Military Review

Ship without homeland. Who builds the Russian "Mistral"?

84



About the origin of "Mistral" is known in great detail.

Universal landing helicopter-docks, adopted by the French Navy in the amount of three units. Large ships with a full displacement over 20 thousand tons with a solid flight deck, a hangar for the placement of aircraft and aft dock chamber for landing craft.

They are built according to the modular principle in accordance with the standards of civil shipbuilding, which has a positive effect on reducing the cost and accelerating the pace of their construction. The maximum duration of construction of the Mistral UDC, taking into account all the identified problems and inevitable delays, does not exceed 34 months. The cost of buying two ships under the "Russian contract" amounted to 1,2 billion euros, which corresponds to the cost of one amphibious transport ship-dock of the type "San Antonio" (USA). Impressive.


"Tigers" on the deck of "Mistral"

The use of norms and technologies of civil shipbuilding in the design of the UDC seems to be a justified decision - the concept of using UDC does not imply direct participation in hostilities. High durability, resistance to hydrodynamic strikes and combat damage, the presence of strike weapons - all of these items do not apply to Mistral. The tasks of the ship-ferry are the delivery of an expeditionary battalion of marines to anywhere in the world, over-horizon landing of personnel and equipment in low-intensity conflicts using helicopters and amphibious assault vehicles, participation in humanitarian missions, and performing the functions of a hospital ship and command center. The combat information center aboard the French "ferry" is equipped at the level of AIC cruisers with the Aegis system.

But how much "French" is this "steam"?

The UDCV Mistral project came into being thanks to the efforts of the General Armaments Delegation (Délégation Générale pour l'Armement) and the French state defense company DCNS (Direction des Constructions Navales) with the involvement of a number of foreign contractors: Finnish Wärtsilä (ship diesel generators), Swedish offices of Rolls-Royce (Azipod-type steering wheels), Polish Stocznia Remontowa de Gdańsk (blocks of the middle part of the hull, forming a helicopter hangar). The development of the combat information system and the detection of the ship was entrusted to the international industrial group Thales Group, the world leader in the development of radio electronic systems for aerospace, military and marine equipment. The self-defense SAM system was supplied by the MBDA European company. The multinational format of the project does not bother the French at all - a single European space with a single currency, living according to the same laws and rules. Common goals and objectives. Fleet, built under the same standards of NATO.

But, most surprisingly, the Mistral project is not limited to the European continent: the threads of this stories stretch far to the east, to South Korean Gyeongsangnam-do. Where the headquarters of STX Corporation is located.



The Mistrals for the French Navy were based on the following scheme: the UDC corps was ultimately formed from two large sections — fore and aft. The aft part and the superstructure were built on DCNS own capacities with the participation of many subcontractors: the wreck of the standing ship was regularly towed from one French shipyard to another, where it was gradually saturated with equipment: most of the assembly work was carried out in Brest, the engines and the spinning columns of Rolls Royce Mohmeid "mounted in Lorient. The final saturation of the finished hull section, installation of electronics and radio-technical systems was carried out by the specialists of the ship repair plant in Toulon. Total DCNS accounted for about 60% of work performed.

The nose of the helicopter carrier was built in Saint-Nazaire, at the famous shipyard "Chantier de l'Atlantic", which belonged at that time to the French industrial giant Alstom. This place became the cradle for the most impressive projects in the field of large-tonnage shipbuilding - the legendary liner Queen Mary 2 went from here. Here, in 70, a series of supertankers of the type Batillus with a deadweight of more than half a million tons was built! The nasal parts of each of the Mistral UDC were also assembled here.

In 2006, the shipyard "Chantier de l'Atlantic" was transferred to the Norwegian own industrial group Aker Yards. However, soon, in 2009, the shipyard, like the entire Aker Yards group, was absorbed by the South Korean corporation STX. The third ship of the Mistral type, the Dixmude (L9015), was already completed by the Koreans.

Mistral helicopter carriers built the whole world. France with the participation of Poland, Sweden, Finland ... - the entire European Union in the collection! In the French and South Korean shipyards. Despite such a complex industrial chain and a huge number of foreign contractors, the new UDC, in general, met the expectations of the French Navy command - a universal and relatively cheap means to deliver humanitarian aid and expeditionary units to countries in Africa and the Middle East. For example, the UDC "Diximuid" took part in the operation "Serval" (suppression of riots in Mali, 2013), delivering units of the 92 Infantry Regiment (92ème Régiment d'Infanterie) from France to the African continent.



Ship without homeland

Everything is very obvious with the French Mistrals - the ships were built by the joint efforts of the partner countries. The close economic, political and military ties between the countries of the Eurozone and even such a distant, but in fact close, Republic of Korea are beyond question. Common international standards and transnational companies are erasing the borders of states, uniting the scientific and industrial potential of many countries.

But where and how are Vladivostok and Sevastopol being built - two amphibious helicopter carriers destined for the Russian Navy?

According to the contract, which has become the largest military deal between Russia and the countries of the West since the end of World War II, in the 2014 and 2015, the ship of the Russian Navy should be replenished with two imported UDC of Russian-French construction.
From words quickly got down to business:

1 February The 2012 of the year in Saint-Nazaire began cutting metal for the first ship, called the Vladivostok. October 1 of the same year began work at the Baltic Shipyard in St. Petersburg - according to the contract, domestic shipbuilders should build 20% helicopter carrier aft sections.

It is not hard to guess that the South Korean STX has become the general contractor - it was she who, with the support of the French defense company DCNS and a number of third-party suppliers, is building helicopter carriers for the Russian Navy at the Chantier de l'Antlantic shipyard in Saint-Nazaire.

26 June 2013, the Baltiysky Zavod completed the planned amount of work on schedule, launching the stern of the new Mistral - a month later the aft section was safely delivered to St. Nazaire for subsequent docking with the main part of the ship.

15 October 2013 landing ship "Vladivostok" was officially launched. After completing all the work at the French shipyard, he will go to the extension wall of the Severnaya Verf plant (St. Petersburg) for the final saturation with domestic equipment.

It is expected that the new helicopter carrier will join the Russian Navy at the end of 2014 - the beginning of 2015. Less than three years since the bookmark! Unprecedented result for domestic shipbuilding, where one frigate can be built over 8 years.

