blah blah blah against the backdrop of these claims. But the decision was made anyway, the ships are being built. It is better to let the "military experts" give practical advice to our "dense" Navy leadership on the future combat use of these UDCs, taking into account foreign experience, advise how to create a coastal infrastructure, etc. Everything else is already an unnecessary and stupid blizzard.
    1. IRBIS
      IRBIS 20 November 2013 14: 23
      +8
      Quote: saruman
      for overseas landing.

      The vast majority of the people have no idea what it is - an over-the-sea landing. Many did not even hear such a term, which, however, does not interfere with discussing the shortcomings of UDC.
      I regard this as an extra reason to kick Serdyukov and Medvedev. I am not against kicking, I would have kicked myself, but let's look at things soberly. UDC will not be superfluous in the fleet, definitely.
      1. ivshubarin
        ivshubarin 20 November 2013 14: 40
        +4
        The fact of the matter is that with an over-horizon landing, the UDC does not risk anything, unlike the BDK, which must be stuck into the shore
        1. IRBIS
          IRBIS 20 November 2013 15: 16
          +3
          Quote: ivshubarin
          during overseas landing, the UDC does not risk anything, unlike the BDK, which must be stuck into the shore

          This is what we are talking about. The idea of ​​this kind of landing has been developed for a long time. At the end of the 90, we simulated the landing of our brigade during exercises.
          The Americans ran this idea (and this is their idea and theory) to perfection, the presence of ships of various classes allows.
          1. Walker1975
            Walker1975 20 November 2013 16: 22
            +2
            It remains only to solve a little - and against whom will such operations be needed? If it’s against Papua New Guinea, is such an expensive ship needed, and if it’s against a NATO member, what forces do you propose to protect it with?
        2. sasska
          sasska 20 November 2013 16: 45
          +4
          over-the-air landing requires the use of floating armored vehicles, which not only can stay on the water, but also move around with relatively high excitement ...

          and such equipment is now in service with the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation?
          The long range of amphibians on water, according to initial ideas, should allow landing ships to stay at a considerable distance from the coast. However, existing anti-ship missiles are capable of hitting targets at ranges greater than the EFV range. As for the armored amphibians themselves, they can be destroyed by sea or land mines, as well as artillery fire. Thus, for reliable landing of amphibious assaults using EFV machines, preliminary “cleansing” of the coast and coastal waters by naval artillery or aircraft is required. However, in this case, the fighting qualities of amphibious landing amphibians may be useless, since there will be no one to fight with

          and after:
          at the very beginning of 2011, the head of the Pentagon, R. Gates announced: the EFV program will be completed in the near future. After analyzing the current state and progress of previous work, the leadership of the American military department decided to abandon the amphibious machine in order to reduce costs for projects with a dubious future.


          read, here it is described in detail
          http://topwar.ru/19660-amfibiya-kotoraya-nikogda-ne-poplyvet-programma-aaavefv.h

          tml
          1. ivshubarin
            ivshubarin 20 November 2013 16: 48
            +2
            For this, there are high-speed landing boats of the Dugong or Chamois type
        3. Turkestan
          Turkestan 20 November 2013 16: 54
          +1
          Quote: ivshubarin
          The fact of the matter is that with an over-horizon landing, the UDC does not risk anything, unlike the BDK, which must be stuck into the shore


          With modern military equipment of the anti-airborne and coast guard, this no longer matters. Soak and do not blink an eye
          1. ivshubarin
            ivshubarin 20 November 2013 17: 00
            +5
            With the current technique, you can soak anything, you must use it wisely. In a war with Georgia, they would be very useful.
            1. Aleksys2
              Aleksys2 20 November 2013 17: 01
              -1
              Quote: ivshubarin
              In a war with Georgia, they would be very useful.

              What?
              1. ivshubarin
                ivshubarin 20 November 2013 17: 04
                +1
                Like an aerodrome for KA-52
                1. Aleksys2
                  Aleksys2 20 November 2013 17: 56
                  +1
                  Quote: ivshubarin
                  Like an aerodrome for KA-52

                  I understand that in the North Caucasus we do not have airfields suitable for basing the KA-52. Lovely ...
                  1. ivshubarin
                    ivshubarin 20 November 2013 19: 02
                    0
                    In the direction of the North. Caucasus was air defense
                    1. Aleksys2
                      Aleksys2 21 November 2013 00: 57
                      +2
                      Quote: ivshubarin
                      In the direction of the North. Caucasus was air defense