The second ship of the "Russian series" - "Sevastopol" - was laid on 18 June 2013 of the year. It will be built according to a similar scheme, with the only difference that the Baltiysky Zavod will ensure the construction of an 40% UDC building. The ship must be operational until the end of 2015.

Also, the agreement between Russia and France includes options for the construction of the third and fourth helicopter carriers under license from their own industrial facilities - it is assumed that a new shipyard will be built on this island for these purposes. Kotlin. But, as it became known at the end of 2012 of the year, plans for the implementation of these options were transferred from 2013 to 2016 year, which gives the entire history a misty shade of uncertainty.

Ship without homeland. Who builds the Russian "Mistral"?


Among the suppliers and contractors in the global industrial chain are: the Russian United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC), the state defense company DCNS, the shipyard Chantier de l'Atlantic of the South Korean company STX, the Finnish Wärtsilä and the Swedish division of Rolls-Royce (power plants and propulsion systems). ). Extremely important is the participation of Thales Group - the equipment and systems supplied by this company are of most interest to the Russian military industrial complex (first of all, the combat information-control system Zenit-9). Also, the Russian helicopter carrier promises to equip Vampir-NG infrared search and sight systems of the French company Sagem. Despite the abundance of foreign equipment, the French promise to complete the Russification of all ship systems in order to avoid any problems during its operation as part of the Russian Navy.

The air group will be represented by domestic transport and combat helicopters Ka-29 and attack machines Ka-52. The first of the Russian “Mistral” will have to be equipped with French-made high-speed boats - the layout and dimensions of the dock-camera were originally calculated for the dimensions of NATO equipment. Therefore, the effective deployment inside the Mistral of the existing Russian-made landing craft is not possible. However, this is not the biggest problem, moreover, it was successfully solved.

Considering the number of subcontractors who took part in the creation of a helicopter carrier for the Russian Navy, you can sing the "Internationale" - in fact, the French landing ship turned out to be the "Noah's Ark", which absorbed technology and participants from around the world.
And you have to admit: the project was a success for all 100%.

Despite the angry accusations of “squandering” public funds, the Mistrals turned out to be VERY cheap. 600 million euros (800 million dollars) for each combat unit - even with all the additional procedures associated with fine-tuning ship systems, conducting its tests and eliminating the identified deficiencies - the cost of the "Mistral" will not exceed one billion dollars. This is incredibly much in terms of the average Russian. But mere pennies by the standards of modern shipbuilding.

800 million dollars - for the money now is not even build a normal destroyer. American "Berki" cost Pentagon 1,8-2 billion dollars apiece. The cost of a small Russian corvette project 20385, according to the Main Committee of the Navy, can reach 560 million dollars (18 billion rubles)!

In this case, we have a large helicopter carrier with a displacement of 20 thousand tons. In addition, built in the shortest possible time - the result is obvious, and it is difficult to notice any corruption component here. To build something like this for a lower price is not possible.

Seaman, take off your sandals, stepping onto the deck of the democratic European "Mistral"!

The fear that the Mistral will not be able to operate at temperatures below + 7 degrees Celsius is completely unfounded.

Russia, along with Scandinavia and Canada, are undoubtedly the northernmost countries in the world. But let me know how it relates to Mistral. No one speaks of its basing in the Far North - Russia, fortunately, is monstrously large and we have enough other home sites with more adequate climatic conditions. Novorossiysk. The weather forecast for December 1 is plus 12 ° C. Subtropics.
Vladivostok is colder. Latitude is Crimean, longitude is Kolyma. Nevertheless, there the operation of the UDC should not encounter any critical difficulties - the operational zone of the Pacific fleet includes the entire Asia-Pacific region and the Indian Ocean, where, as you know, the temperature rarely drops below + 7 ° Celsius.
"Mistral" is not suitable for action in the Arctic. But he simply has nothing to do there. But there is something to do in the Mediterranean and other southern seas.

Statements about the incompatibility of the infrastructure of the bases and the standards of the domestic diesel fuel to European standards are not worth it. The Mistral is not as large as it is represented - for example, it is smaller than the Peter the Great atomic cruiser. The length of the helicopter carrier only 35 meters exceeds the length of the average BOD or destroyer. The empty displacement of this “ferry” with the unloaded air wing, boats, equipment, supplies of weapons and fuel should not exceed 15 thousand tons.


Dixmude (L9015) compared with the Lafayette frigate (full f / xNNX t.)

The only problem may be related to the maintenance of Azipod type propeller speakers. In principle, this question should be addressed to the ship repair centers in the Baltic and the North, however, not so long ago plans were made to build a large shipbuilding enterprise in the Far East in cooperation with South Korea - by the time Mistrals arrived should be decided.
The Mistral is half the size of Soviet aircraft-carrying cruisers - let's hope that it does not repeat their fate and receive all the necessary coastal infrastructure in time.

As for the inconsistency of domestic brands and grades of fuel and lubricants to high-tech Mistral engines ... Who are you now surprised by the "strange" imported equipment - Finnish diesel generators of the company "Vartislya"?

The most terrible accusations against the French "ferries" are their low combat potential and absolute uselessness within the framework of the defensive concept of the use of the Russian Navy. "Cabin carrier" itself needs a quality cover from the sea and from the air and is not able to participate in the sea battle. Full move 18 nodes. Instead of serious self-defense systems - MANPADS and machine guns. Powerful radar tools? Sonar? Shock armament? Anti-submarine missile torpedoes? None of this is and can not be - because of such a low price for such a large ship. From the point of view of the navy, the Mistral is an empty box. The presence of 16 helicopters does not mean anything in modern combat - the Ka-52 is not a competitor to a fighter-bomber.



But it’s worth opening the binder News for 2013 - where and what does the domestic Navy do - everything immediately falls into place. "Mistral" is not suitable for combating the AUG of a "probable adversary," but it perfectly matches the tasks of ensuring the presence of the Russian Navy in the vast oceans. A large ship with a monumental appearance and modern design, capable of staying at the forefront for months - off the coast of Syria or where required. Comfortable facilities for the Marine Corps Battalion. Cargo deck for armored vehicles. Helicopters If necessary, it is possible to deliver “humanitarian aid” to the allies - and in a variety of ways. Neoversion of the Soviet BDK!

In general, the verdict is positive. The only really worthy question: could the Russian Navy do without the purchase of these ships? Experts at various levels agree that buying Mistral is not the most rational decision. We still have enough BDK from the "Soviet backlog". New ones are being built - the 11711 "Ivan Gren" project. But there is a critical shortage of warships of I and II ranks - cruisers, destroyers, frigates. So much so that you have to collect the Mediterranean squadron from all four fleets.

Finally, if our specialists were so impatient to get acquainted with “advanced” western technologies, it was possible to purchase equipment more interesting than the French “steam”. Even with the ZENIT-9 BIUS and Vampir-NG IR sensors.

For example, it would be curious to look around the French-Italian frigate (destroyer) of the Horizon type, the most powerful and perfect air defense ship in the world after the British Dering. If the Horizon turns out to be too secret, a non-nuclear Skopren submarine with a Stirling engine could be used as a “demonstrator” of new technologies. That, which we have no analogues yet. The French (DCNS) and the Spaniards (Navantia) are happy to build such equipment for export: for the fleets of India, Malaysia, Brazil, Chile ...

Alas, the interests of the sailors remained in the shadow of geopolitical intrigues. We chose the Mistral. So take it quickly, without further ado! While the allocated funds have not gone offshore.

Moreover, the boat is really good.





Author:
84 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. ivshubarin
    ivshubarin 25 November 2013 07: 58
    26
    Our Marines have long been supplied on a residual basis, and they deserve both the Mistral and new weapons
    1. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 25 November 2013 13: 40
      +6
      Quote: ivshubarin
      Our Marines have long been supplied on a residual basis, and they deserve both the Mistral and new weapons


      This, in my opinion, is precisely the very ship that lacks the Mediterranean squadron. It also clearly reflects our imperial ambitions. Just look at similar American ships and immediately everything will become clear ...
  2. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 25 November 2013 08: 10
    +2
    Again, the interests of the fleet faded into the background, and politics came to the fore. Politics by politics, but the fleet must be revived, it would be better to build something substantial with this money! The article resembles a laudatory eulogy, not an analytical study, the order is an order. (Serdyukov probably planned stools on Mistral to deliver around the world).
    1. saruman
      saruman 25 November 2013 12: 50
      +6
      Quote: kartalovkolya
      Politics by politics, but the fleet needs to be revived, it would be better if something substantial were built with this money


      For example? USC does not cope with the signed contracts, corvettes and frigates are built for 5-7 years, like cruisers and aircraft carriers. Which warship to order from potential opponents? Or rather, which one will they sell to us? Yes, no! Remember the screams in the Western press about this deal, their "triots" screamed worse than ours. So to buy the frigate "Horizon" or the boat "Scorpen" is still from the realm of fantasy.
    2. Asgard
      Asgard 25 November 2013 19: 24
      -2
      Essentially a dry cargo ship, instead of holds of the holds, a helicopter deck ....
      The money was clearly overpaid ... The author incorrectly compares the BATTLE SHIPS with the Ship without weapons and very mediocre characteristics with an unknown PURPOSE ....
      This "combat ship" does not have any (serious)) means of protection and a situational plan of rescue ..... It is naive to believe that the enemy will sit and wait for him to come, Noticeable, high with an imperial flag (demonstrating)) defenseless steam with expensive helicopters and well-trained crews (two per helicopter))) with the military elite (paratroopers)))

      Any "liberal", if the Russians float to "democratize" him, will drown him on the way ...
      Will it be our "Club-K" system installed on a passing container ship ...
      - whether a torpedo from a fishing vessel
      -Well, if the "enemy" has submarines, trained saboteurs, missiles ...
      THEN "menstruals" should stand in their home ports, since first they had to build a military guard (order)) for protection, develop a concept of application ...
      Such decisions would save the life of Russian sailors ....
      Acting how happyis the death of the landing and the failure of all operations))))
      P \ S The same "Ivan Gren" is much more combat-ready and tenacious, with proper control it could have shown the flag in the Persian Gulf for a long time ..... And there are air defense and missiles (except for the landing))
      1. shurup
        shurup 25 November 2013 23: 57
        0
        To sign the acts, you need something the size of a Missouri, always with landing pads for the first persons' helicopters and appropriate amenities.
        The residence should look peaceful, therefore, paratroopers, except in the honor guard, should not be on board. Spare side is assumed unambiguously.
        Protection from the funds you have given is assigned to the relevant security and security services.
        Any questions?
      2. Alexxeg73
        Alexxeg73 26 November 2013 06: 43
        +2
        More likely not a bulk carrier but a container ship. Compare the photo - there is a similarity: http://www.blackseanews.net/read/52579/
  3. Alikovo
    Alikovo 25 November 2013 08: 15
    +8
    there is a likelihood of Russia returning to camrano there may come in handy.
  4. vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 25 November 2013 08: 19
    +4
    Hovering a ship of enormous value is intended for the presence and display of the flag. But what if instead of building a battleship or a cruiser they would be weak representatives of Russia and inexpressive flag demonstrators?
    1. ivshubarin
      ivshubarin 25 November 2013 08: 25
      +2
      And who is building battleships now. From cruisers, too, depart
      1. vladsolo56
        vladsolo56 25 November 2013 08: 33
        +3
        Of course, in your opinion, the crown of a naval article is Mistral?
        1. ivshubarin
          ivshubarin 25 November 2013 08: 35
          +2
          Why, destroyers need to be built
          1. vladsolo56
            vladsolo56 25 November 2013 08: 56
            0
            I mean missile cruisers, destroyers are elementary better than an aircraft carrier. Although I still most of all like ekranoplanes.
            1. ivshubarin
              ivshubarin 25 November 2013 09: 42
              +1
              Good idea
            2. Goodvin55
              Goodvin55 25 November 2013 11: 07
              +4
              Just not a missile cruiser, not a destroyer, we cannot build now. Well, the statement that destroyers are better than aircraft carriers from the category of "fighters are better than transporters" ...
          2. gispanec
            gispanec 25 November 2013 18: 02
            -1
            Quote: ivshubarin
            Why, destroyers need to be built

            they are still not drawn on paper .. this is the time and where to build them two and when to start .. these are immediately three, four, five, etc.
        2. gispanec
          gispanec 25 November 2013 18: 01
          +1
          Quote: vladsolo56
          Of course, in your opinion, the crown of a naval article is Mistral

          do you think this is a corvette?
    2. duke
      duke 25 November 2013 13: 51
      +3
      another greetings from Taburetkin ... the main thing is to say ... uh, in the sense - to buy, and then think where and how to attach it ... there is no base, no escort ships, no application strategy ... oh, and this country will hiccup for a long time " archistrateg "- furniture maker ...
      1. gispanec
        gispanec 25 November 2013 18: 03
        -3
        Quote: duke
        another greetings from Taburetkin ... the main thing is to drink ... eeee in the sense - to buy, and then think where and how to attach it ... there is no base, no guard ships, no strategy for use ..

        why all this unconfirmed nonsense? ... where do you get the info?
    3. gispanec
      gispanec 25 November 2013 17: 59
      +2
      Quote: vladsolo56
      What if a battleship or a cruiser would be built instead?