                      And from the Black Sea side there was no air defense?
                      At the time of the attack on South Ossetia, the Georgian Air Force had four P-180U radars deployed in Alekseevka (near Tbilisi), Marneuli, Poti and Batumi.
                      The Georgian air defense group at the time of the invasion of South Ossetia was very significant and had serious potential for reconnaissance, detection and destruction of air targets. The Georgian group, which invaded South Ossetia, the size of which was roughly equivalent to the division (6 light infantry and 4 tank battalions, up to 8 artillery battalions, plus special forces and the Ministry of Internal Affairs), was covered by the created air defense system, including one Buk-MX air defense system ”, Up to three Osa-AK / AKM air defense batteries, a large number of portable air defense systems, as well as some anti-aircraft artillery: 1-mm C-57, 60-mm ZU-23 and ZSU-23-23“ Shilka ”. Thus, the air defense system of the Georgian strike group was approximately equivalent to the strengthened air defense system of the Soviet first-line division of the late eighties and early nineties.
                      Collision with such an air defense system was a serious test for Russian military aviation, especially since, apparently, initially there was an underestimation of Georgian capabilities in the field of air defense. At the same time, Georgian air defense, reportedly, relied mainly on receiving information from Kolchuga-M passive reconnaissance radars, minimally using active radars, and Georgian self-propelled air defense systems Buk-M1 and Osa-AK / AKM used tactics from ambush. This made it difficult to combat Georgian air defense systems. According to the latest unofficial information, the Georgian Buk-M1 SAM systems were able to shoot down four Russian aircraft on the first day of the August 8 war - three Su-25 attack aircraft and one Tu-22М3 medium-range bomber.
  • Yankuz
    Yankuz 20 November 2013 15: 35
    +4
    Absolutely crazy article! In essence and in content.
  • Walker1975
    Walker1975 20 November 2013 16: 06
    +3
    The article is correct. As far as I remember, from the very beginning the question was posed: why is the Russian Federation a miracle? What tasks and against whom will it be able to solve? What forces to work together with? But then everyone was attributed to politics: they say that the Mistral is not so needed as getting some kind of technology, relations with France, etc.

    Here, just recently, many articles were published on the vulnerability of aircraft carriers and the inability of AUG air defense to repulse a massive attack. A number of commentators wrote that the Aircraft Carrier is a big target. And here the target is also big and dainty, but also without an air wing. So each Mistral should be supported by a cover group - otherwise it will be drowned by corvettes or small groups of enemy aircraft (I’m not even talking about submarines). And here is the question for discussion: what should be the cover group of Mistral? Is it there now and when will it appear?
  • Russ69
    Russ69 20 November 2013 17: 24
    0
    Quote: olp
    absolutely true article, with one exception that on the Mistrals there will be no Caliber / Onyx missiles

    It may be, but if they build a couple in Russia. But everything is still at the level of conversation ...
    1. Walking
      Walking 20 November 2013 20: 50
      0
      Lord you are not tired of discussing the Mistral 1000 times? After all, everything has already been said for a long time.
  • Yoshkin Kot
    Yoshkin Kot 21 November 2013 09: 45
    0
    Why at the most critical moments in modern society are polar points of view put forward, how did this happen, for example, during the events on Dubrovka? They testify to the fundamentally different philosophical foundations of consciousness. “Does the leadership intend to be consistent and finally suppress criminal terror without looking at the morally defiant human rights defenders and the“ world behind the scenes ”or will it continue to make efforts to find an imaginary agreement with the bandits?” - asked one. “To stop the criminal war against their own citizens or, moreover, the“ heroic highlanders ”fighting against the oppressive empire,” others demanded. The ranks of the latter have thinned noticeably during the second half of the 90s, but it was they that had the most direct impact on the formation of public opinion in the first half of the 90s. It was they who carried out an unprecedented mockery in history of their own state and army, surpassing, perhaps, even the revolutionary campaign of defaming the government, state and army financed by Kaiser Germany through the millionaire Parvus during the First World War. N. Narochnitskaya
    there is nothing to add, and I would like to find out the title of the author of the article and his position in the Ministry of Defense laughing
  • major071
    major071 20 November 2013 08: 29
    +5
    Cases taburetkina for cutting money for a long time will come around in the army and navy. stop
    1. nemec55
      nemec55 20 November 2013 10: 30
      +4
      What you as children is Putin’s pure project, and I think the project was signed to please (in the interests of) France to close its eyes to the war in Georgia
      1. Genry
        Genry 20 November 2013 11: 08
        +1
        Quote: nemec55
        Putin’s project and, as I think, the project was signed to please (in the interests of) France to close its eyes to the war in Georgia

        Confused Putin with Medvedev.
        And the Mistrals were bought not for money, but on barter. Russia supplied them with Soyuz for launches in French Guiana.
        1. [comment-show]
          nemec55
          nemec55 20 November 2013 11: 25
          +1
          [quoteMixed up Putin with Medvedev.]

          Well, for sure, children lol
          [/ comment-show] [comment-deleted]
          The comment was deleted.
          [/ comment-deleted]
  • makarov
    makarov 20 November 2013 08: 33
    16
    Konstantin Sivkov - First Vice-President of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, Doctor of Military Sciences. - The information war is considered one of the most effective means of interstate confrontation .... To achieve high combat effectiveness of information confrontation requires an integrated approach, when many are sometimes used formally to solve one problem.
    So this "chewed" material is the conduct of hostilities ...
    1. core
      core 20 November 2013 09: 24
      +1
      tooting.
  • Mikhail m
    Mikhail m 20 November 2013 08: 34
    0
    But how beautiful everything will look when visiting Mistral by the Supreme Commander-in-Chief !!! And there will be plenty of money allocated for maintenance so that all the right people are cut off piece by piece.
    1. Fornit
      Fornit 20 November 2013 10: 46
      0
      Just about, sea-based "members" ... The ex-minister was just preparing a couple of yachts (remember the estate near Astrakhan) for walks in the SL and the Pacific oceans ... Why not understand. recourse
  • ed65b
    ed65b 20 November 2013 08: 40
    +5
    I don’t know, maybe the author is right or maybe not. Bought already, now look at its placement, the final weapons. the future will show what he will do as part of the Navy. And in the Black Sea there is someone to press the tail, and in the Japanese the same.
    1. nov_tech.vrn
      nov_tech.vrn 20 November 2013 11: 00
      0
      ... right, there is no waste, only reserves.
  • 1961NNN
    1961NNN 20 November 2013 08: 40
    -2
    "Many thanks" - "Luntik" and "Taburetkin"! One was removed ... time for the second!
  • 77bor1973
    77bor1973 20 November 2013 08: 43
    +1
    On the French UDC, the weapons are also not "hot".
  • erased
    erased 20 November 2013 08: 46
    +8
    Without accurate calculations of the use of the Mistral, it is difficult to evaluate their effectiveness. Review and advertising articles will not help here, it's just naked info without specifics. One thing is clear - the ships will operate as part of detachments and squadrons, are protected from aircraft and enemy ships by the forces of the entire detachment and fulfill their tasks within the framework of the general task of the group. How successful? Until it comes to the point, one can only predict on the basis of again calculations.
    When will we see them? Maybe never. But it is hardly worth it now to indiscriminately praise or harass the fact of the acquisition of the Mistral. Although they were purchased during the reign of Moscow Region by the enemy of the people Serdyukov.
    In a word - we'll see.
  • Asgard
    Asgard 20 November 2013 08: 49
    +9
    This is a large self-propelled PONTON.
    HEIGHT of the sides will interfere with the helicopter crews with a wind speed of -13m / s, that is, with a storm of 5-6 points, SLAUGHTER LOSSES are possible ..... during takeoff and landing ....