      Well, firstly, Mistral will be more expensive (cruiser) ... if the corvette is almost like a Mistral for babos
      secondly, they will be building for 8 years and then they will say how the Indians and Gorshkov ... "inflation .. the same amount is needed again"
      thirdly, Mistral 40-50% to be built in Russia! ... and this is experience-employment-infrastructure development (promised under the Mistral)
      fourthly, where do we build them ???? ... the places are all occupied !!! name idle shipyard ???? and where and when will they shove us this size of the ship ??
      fifthly for Tartus and Kamrani just right .... or it means that the invasion was stopped in Syria, and the Mistral would be taken and drowned right away so that the Russians would not interfere ... and accompanied by frigates from amber + bpk + dizyukha under water ... and everything is ok ... right now, for the Warsaw women, the main caliber is "caliber")) the most super-duper and they are built in the order of 6 pieces .. they will just approach Vladivastok.
  5. air wolf
    air wolf 25 November 2013 08: 19
    +3
    Why is it really needed, who will finally explain it?
    1. builder
      builder 25 November 2013 13: 35
      +1
      A good overview of the Mistral-type UDC
      http://rufor.org/showthread.php?t=5383
    2. gispanec
      gispanec 25 November 2013 18: 04
      -2
      Quote: air wolf
      Why is it really needed, who will finally explain it?

      read all articles about the Navy everything is written there, and listening to you (deleted by the moderator ....) Satan to us ??? ... where do you want to use it ..... stand, stand and write off from old age ....
  6. makarov
    makarov 25 November 2013 08: 30
    +3
    According to the list of participants, the ship is international. Just do not understand, from the 1st or 2nd ... international
    1. aszzz888
      aszzz888 25 November 2013 09: 50
      +3
      Third ...
  7. Evgeniy46
    Evgeniy46 25 November 2013 09: 37
    +6
    in any case, the Mistrals will help preserve the deck helicopter pilots and the experience of operating a group of helicopters. TAVKr is not eternal ... And a new aircraft carrier is not expected yet
  8. aszzz888
    aszzz888 25 November 2013 09: 53
    -9
    Now we need to pick up. Perhaps fit in the household. And there you look and under the container ship will adapt, or something else to move across the seas.
  9. Archikah
    Archikah 25 November 2013 09: 58
    +5
    Well gentlemen, globalization is a pancake. Why is it needed? So remember the fate of the frigate Gorshkov. It has been in St. Petersburg for so many years and cannot be built before it. And the Ivan Gren project does not shine with anything outstanding, and besides, it also hung up and took a very long time to build. It is clear that Serdyukov signed this contract so that Vasilyeva would often travel to Paris "on business." But we need to look for how we can use this Serdyukov gift. Do not throw it away. It is a trough and a trough, but our fleet is catastrophically small, and our shipyards are critically delaying the commissioning of new ships. Let it be. yes
    1. saruman
      saruman 25 November 2013 13: 17
      +3
      Quote: Archikah
      It is clear that Serdyukov signed this contract so that Vasilyeva would often travel to Paris "on business."


      I would like to kick these bastards too. But Serdyukov was not the initiator of this deal. The fundamental issue was resolved at the presidential level, the ship was chosen by the Navy. The deal with the Mistrals was practically in conjunction with the purchase of Russian missile carriers for the French Kuru. A peculiar exchange of deals, and by the way, more profitable for Russia.
  10. Zerstorer
    Zerstorer 25 November 2013 10: 48
    +1
    Quote: The tasks of the ferry ship are the delivery of an expeditionary battalion of the marine corps to anywhere in the world, the horizontal landing of personnel and equipment in low-intensity conflicts using helicopters and amphibious assault forces, participation in humanitarian missions, and the functions of a hospital ship and command post.

    Well, who and where predicts low-intensity conflicts that require the delivery of an expeditionary battalion?
    The Black Sea Fleet. This miracle will not be able to participate in the existing frozen conflict in the Caucasus (there are already enough forces and means of the Navy).
    Baltic Landing in Europe? This is of course a low-intensity conflict, only with the use of WMD.
    Northern Fleet. Landing on drifting ice floes. Apparently this is a new concept for showing the flag in the northern latitudes.
    Pacific Ocean. Landing in Japan? What for?! Everything is fine there in the reach of long-range aviation. Defend the Kuril Islands? You cannot defend much with this vessel). Again, easier aviation.

    So we got a headache where to put it all now.
    1. common man
      common man 25 November 2013 11: 26
      +5
      Let me ask why our ships visit Venezuela. Why do we need a fleet in the Mediterranean Sea, why are we going to return to Camran, about parking in Egypt, Cyprus, and going to Camran? It is all so far from Russia. In the end, you are going to supply the Kuril Islands in the absence of ports.
    2. Marconi41
      Marconi41 26 November 2013 01: 40
      -2
      Please: Japan and the Kuril Islands. Kuril Islands insecure objects and delivery of l / s marine infantry there in a threatening period of time - this is Mistral's task
  11. Goodvin55
    Goodvin55 25 November 2013 11: 02
    +6
    Our fleet will receive even an imperfect but modern ship, it is needed at least to keep pilots in shape, and go on long hikes without fear that the ship will stand up due to wear and tear. The fact is that at the moment Russia is not able to build such a complex ship for a reasonable price and in a reasonable time, in this aspect, a contract with France is a guarantee that the fleet will receive the ship, and our engineers, workers and sailors are invaluable experience.
    1. Walking
      Walking 25 November 2013 11: 56
      +3
      Unfortunately, Russia cannot yet build such a large ship in such a time.
  12. Russ69
    Russ69 25 November 2013 11: 23
    +1
    No matter how much I read about Mistral, to be honest, the articles, which are for and which are against, are more emotional in content or superficial (not in reproach to the author).
    Now it remains to wait for their introduction into the Navy and the start of operation. Then it will probably become clear how much we need them ...
  13. avt
    avt 25 November 2013 11: 25
    +4
    “Moreover, the boat is really not bad. "================ Oleg praised the UDC and even substantiated the usefulness of its use in our Navy !!!!! ??? Holy, holy, holy! Something happened! Or maybe he ate something? laughing Something and not far to the rehabilitation of aircraft carriers! It is necessary to put a plus.
    1. Santa Fe
      25 November 2013 11: 36
      +2
      Quote: avt
      Oleg praised UDC and even substantiated the usefulness of its use in our Navy !!!!!?

      Have I ever argued the opposite about Mistral?
      1. avt
        avt 25 November 2013 12: 25
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Have I ever argued the opposite about Mistral?

        Well then, I'm totally confused. It seems that they did not speak very flatteringly about the UDC as a whole, even the article seemed to be about the superiority of Soviet recreation centers both in displacement and in the method of landing. And now it turns out that Mistral is "quite even like Mwan Gren"? Even the passage was, "Mistral" is not as big as it is presented "------- oh how! Or maybe" Mistral "and not UDC at all? No, well, they would write that they just like the ship, visually and in general, then it's understandable. And so, your will, it is strange how the justification of usefulness looks against the background of previous statements on this class. How would it be more logical to have an article in your style addressing the failed amphibious assault submarine "Crab".
        1. Santa Fe
          25 November 2013 12: 52
          +2
          Quote: avt
          It seems not very flattering to speak about UDC as a whole

          UDC are different
          There is a colonial fighter "Mistral" - built like a civilian ferry. Worth $ 800 million.

          There is a wunderwaffle Wasp. at a cost of $ 3 billion. It is excessively powerful and expensive for Senegal, but negligible for serious operations (such as Desert Storm).
          Quote: avt
          even the article seemed to be about the advantage of Soviet recreation centers in terms of displacement and method of landing

          This is certain. The modernized "Rhino" is at least not weaker than the Mistral, while the work would be carried out at Russian shipyards - the money would be invested in domestic production and remain inside the country. Which is good according to all the laws of economics.

          But that is, that is - Rhinos are written off, Mistrals are being built
          1. avt
            avt 25 November 2013 13: 07
            +3
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            UDC are different
            There is a colonial fighter "Mistral" - built like a civilian ferry. Worth $ 800 million.

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            There is a wunderwaffle Wasp. at a cost of $ 3 billion. It is excessively powerful and expensive for Senegal, but negligible for serious operations (such as Desert Storm).

            Well now your logic is clear. Designed for a specific strategy and built according to a project designed specifically for this strategy of amphibious operations UDC, and the ship of the first line of the over-the-horizon landing of amers is much worse than a civil ferry, in your words. This is strong! Give civilian transport to the army and navy instead of a specialized army ! laughing Here, perhaps, there is no need to object. By the way about the "Rhinos" that's why after them in the USSR they began to develop "Ivana Tarava", however, it is they for their feeble mind.
            1. Santa Fe
              25 November 2013 13: 14
              +2
              Quote: avt
              Designed for a specific strategy and built according to a project designed specifically for this strategy of UDK landing operations, the ship is the first line of the over-the-horizon landing of amers

              This is a boltology.
              UDK airborne operations strategy, with the ship of the first line of the over-horizon landing of amers - this in reality does not and cannot be. Model a landing from the five Uosps on the Iranian coast and get Dieppe and Grozny-95 beach
              Wosp is an extra, useless element of the fleet. The fifth wheel of the cart is too expensive to pacify the Papusas, but too weak for wars with a serious opponent

              The Yankees themselves are well aware of how serious naval landings are conducted. And what equipment is needed for this. But they prefer not to talk about it
              1. avt
                avt 25 November 2013 13: 35
                +2
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                UDK airborne operations strategy, and the ship of the first line of the over-horizon landing of amers - this in reality does not exist and cannot be.

                request laughing "Whatever you grab, nothing". I wonder when the Americans still "Tarawa" to replace the "Iwo Jims" and withdrawing tank-landing ships with the landing of the Second World War, they guessed about your discovery? Well, they actually did not develop such a strategy , did not you order ships for it? Different helicopters, amphibious VTOL aircraft didn’t make ,,, Osprey "again. These are just the ships of the second echelon, designed to disembark everything necessary, after the first line with the expeditionary units of the marines has worked out.
                1. Santa Fe
                  25 November 2013 14: 06
                  -2
                  Quote: avt
                  after working out the first line with the expeditionary units of the marines.

                  Is there any real life example? Wherever the Yankees would land as you described it
                  1. avt
                    avt 25 November 2013 14: 15
                    +1
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    UDK landing operations strategy, and the ship of the first line of the over-horizon landing of amers - this in reality does not exist and cannot be

                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Is there any real life example? Wherever the Yankees would land as you described it

                    Nice person. You somehow decide on the question. You don’t have a strategy at all, or you demand to present a large-scale operation for which the Americans built and continue to build ships. Well, so far there was no need for them to land an expeditionary division, but this does not negate their strategy and the further construction of funds precisely for it, that's all.
        2. The comment was deleted.
  14. Clueless
    Clueless 25 November 2013 11: 35
    +1
    We should build so quickly as the French, but unfortunately this is still a dream. But we clearly take over the experience, it was not in vain that PETER 1 was engaged in this (which most trolls forget, by the way), because taking something new and modern and remaking it is good, especially if it concerns the country's defense capability.

    A large ship with a monumental appearance and modern design, able to stay “at the forefront” for months - off the coast of Syria or where required. Comfortable facilities for the Marine Corps Battalion. Cargo deck for armored vehicles. Helicopters If necessary, it is possible to deliver "humanitarian aid" to the allies - and in a variety of ways. Neoversion of the Soviet BDK!