    There is no strategy for its application, that is, they bought a fashionable toy, such as an i-hearth, it’s in your hands, and what to do with it (except how beautiful it is))) it is not clear. Part of the options are disabled)))))

    Let me remind you that part of the ship (feed)) was made at the Russian shipyard, so the mantras that we can’t do such things are nonsense .... only now do we need it ??? not removed from the agenda))))
    Along the way, they would adapt their weapons systems and methods of protection .... Our people are savvy, they might have developed tactics of application with the necessary Armaments ....
    And so "GROB" for 500 paratroopers and 300 servants ....
    We don’t need to build "colonial" ships, we have a different strategy of use and OTHER Opponents with modern weapons - JAPAN, USA, TURKEY, FRANCE, ENGLAND, ISRAEL .....

    Well, in general, bought "people" -who destroyed industry, the army, relations between enterprises, between people, money is taken abroad, inauguration is carried out in Moscow cleared of the people, etc. etc...

    And here ONCE "MENSTRUAL" is the hope of our defense capability and the glory of our fleet in the future)))))))))))))))))
    1. zvereok
      zvereok 20 November 2013 10: 47
      +6
      Quote: Asgard
      Let me remind you that part of the ship (feed)) was made at the Russian shipyard, so the mantras that we can’t do such things are nonsense ....


      I’m not quite sure, but it seems like the article slipped that the French imported their equipment to build the stern, and this is technology.

      Although for me, so Mistral is just a big target, bought for a big pullback.
      1. ivshubarin
        ivshubarin 20 November 2013 11: 05
        +2
        You don’t ask something when Serdyuk’s prison
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 20 November 2013 11: 35
          +4
          Quote: ivshubarin
          You don’t ask something when Serdyuk’s prison

          So he was already imprisoned. To a new position. laughing
          1. zvereok
            zvereok 21 November 2013 07: 54
            0
            Quote: Ingvar 72
            Quote: ivshubarin
            You don’t ask something when Serdyuk’s prison

            So he was already imprisoned. To a new position. laughing


            I mean the same.
        2. zvereok
          zvereok 21 November 2013 07: 52
          0
          "Bastrykin - on the status of Serdyukov: There will be changes that will please everyone"

          Probably marry Bastrykina. Ugh, you are Vasilieva.
      2. Asgard
        Asgard 20 November 2013 16: 11
        0
        They brought a docking surface template and drawings of bulkheads ...... (this is not technology)))
        The pontoon itself, ah, I'm sorry helicopter carrier. This is quite a commercial cargo ship with a dock inside for boats, a welded structure divided into compartments with a bunch of holes inside))))) for Pipe and simple-wires .....

        Well, they shared the responsibility, if something pops up, then 40% of the responsibility in the Russians already hangs automatically))) for 80 carts of $ 1.2 billion
    2. Genry
      Genry 20 November 2013 11: 30
      -2
      Quote: Asgard
      Well, in general, they bought "people" - who destroyed the industry, the army, relations between enterprises, between people, money is taken abroad, the inauguration is carried out in Moscow, cleaned of the people, and so on and so forth ...