    Actually on this and to Mistral they write a bunch of custom articles from the series that we don’t need a ship, etc. True part of the people writes for free, just from a lack of mind.
  15. Clueless
    Clueless 25 November 2013 11: 35
    -1
    We should build so quickly as the French, but unfortunately this is still a dream. But we clearly take over the experience, it was not in vain that PETER 1 was engaged in this (which most trolls forget, by the way), because taking something new and modern and remaking it is good, especially if it concerns the country's defense capability.

    A large ship with a monumental appearance and modern design, able to stay “at the forefront” for months - off the coast of Syria or where required. Comfortable facilities for the Marine Corps Battalion. Cargo deck for armored vehicles. Helicopters If necessary, it is possible to deliver "humanitarian aid" to the allies - and in a variety of ways. Neoversion of the Soviet BDK!


    Actually on this and to Mistral they write a bunch of custom articles from the series that we don’t need a ship, etc. True part of the people writes for free, just from a lack of mind.
  16. not a sailor
    not a sailor 25 November 2013 11: 39
    0
    again the question arises about his plo and pro, that he alone walks in the seas
    1. Santa Fe
      25 November 2013 12: 11
      -4
      Quote: not a sailor
      again the question arises about his plo and pro, that he alone walks in the seas

      And who will attack?

      The ship was not made for war. Mistral's task is to play into the hands of the Kremlin loungers and amuse the vanity of the patriots by patrolling the eastern Mediterranean. Cardboard power of the cardboard fleet.

      Although in itself, the ship is not bad - big, beautiful, cheap. Roomy and with great autonomy. French morals - the most for colonial trips to Senegal
    2. avt
      avt 25 November 2013 20: 47
      +2
      Quote: not a sailor
      again the question arises about his plo and pro, that he alone walks in the seas

      Here are the Americans in the framework of the strategy, which, according to Oleg, there are no marines anywhere in the UDC without an aircraft carrier umbrella and a set of accompanying escorts, called a mariman warrant, and in the last troubles in the Mediterranean Sea, the expeditionary battalion did not hang around on the UDC, all occurred within the framework of the general use of diverse forces.
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      And who will attack?

      The ship was not made for war.

      Well, here they can use it by this method, there are no new ocean ships, and the aircraft carrier too. So there is only coastal swimming under cover of the shore, well, if in the ocean, then you can draw a full-length portrait of GDP, since the board is tall, draw. Maybe they’ll get scared. On the second - LADY, you see they’ll think it over. Well, if they are going to do the third - Serdyukov and Vasilyeva in an intimate pose, they will laugh, then they will be imperceptible and weighed out from under the water.
  17. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 25 November 2013 11: 51
    +2
    I am sure that the greatest problem of these ships will be our miracle admirals. I think they not only do not know what and how to do with them, but also do not plan to study. For the same reason, in which case ships will be instantly lost. Type will be sent alone to deal with submarines, but what, helicopters, that is, let them fight. Then they write in memoirs about Serdyukov, politics, uselessness and weak weapons, and it is clear about personal modesty, genius and courage, and how the soul hurt.
  18. Sharingan
    Sharingan 25 November 2013 13: 00
    +4
    As part of a grouping off the coast of Syria, it would have looked quite good.
  19. Drosselmeyer
    Drosselmeyer 25 November 2013 13: 40
    +1
    Yes, look at the state of the French shipyard and the state of Russian (I'm not talking about Ukrainian shipyards). Just visually: cleanliness, order, workshop buildings like new ones, nor any scrap dumps and eternal rusting troughs near the docks.
  20. rudolff
    rudolff 25 November 2013 13: 49
    10
    Oleg, you wrote a good article, brought up arguments worthy of attention and discussion, ventured to go against the prevailing opinion about the advisability of building such ships, and then with your own comments about cardboard power, kremlezhulikami, colonial campaigns you cross out all your generally reasonable arguments. You can't do it like that "by thinking along the tree ..."! Firstly, these two UDVKs are the only new ships in the oceanic zone that will join the fleet in the current decade. Nothing else is foreseen in the foreseeable future. Secondly, this class of warships is one of the few that can be used for its intended purpose in peacetime, in contrast to frigates and destroyers. And if we had Mistral now, they would not have climbed out of the campaigns. Colonial policy has nothing to do with it, there is the protection of their own interests in unstable regions. Remember the recent hasty evacuation of the Russian embassy from Libya, when local authorities admitted that they were unable to ensure the safety of its employees. It's good that there were no casualties. Remember the participation of our specialists in the program for the destruction of chemical weapons in Syria. But if something happened, we simply would have nothing to protect them or carry out an urgent evacuation. Mistrals off the coast of Syria, Libya, Egypt, Tunisia are a very real force and a real hope of our diplomats, tourists, specialists, and not just a demonstration of the flag. If we say that we do not need "these barges", then we need to somehow explain why the UDC / UDVK, as a class of warships, are in demand by almost all the fleets of the world, and what then is our uniqueness.
    1. shurup
      shurup 26 November 2013 00: 07
      -1
      The discussion of this article should be transferred to the website "Emergencies Review". I will be happy to talk to you about the urgent need for "mistrals".
  21. Glagol
    Glagol 25 November 2013 14: 14
    +2
    A billion will not fit. Retrofitting with domestic equipment and the corruption component will not allow. Ours is also expensive now. I agree with the author that one on Black, one in Vladik is enough. In the North and the Baltic, they are simply not needed, and technical problems will increase. What exactly comes around, God forbid, the war - NATO will cut parts, materials and repairs, both will stand up. So all these toys are up to the hour of X ... And of course, there is not a word about the cost of ownership, and this is even more important than the price of just building.
  22. rudolff
    rudolff 25 November 2013 15: 01
    +9
    As soon as it comes to Mistrals, you immediately hear "barge", "galoshes" and these are probably the most innocuous comparisons, there is much more abruptly.
    In mathematics, everyone knows the method of proving by contradiction. I went over the main arguments of the opponents of these "vessels" and tried to imagine the UDVK project in which these arguments would be taken into account. In order!
    The ship is defenseless against a threat from the air. So, it is necessary to organize layered air defense of the near and far borders. In addition to ZAK, we also place full-fledged air defense systems, possibly even on the basis of the soaked version of the S-400. A set of radars, CPS, combat posts is attached.
    The ship should have a full-fledged ability to withstand the surface forces of the enemy. So carefully install the modules under the range of missiles Caliber, Onyx. With all the associated equipment naturally, including radar, AWACS helicopters, etc.
    Of course, do not forget about anti-submarine defense. We put a powerful HAK / ASG, rocket-propelled launchers against torpedoes, and of course we take on board anti-submarine torpedoes / missile torpedoes. Plus one or two PLO helicopters.
    I have not forgotten anything? I forgot! The ship must support the landing. So you need a large-caliber gun mount, preferably two. We borrow from our BDK and MLRS. On the basis of the land Grad, but you can not trifle, Tornado on a gyro-stabilized platform will be very useful!
    Move on. Over-the-horizon landing, a phenomenon especially theirs and alien to us. Okay, let it stay, but landing directly ashore should be provided. We change the project in the bow, remove the "bulb", install the ramp, make the bottom flat, reduce the draft and increase the width / length.
    A ship must serve in the Northern Fleet. We strengthen ice protection, think about icebreaking capabilities.
    The ship has too high a board! A good target, and it can roll over (center of gravity / metacentric height). Reduce the height of the side, again increasing the width / length of the hull.
    Did everything seem to be mentioned? Or something else to add?
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Dart2027
      Dart2027 25 December 2013 21: 58
      0
      H / F - Pentagon Wars.
      Creation of BMP "Bradley" - for the US Army.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOtioVb2RLA
  23. indiggo
    indiggo 25 November 2013 16: 22
    0
    after reading Comments I had a question how do you know what weapons will stand on the Mistral?
    see the exact information is not present ... just already tired of nagging. as practice shows, we are at this stage of time
    unable to build ships in 3 years. the situation with Syria is a vivid example when you had to drive ships from all 4 fleets, do you understand that there is nothing to sail? or is it so simple for you to write in the general trend that everything is bad, etc.? the purchase of Mistrals will provide an opportunity to learn how to operate ships of this class,
    Yes, the infrastructure will finally appear.
  24. moremansf
    moremansf 25 November 2013 16: 34
    +3
    After a year of operation of "Mistrals" in the Russian Navy, it will be possible to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of its use in comparison with Russian counterparts (BDK). In addition, it is possible that the domestic large landing craft "Ivan Gren" will be built ...
    "Ivan Gren" is the lead ship of Project 11711 developed by the "Nevsky Design Bureau". Project 11711 is the latest development of Project 1171, according to which in 60-70 years PSZ Yantar built 14 ships of the Tapir type. The construction of this ship was started back in December 2004, but proceeded at a slow pace due to unstable funding and a lack of personnel at the enterprise. The active phase of construction began in 2008, in connection with which the original schedule of the order was adjusted. One of the differences between the ship of the new project, in comparison with similar ones, is that it is capable of operating in the ocean zone. As Vladimir Maslin, chief designer of the project of OJSC “Nevskoe PKB”, noted, the large landing craft “Ivan Gren” has an advantage over the French helicopter carrier “Mistral”, in particular, it can approach an unfinished shore. "

    Source: http://ukrlife.net/rossiya-pokazala-novyiy-voennyiy-korabl-foto/

    Source: http://ukrlife.net/rossiya-pokazala-novyiy-voennyiy-korabl-foto/
  25. saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 25 November 2013 16: 34
    +1
    I agree with the article on almost all counts, it was even possible to do without kremlezhuliki. The Soviet Union, which was opposed to the Western world, is a thing of the past, and now we are not opponents on that side, but competitors. I suppose, after development by our sailors, they will order two more. Russian interests are slowly expanding, a good example of South America, to help Venezuela in the fight against terrorists who encroached on Russian wells.
    It seems like the end of the "long road in the dunes" with "Ivan Gren". Probably, with a positive set of circumstances, they will write off the BDK built in the 70s.
  26. xomaNN
    xomaNN 25 November 2013 16: 35
    +1
    Perhaps one of the main advantages is that for these 1.2 billion + the inevitable rise in price of the Navy will have two large combat units. And if the money were just given to USC, there would be nothing but talk and missing money lol
    1. Santa Fe
      25 November 2013 16: 39
      +2
      Quote: xomaNN
      if the money were just given to USC, there would be nothing but talk and missing money

      good
  27. rudolff
    rudolff 25 November 2013 16: 51
    +7
    So that's the whole point! The dispute would have taken place if we had chosen between the Mistrals and, say, two or three destroyers in the same time, and even domestic ones. But you have to choose between the Mistrals and nothing! Or erotic fantasies on the topic of all-round aircraft carriers!
    1. shurup
      shurup 26 November 2013 00: 13
      +1
      On bezrybe and mistral - a ship.
      An omnivorous aircraft carrier ferry - which French frog does not kiss - will appear to be a princess.
  28. Clueless
    Clueless 25 November 2013 18: 41
    +1
    Quote: rudolff
    So that's the whole point! The dispute would have taken place if we had chosen between the Mistrals and, say, two or three destroyers in the same time, and even domestic ones. But you have to choose between the Mistrals and nothing! Or erotic fantasies on the topic of all-round aircraft carriers!


    That's the thing :(

    The people, and who knows, in the USSR, how long did it take to build ships like Mistral? It’s just interesting what potential we have lost, that now smaller ships have been building for almost ten years
    1. Aleksys2
      Aleksys2 25 November 2013 21: 02
      +6
      Quote: Bad
      The people, and who knows, in the USSR, how long did it take to build ships like Mistral?

      TAKR "Kiev"
      Construction started on July 21 1970
      Launched on December 26 1972 of the year
      Put into operation 28 December 1975 year

      "Minsk"
      Construction started on December 28 1972
      Launched 30 September 1975 year
      Commissioned 27 September 1978 year

      "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov"
      Ordered to the construction of 3 March 1981 year
      Construction started on 1 of September 1982 of the year
      Launched on December 4 1985 of the year
      Commissioned 20 January 1991 year
  29. Yankuz
    Yankuz 25 November 2013 20: 31
    0
    Cool ship! Cool review! For our guys - the marines - nothing should be sorry! They deserve it!
  30. kirpich
    kirpich 25 November 2013 20: 50
    +2
    Quote: man in the street
    Let me ask why our ships visit Venezuela. Why do we need a fleet in the Mediterranean Sea, why are we going to return to Camran, about parking in Egypt, Cyprus, and going to Camran? It is all so far from Russia. In the end, you are going to supply the Kuril Islands in the absence of ports.