      You, by chance, are not that Bulk? Waving in style.
  • Lyapis
    Lyapis 20 November 2013 08: 52
    13
    The ship was just launched into the water, and it was already drowned and buried. Its air defense is weak, but the weapon is, on the contrary, too powerful, and even helicopters of the wrong system ...
    I read the article and there was a strong feeling that instead of a new warbler, I had to buy a couple of hundred galvanized bath basins and cut them into the sea-oksiyans.
    In general, the article shows through the dull spirit of gentlemen - "all spreading". negative
    1. Walker1975
      Walker1975 20 November 2013 16: 26
      -2
      Well, write in the spirit of hatred. Mistral - the center of the squadron, which allows you to successfully confront any AUG and carry out landing on any coast! Hooray!
  • saag
    saag 20 November 2013 09: 19
    0
    Or maybe make a banana truck from it? :-)
  • Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 20 November 2013 09: 22
    +2
    It’s good on the water, since they’ve already built it can be found and they can be used, you can carry cargo, make a cruise ship out of it, or a floating prison, I even know who the very first one can be put in there, it’s interesting how many Serdyukov received from the French for is it a trough?
    1. Fornit
      Fornit 20 November 2013 10: 57
      +4
      You can consider such a proposal - to take both hulls together with a flight - there will be the first aircraft carrier - a catamaran ... Then sink - there will be the first semi-submerged aircraft carrier catamaran. Then ... On, and then you know! hi
  • negeroi
    negeroi 20 November 2013 09: 28
    10
    The article is intended for whom, for? I am an illiterate peasant already see a bunch of delusional passages (passages of passats?) And a lot of stretches. And it’s not nak and this is not that way. I personally can go over anything and find something in the best examples of military techniques, and just about anything. There is criticism, but there is criticism. It is in a criticistic spirit that the article was written. It can be said that the Triumph missile system is the best complex in its class today. And you can carefully look at its exorbitant cost, weak anti-sabotage protection , insufficient range, because he does not shoot down geostationary satellites but does not even see. From what we can conclude, the Triumph missile system is the noodles on the ears of the long-suffering Russian people, drank and drank billions of dollars, the personal fault of Medvedev, Chubais and Putin .And that all damned liberals would die!

    Mistral is not in Russia, what and how it will be equipped not in the newspapers and tyrnete is written. And what is written about the new technology is nonsense and desa. Bullshit and nonsense !!!! My uncle came straight and told me how and what the new bullet would bullet .This is in the first place. Secondly, Mistral is all one that an aircraft carrier, and cannot protect itself, it is just imprisoned for another. Is it a barge or a pontoon, a cab of helicopters and marines, what is the requirement of the su-34 flight qualities ??!! ! Any vessel of such functions, namely aircraft carriers, guards and escorts other vessels. And this is the third! The author is such a specialist that he did not even mention it. How to understand this? Yes, the author either understands such an expert or fulfills an order for negativity There are people who know that they get salaries for watering the Medvediks, and who merge the negative into the masses, following the reaction of the masses. Although it is predictable. It’s worth the bastard to bawl-Ata!

    Mistral will come, we will see. And now all this is tryndezh, baldezh and provocation.
  • negeroi
    negeroi 20 November 2013 09: 31
    0
    From zhezh system! The banter as a mat recognizes, and generally excludes non-illiterate. About the banter I wrote, and I can make fun of anything.
  • Wedmak
    Wedmak 20 November 2013 09: 42
    10
    Shame on you? This ship is not intended for landing operations with the assault on the fortified shore.
    Let's not blindly wave our hand and blame these ships? In the French version there is nothing at all there, except for the landing and a couple of machine guns. I won’t know how, where and in what quantities our people are going to shove missile weapons, but this will significantly expand the possibilities of using the ship. Those Japanese, having seen this ship under guard of the guard, will think ten times whether it is worth it to capture the disputed islands by force (I really want to!).
    The Russian version of Mistral will just peek out over the horizon, release the Clabs, turntables will complete the clearing, landing on boats will complete the job. Plus great abilities to manage a squad of ships. Plus great autonomy. Since we bought it, let's look for an application.
    1. PLO
      PLO 20 November 2013 10: 01
      +7
      there will be no missiles there, it is not provided there
      and most importantly it is not needed there

      Since we bought it, let's look for an application.

      do not you think that you first need to find an application, and only then buy

      if everything gets upside down, then something is wrong
      1. leon-iv
        leon-iv 20 November 2013 10: 14
        +1
        there will be no missiles there, it is not provided there
        and most importantly it is not needed there

        So I think what for it is needed there? Explicit duck.
    2. Walker1975
      Walker1975 20 November 2013 16: 30
      0
      it will creep out from the horizon - it will receive several torpedoes from submarines or anti-ship missiles ... It was written here that the AUG with its Ajis could not withstand the impact of a pair of submarines. And what do you propose to protect him with? How many ships? What squad of ships will he control?
      1. MstislavHrabr
        MstislavHrabr 20 November 2013 19: 53
        0
        I propose to leave the Mistral in Sredizein and the Black Sea. The quiet running of the ship is not so noticeable in them. Submarines are easier to spot. Frigates (11356) will escort him. There are many "troubled" countries with poorly defended coasts.
  • kind
    kind 20 November 2013 09: 58
    +1
    Attach oars to the mistral and put Medvedev, Serdyukov, Poghosyan, Navalny and similar "patriots" behind them. Let them row on this gallery from the coast until the end of their lives.
    1. Genry
      Genry 20 November 2013 11: 19
      +3
      Poghosyan, are you so hard to hear? Without thinking?
      I wonder what a great thing you are doing, that you put yourself above it?
      Kindly pretend to be such a liberal.
      1. kind
        kind 21 November 2013 05: 44
        0
        That is, regarding the first two and the last, you agree. Pogosyan did not take it from your ears, as you think, he encourages the purchase of foreign aircraft and ruins our aircraft industry. The result is a recent disaster in Kazan. And why did you get that I'm pretending to be someone? Do you even know the meaning of the word liberal? Komennt is your frank nonsense, from which I conclude that you are a distant person. I expressed my point of view, and it was more logical to call me cruel. Well, what I do, great or not, is no longer your concern.
        PS If you are an admirer of Poghosyan (or Poghosyan himself), then everything is clear.
    2. rubin6286
      rubin6286 20 November 2013 11: 40
      +2
      Alexander of Macedon was also a great commander. but why break stools. Internet is good. But why write nonsense!
  • Unisonic
    Unisonic 20 November 2013 10: 01
    +1
    This is the most modern ship of the Russian Navy. I think our technological plan will make up for a lot of the lost by mastering the technologies of its creation, the innovation of units and assemblies, in particular in the matter of electronics, ship control systems. The main thing is to do with us. At least 2 ships.
    In general, the car is universal. If ours hadn’t dragged everything on vertical take-off aircraft, we could have experimented in this direction as well.
  • ivshubarin
    ivshubarin 20 November 2013 10: 10
    0
    That is Mistral and a universal ship, which can be a command post, a hospital, an amphibious assault with air support. We didn’t have such
    1. rubin6286
      rubin6286 20 November 2013 11: 24
      -2
      I agree with you. A wonderful ship - modern, compact, economical, versatile and comfortable. All our ships are against him as a factory hostel against the oligarch's mansion on Rublevka. We need to learn to build in a new way, quickly and efficiently. Such a ship is needed not for counteraction, but, on the contrary, for organizing joint actions and ensuring the constant presence of the Russian fleet in the world's oceans, fighting piracy, drug trafficking, and providing assistance in emergency situations. Remember how in Gaidai's film "Operation Y" - "We must be softer to the people, and look at the problem better"!
      1. Turkestan
        Turkestan 20 November 2013 17: 06
        +1
        A beautiful ship - modern, compact, economical, versatile, comfortable.

        You give an assessment as if you bought a cottage.
        This is, first and foremost, a warship. He must fight.
        1. ivshubarin
          ivshubarin 20 November 2013 17: 09
          +1
          Do not make me laugh . With whom amphibious ships are fighting
        2. rubin6286
          rubin6286 22 November 2013 11: 31
          0
          First of all, people are fighting, not boxes (tanks, ships, planes, etc., etc.). Judging by your comment, you did not go on a long hike on our BDK. Believe me, they are not at all like ocean cruise liners, which, by the way, were also built at foreign shipyards by order of the USSR. Ships carry out combat operations at sea in accordance with their mission: some are directly engaged in combat, others provide it. The Mistral is primarily a combat support ship, which has a modern complex of combat control, communication and location systems for this purpose. This is not at all the aircraft carrier "Carl Vinson" or the landing helicopter carrier "Tarava", not the large landing craft "Caesar Kunikov" or the KVP "Zubr". It acts as part of a task force (grouping), performing the functions of a command center (and not a command post, as was the case in the Soviet Navy) and is covered accordingly from enemy attacks. Managing a naval battle in modern conditions and holding the flag of the squadron commander on one of its cruisers or BODs is not the same thing. For this we need specialized ships, which were not in our fleet before. In general, before fighting, you need to understand well WHAT TO FIGHT FOR, WHERE, HOW AND WHAT TO FIGHT, WHO WILL BE FIGHTING, IS IT POSSIBLE TO WIN AND WHAT WILL BE AFTER THE WAR ends. It seems to me that all countries of the world and the great powers, in particular, have big problems in this matter.
  • leon-iv
    leon-iv 20 November 2013 10: 12
    -2
    Who is catching Sivkov?
    It is not clear why the Mistral air defense system is so weak. Perhaps our modern and very effective means of defense are incompatible with the French combat information management system (CES) Zenit-9. Then why does Russia need this BIUS, and at the same time the Mistral itself?

    BIUS not only air defense manages eslico. in his opinion there that PR should stand? Or S-300FM?
    And where is super annealing about 200 nautical miles?
    Special equipment is caused by equipping this ship with long-range missile systems Onyx and Caliber. The ship with the main course of all 18 units, defenseless from an attack from the air and from under the water, has a powerful strike weapon, like a missile cruiser.

    brr apparently did not report to him that the UKKS is climbing any kind of weapons hosh air defense hosh PLO Khosh KR. Spets can be seen from afar. And if it is necessary to shove PLO Pobole helicopter PLO and everything is fine.

    And it took a year and a half to build if.
    1. PLO
      PLO 20 November 2013 10: 17
      +2
      they do not climb into UKSK, only the Caliber and Onyx missiles, in the future they promise to push Uranus. all

      And if it is necessary to shove PLO Pobole helicopter PLO and everything is fine.

      and where do you get PLO helicopters?
      The Ka-27 is relatively small and they all already have their own ship
      any BOD 1155 PLO will provide much better
      1. leon-iv
        leon-iv 20 November 2013 10: 26
        0
        they do not climb into UKSK, only the Caliber and Onyx missiles, in the future they promise to push Uranus. all

        Confused for sure. It seems that they are now adapting. Anyway.
        and where do you get PLO helicopters?

        Build capacity from the air will not take.
        any BOD 1155 PLO will provide much better

        Hmm, did I argue with that? I’m talking about the fact that if UKSK is announced (which I doubt), you can put PLUR there. Serving helicopter PLO is all better on the mistral.
        1. PLO
          PLO 20 November 2013 10: 38
          0
          I mean, no one will take the Ka-27 from other ships, as well as buy a second set of Ka-27 for each mistral, in addition to the Ka-52 and Ka-29

          PLUR then you can only put on whom to shoot in this case? Mistral cannot detect submarines
  • Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 20 November 2013 10: 14
    +1
    The ship is not beautiful. It was as if his nose had been sawn off with a hacksaw. Our designers would make the ship, at least, no worse. Yes, and jobs are not superfluous. But there is a fact: the ship is built, let it go. Well, about weapons, I think experts will take care
    1. ivshubarin
      ivshubarin 20 November 2013 10: 20
      +3
      Compare the pace of construction of the Mistral and BDK Ivan Gren. There’s nowhere to wait
    2. leon-iv
      leon-iv 20 November 2013 10: 28
      0
      Our designers would make the ship, at least, no worse.

      hmm, but how much would they cut it?
      Yes, and jobs are not superfluous.

      Do we have a free shipyard and specialists for it? And so they have already raked from Ukraine the most sensible at our shipyards.
  • taseka
    taseka 20 November 2013 10: 25
    +3
    Whoever drove the Renault won't sit on the Zhiguli! Let them swim for 5-8 years, and then we'll see!
    1. Strashila
      Strashila 20 November 2013 11: 31
      0
      They will sit down ... they will count ... and put to joke, its operation will cost as the entire fleet to which it will be assigned ... and when it will actually be at sea ... we have winter in the country for six months ... she for him is just deadly.
    2. rubin6286
      rubin6286 20 November 2013 11: 35
      +1
      We have this ship as "Zhiguli", and all other landing ships are not even "Moskvich", but rather ZIS-5.
  • MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 20 November 2013 10: 34
    0
    The military will call this miracle ship among themselves "Serdyuk" .. Not fish, not meat (but a lot of money invested ..)
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 20 November 2013 10: 35
    +2
    Come on, be outraged, do not our floating fleets and officer dormitories be needed anymore? We have extensive experience in such matters ...
    1. zvereok
      zvereok 20 November 2013 10: 58
      +1
      Do you want to say that the generals creatively approached the requirement to provide barracks with showers?
    2. rubin6286
      rubin6286 20 November 2013 11: 31
      0
      I do not know how the "float" is there, but as for the barracks and officers' dormitories, the housing stock of the majority of military camps, this is ... everything.
  • xperia
    xperia 20 November 2013 10: 51
    +1
    Why are you people? The author clearly degrades our technique and belittles the capabilities of Mistral. With such an article, the T-50 can be crap (it also has flaws)!
    1. Vasia kruger
      Vasia kruger 20 November 2013 12: 12
      0
      And why t-50 about "No?" While there are one and a half of them and there is nothing to discuss. They do not make the weather for anyone.
      Ka-52 and Mi-28 are also excellent machines, but how many are in the troops?
  • Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 20 November 2013 10: 57
    +6
    Well, how long can you talk about the Mistrals? Well, after all, it is clear to everyone that these are ships that can operate only as part of the UG which we do not have and will not have. Such ships are effective only in conditions of absolute superiority over the enemy and does not have anti-ship complexes and aircraft. It is clear that these are ships "sharpened" for the landing of assault forces on their territory. Well, now think about why you need to land troops on your territory. That's it. In general, everyone always, from the very beginning, understood that these ships were not needed. Also, everyone understands perfectly well that the purchase of the Mistrals was a payment by France for its position in the war between Russia and Georgia, for the fact that France in many ways helped Russia to resolve this conflict.
  • Andrey Skokovsky
    Andrey Skokovsky 20 November 2013 11: 19
    +2
    if Russia wants to be the leading global arms manufacturer, it sometimes needs to buy interesting foreign samples, boiling only in its own juice will not lead to anything good, as an example, look at the automotive industry

    and yet, the fleet is always expensive, just figure out how much the Mistrals cost amid the cost of the Russian Navy, maybe then hot heads will get a little hotter
  • Strashila
    Strashila 20 November 2013 11: 28
    +2
    It’s not universal, it’s a police ship ... it’s not capable of driving heavily armed Aboriginal people somewhere in Africa. The area of ​​the silhouette, the absence of defensive weapons ... is an excellent target.
  • itr
    itr 20 November 2013 11: 53
    +1
    a normal ship is better than nothing
    article sucks
    sorry author! I'm tired of hearing about betrayals and conspiracies today in Russia or anything like that and hell knows when it will be
  • Alexxeg73
    Alexxeg73 20 November 2013 11: 57
    0
    They promised the French to buy these barges in exchange for loyalty to the conflict with Georgia. Well this is obvious. Well then they were the "main" negotiators for them ... And the tender was carried out with all possible violations.
  • Soviet_Union
    Soviet_Union 20 November 2013 12: 01
    0
    Even if these Mistrals would have been very necessary for the fleet, the question still remains - why pay the French, and provide them with jobs. But what about their shipbuilders?
    If technology is lost, then the approach should be tough: the party ordered - the industry as you want, but give the carabiner.
    If there is no money, force the thieves-oligarchs, under pain of dispossession and death, to sponsor the construction of the fleet. And not only the fleet, but just about everything. And here the approach should be this: the oligarch was allowed here to steal and make his fortune, be so kind as 80% of the earned (count the stolen) invest in the country's favor.
    1. Walker1975
      Walker1975 20 November 2013 16: 37
      +1
      Quote: Soviet_Union
      If there is no money, force the thieves-oligarchs, under pain of dispossession and death, to sponsor the construction of the fleet. And not only the fleet, but just about everything. And here the approach should be this: the oligarch was allowed here to steal and make his fortune, be so kind as 80% of the earned (count the stolen) invest in the country's favor.


      Not then did these billionaires breed and multiply in order to give away 80%. Here, as - those who have connections at the top - they will not squeeze those, and those who do not - will withdraw capital abroad, leaving here debts and boxes from enterprises.
  • saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 20 November 2013 12: 07
    +2
    It's probably still a shame when a large landing ship with a displacement of 5000 (Ivan Gren) tons has been built for ten years and cannot finally decide on the layout, when the Navy has not decided on the final design of the ship for so long. Hopefully the Calibers and Onyxes on the Mistrals are a joke. "Mistrals will fit into the Pacific Fleet to resolve issues with the Kuril Ridge.
    1. Walker1975
      Walker1975 20 November 2013 16: 38
      0
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      "Mistrals will fit into the Pacific Fleet to resolve issues with the Kuril Ridge.


      That is, to confront the potentially Japanese fleet? Then it is necessary to consider how many submarines the Japanese have, how many carriers of anti-ship missiles, and what the group around Mistral should be.
  • Vasia kruger
    Vasia kruger 20 November 2013 12: 10
    +1
    If the data from the article is correct ... this does not make Mistral a bad ship. And it doesn’t matter in general.
    I am not an expert, but I see such problems in this matter.

    1. Can’t you build your own? But this is a rhetorical question. You can talk as much as you like about the technologies obtained in this way from the French (what about Franks? Super warriors with colossal combat experience?). The trouble is that when we get the technology, we are already lagging behind. We need our own achievements, not copies of what we already have, but our own, that would copy us already. That is, they themselves were in the tail.

    2. It seemed to me that this ship is more intended for colonial wars, that is, to frighten the Papuans. Moreover, those who have wooden pies and junks instead of the modern fleet, and coastal defense is based on the use of bronze cannons from the time of the king of peas. Speaking simply, it is not with a serious adversary to fight on these ships.
    And with whom will we fight with such a Makar? We are following the example of amers, are we going to carry democracy somewhere? Where? To Guinea or what? Strategic deposits of bananas to conquer?

    3. I had a chance to read some article about the Mistral chassis. Allegedly due to the use of strictly defined types of fuel and lubricants, ships of the Mistral type cannot be used in waters colder than the Mediterranean Sea. But then I bought it for that and sell it.

    All said IMHO of course.
    It seems to me the purchase of Mistral is a dubious enterprise, for which it may be corruption-intensive)))

    But then again, we'll see what comes of all this.
  • negeroi
    negeroi 20 November 2013 12: 15
    +3
    Our shipbuilders are overwhelmed with work FOR THE YEARS FORWARD. We have all the shipyards littered with orders. The civilian and hoofed fleets are being restored, and all the shipyards have been painted for many years ahead. 4 days ago Putin signed a contract for the construction of a large shipbuilding complex in Seoul. We are buying and building. And the Mistrals will not hinder us. If we talk about money. So they are overwhelmed with money, they can no longer master their own. The remnants of industry do not allow, there are no opportunities, except to plunder.
  • Old shoe
    Old shoe 20 November 2013 12: 17
    +1
    Most of the author's arguments are either far-fetched or far-fetched. He presents everything in such a way that the "mistral" will go alone to destroy the enemy. And to this he also assumes that all his actions are doomed to failure in advance.Here, for example, a phrase:
    "Repeated flights will be costly and likely to become impossible.".
    Why? Who decided that it will be so? And there are a lot of such statements in the text. It’s just that the author decided to write a devastating article and it turns out that if it’s bad, it’s bad, but if it’s good, then it’s all the same bad.
  • Unisonic
    Unisonic 20 November 2013 12: 26
    +2
    The Mistral was built in 1.5 years, and Ivan Gren has been built since 2004, i.e. 10 years, and now he is ready for 80-85% interest, that is, three more years will be completed.
    Although you know, the acquisition of the Mistrals, or rather licenses for their production - can this really be a mistake? In Russia, it will be built in about 20 years, by the time all its technological innovations are launched irrevocably out of date.
  • TRex
    TRex 20 November 2013 12: 55
    +1
    The initiators of the purchase of these ships are ardent admirers of the film "Solitary Voyage" - the sequel was invented with UDC, helicopters, missiles ... You still need to occupy that island.
  • Strashila
    Strashila 20 November 2013 13: 22
    +1
    If it was worth acquiring licenses for building ships, then it was worth doing for those who build vessels of the Arctic class ... taking into account our interests in the Arctic, and the Mediterranean cruise ship ... with operation in the warm season, who needs it ... so pounding of show-offs ... no more.
  • Evgeniy667b
    Evgeniy667b 20 November 2013 13: 32
    +2
    Why pour from empty to empty. Bad Mistrals or good-time will tell. One thing is certain that at least one of them will come to our fleet. And then we build more language, about 10 years. Shame and shame.
    Even in Germany, to a handful, buy submarines of the 212-214 series, then atas will be at all. Are you not able to do it yourself?
  • saramb
    saramb 20 November 2013 13: 39
    -1
    Maybe it’s good, but not for us. Firstly, it will not be able to run on our fuel, secondly, all oils, lubricants for machinery and the power plant will need to be purchased abroad. In short, its maintenance will be very expensive. And since the money for it if there’s no maintenance, then they’ll fill it with our crap (diesel fuel), pour our autol into the mechanisms, drive a solid and they will, for about 5 years, repair, you can again cut the loot.
    1. ivshubarin
      ivshubarin 20 November 2013 13: 56
      +1
      Have Rogozin heard enough? We have almost all ship installations on civilian ships imported and work
  • Imperial
    Imperial 20 November 2013 14: 12
    +1
    I remember how Minaev quipped at the end of the 80s, almost a prophet laughing
    Tomorrow I will go into circulation
    my type annoys me
    Voyage Voyage from these rubles
    I don’t need luggage on the way
    paint makeup costumes
    voyage voyage from these roles
    ............................................................
    the mistral carries me far
    where I'm not sorry for the past
    Voyage Voyage there has never been where
    voyage where the rainbow and the blue sky
    voyage voyage where the sun rises behind the mountain
    voyage over sleeping land
  • Stinger
    Stinger 20 November 2013 14: 12
    +1
    In my opinion, this is a typical police ship, designed to restore "order" among vassals and presumptuous cocky neighbors. Therefore, the disputes of the naval commanders are so long. Just professionals Medvedev and Serdyukov bought a suitcase without a handle. To all the objections of knowledgeable people, as always, they answered: You write what you want, but we already know everything. The sycophants echoed. We'll have to wear it. Better one, not two.
  • Peaceful military
    Peaceful military 20 November 2013 14: 28
    +1
    Somehow again it comes out very much according to ours: "We wanted the best, but it turned out, as always." It is very interesting to know who made all this and for what? Medvedev and Serdyukov look like switchmen.
  • ka5280
    ka5280 20 November 2013 14: 42
    +2
    In order to have a strong fleet, the country needs:
    1- Fraud for the construction of this fleet.
    2- KB for the creation of ships and ships
    3- Teaching institutions for the training of fleet specialists.
  • vuvarovskiy
    vuvarovskiy 20 November 2013 14: 50
    0
    And then Serdyukov shit, where you do not spit, everywhere "shot" had time!
  • Clueless
    Clueless 20 November 2013 15: 05
    +3
    I’m reading this article, and something like that is the desire to take the author and dive somewhere.

    For the author and others who have instructed the pluses - our ships are good, that's what they've been building for ten years! And now it is the first time in the history of modern Russia that a warship of this size is made in the shortest possible time, and not fed "breakfasts from year to year."

    Another paid article, moreover, clearly paid not by those who want to have a strong Russia.
    1. Walker1975
      Walker1975 20 November 2013 16: 42
      0
      so can spit on your shipbuilding? If all ships are ordered abroad, then they will be built faster.
      1. ivshubarin
        ivshubarin 20 November 2013 16: 44
        +1
        Under the USSR, the BDK in Poland was built and did not spit
        1. Walker1975
          Walker1975 20 November 2013 17: 42
          0
          Poland is now a member of NATO
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 20 November 2013 20: 52
            -1
            Quote: Walker1975
            Poland is now a member of NATO

            And whose member France, which we are building the Mistral?
  • slon133
    slon133 20 November 2013 15: 13
    +1
    People? And what about the dust? The contract has been signed, the ships are being built. A year later, the first will be on the way .. "Grena" is waiting for 10 years and the end is not in sight. What about tasks? We will find the tasks. We will be "GRYNPYS"
    drive away from the drill!
    DO NOT HURRY EVERYONE!
  • Billy Bones
    Billy Bones 20 November 2013 15: 53
    -1
    I believe that the Mistral was worth building only to show our undershipers how fast a normal ship could be built. In general, I don’t understand why, why not order at least foreign hulls for our projects at foreign shipyards. After launching the hull, it would be possible to equip and equip at mooring walls, for example, overtaking in Peter, Murmansk, Novorossiysk, Vladivostok.
  • understudy
    understudy 20 November 2013 15: 55
    -1
    My personal respect to the author of the topic for continuing to draw public attention to one of the most shameful consequences of "Serdyukovism". Naturally, he was not the only one who put his paw to this action, how many agitated "militias" put downsides, approving the fleeting construction of an unnecessary, slow-moving and weakly protected target barge.
    The enemies of Russia are precisely those who are thoughtlessly spending public money on such projects that were originally doomed to rust against the wall.
  • Clueless
    Clueless 20 November 2013 16: 00
    +1
    Quote: Understudy
    My personal respect to the author of the topic for continuing to draw public attention to one of the most shameful consequences of "Serdyukovism". Naturally, he was not the only one who put his paw to this action, how many agitated "militias" put downsides, approving the fleeting construction of an unnecessary, slow-moving and weakly protected target barge.
    The enemies of Russia are precisely those who are thoughtlessly spending public money on such projects that were originally doomed to rust against the wall.


    That’s why, for some reason, its cost is less than our analogues that have been built for decades - this time
    Two - so you name an example of a secure, fast machine, i.e. ship data sizes. Or outplayed toys? ;) For those like you, it will probably be a revelation - but in our time there are still no blasters, spaceships that fly to the moon to drink beer, etc. Tear off the ass from the chair and look out the window :)
  • Clueless
    Clueless 20 November 2013 16: 00
    0
    Quote: Understudy
    My personal respect to the author of the topic for continuing to draw public attention to one of the most shameful consequences of "Serdyukovism". Naturally, he was not the only one who put his paw to this action, how many agitated "militias" put downsides, approving the fleeting construction of an unnecessary, slow-moving and weakly protected target barge.
    The enemies of Russia are precisely those who are thoughtlessly spending public money on such projects that were originally doomed to rust against the wall.


    That’s why, for some reason, its cost is less than our analogues that have been built for decades - this time
    Two - so you name an example of a secure, fast machine, i.e. ship data sizes. Or outplayed toys? ;) For those like you, it will probably be a revelation - but in our time there are still no blasters, spaceships that fly to the moon to drink beer, etc. Tear off the ass from the chair and look out the window :)