    But, before, they supplied it. Now what is the problem? Or the Stalinist reserve is already crucified .... is it? And, in the Mediterranean Sea, in Egypt, Kamrani, our presence is necessary, because these are the key points of control. I would also start negotiations with Panama.
  31. kirpich
    kirpich 25 November 2013 20: 59
    +3
    Quote: Hiking
    Unfortunately, Russia cannot yet build such a large ship in such a time.


    But what prevents us from buying what is being imposed on us, but ordering ships according to OUR projects, at the same shipyards? After all, they did it before.
    1. M. Peter
      M. Peter 26 November 2013 16: 19
      0
      And it is unlikely, although I agree. They will also master our project in the first one for more than two years, as they rivet their own. It turns out that way, but the first product is always long, you can’t get away from this until the staff has mastered, as they say, will beat your hand.
  32. smith7
    smith7 25 November 2013 23: 20
    0
    The last 25 years with military doctrine in Russia "distortion of presumptive" wink Neither ourselves nor the rest of the world can really tell from what threat we want to defend ourselves and what we want in terms of weapons. We cannot develop a systematic approach to rearmament of the army. "Mistral" is a child of modern Russian military doctrine - "for a feast and for peace and for good people." Although ... at all times it has been. We all look back to the "West". "Tell the Emperor! The British do not clean guns with bricks!" (c) Lefty. And rightly so, by the way smile Yes lano ... the Mistral will come in handy. It’s a shame that it’s expensive and paid for the rise of someone else’s economy. Well, of course, they provided their shipbuilders with work. It would be better, of course, everything to yourself ...
  33. Ross
    Ross 25 November 2013 23: 27
    +1
    Quote: kartalovkolya
    Again, the interests of the fleet faded into the background, and politics came to the fore. Politics by politics, but the fleet must be revived, it would be better to build something substantial with this money! The article resembles a laudatory eulogy, not an analytical study, the order is an order. (Serdyukov probably planned stools on Mistral to deliver around the world).

    It's just that Medvedev "fell under the spell" of Sarkozy. Aifonchik fulfilled someone else's order.
  34. understudy
    understudy 25 November 2013 23: 53
    +3
    "...and we have enough other places of basing with more adequate climatic conditions. Novorossiysk." (with)
    Nda ... hike, the author has no idea about such a vile natural phenomenon as "bora". And it is in Novorossiysk.

    "Large ship with a monumental appearance and modern design, capable of staying for months..." (with)
    I did not suspect that for combat ships there are also such characteristics ... lol
  35. kirpich
    kirpich 26 November 2013 01: 38
    +1
    Quote: Understudy
    "... and we have enough other bases with more adequate natural and climatic conditions. Novorossiysk." (from)
    Nda ... hike, the author has no idea about such a vile natural phenomenon as "bora". And it is in Novorossiysk.



    This is yes. It is enough to survive the winter "BORA" so that you no longer want to experience it again. IT IS SOMETHING!!!
  36. Marconi41
    Marconi41 26 November 2013 01: 45
    0
    Started Again! Needed, unnecessary. Do we need marine corps ?! For example, there are marines in Kamchatka, but there are NO means of delivery and landing. So the unfortunate people run through the Kamchatka swamps after imaginary terrorists, and not one of them was at sea. And since we do not need delivery vehicles (Mistral, and BDK are the same boxes), then we can disperse the sea infantry ?! As unnecessary ...
  37. kirpich
    kirpich 26 November 2013 03: 14
    +2
    Excuse me, Andrey. Firstly, where did you see swamps in Kamchatka at the landing site of the marines? Secondly - the SP-80, SP-90, SP-110 self-propelled rams have already ended ??? As for the dispersal of the marines - is it weak in their eyes to say this?

    I set the minus. Think first what you say.
    1. Marconi41
      Marconi41 26 November 2013 15: 07
      0
      I myself am from Kamchatka, and believe me, we also have swamps. We are talking about the same thing. I’m just ironic: If we don’t need (here many are against the Mistral) delivery vehicles, then the marines also don’t need it? Believe me, it’s more of your pity that our marine corps is more than the infantry than the marines.
    2. Marconi41
      Marconi41 26 November 2013 15: 08
      0
      I myself am from Kamchatka, and believe me, we also have swamps. We are talking about the same thing. I’m just ironic: If we don’t need (here many are against the Mistral) delivery vehicles, then the marines also don’t need it? Believe me, it’s more of your pity that our marine corps is more than the infantry than the marines.
      And at the expense of the joint venture - so Tikhiy can’t swim over them ...
  38. Mister anderson
    Mister anderson 26 November 2013 08: 09
    -3
    author -> author -> author impassable goes! And let me be banned. A person doesn’t know what he’s writing about from the open sources of the tops. For those with an armored train. These ships are purchased only for the control system and its access codes, only on such conditions the French decided to sell it to us. ALL. And the price is a mere trifle for those who understand what is at stake.
  39. Prutkov
    Prutkov 26 November 2013 12: 07
    +1
    I think that there will be a lot of work for these Mistrals in the near future. Odie "Syrian Express" is worth it. Such a ship is quite suitable for such a purpose. Yes, and the execution of operations to free hostages and evacuate Russian citizens must be performed by someone. Do not forget about the recent attack on the Russian embassy in Libya.
  40. avg
    avg 26 November 2013 12: 33
    +1
    Anyone who has ever felt the life of a Marine on a large landing ship in the southern latitudes cannot but rejoice at the Mistral. good
    1. Marconi41
      Marconi41 26 November 2013 15: 37
      +1
      Absolutely right!!! Here probably many people think that BDK is a supercourt! Very wrong. In addition, the BDK is not a cruiser or a frigate, and cannot protect itself from surface ships or from submarines or enemy aircraft. He also needs an excursion.
  41. kirpich
    kirpich 26 November 2013 13: 53
    +1
    Quote: Russ69
    Now it remains to wait for their introduction into the Navy and the start of operation. Then it will probably become clear how much we need them ...


    Yeah, then we'll find out how much money wasted. And how much more you need to spend so that this target can (at least) defend itself.
  42. okroshka79
    okroshka79 26 November 2013 23: 07
    0
    There is an interesting article on the topic - what is the "Mistral" for, quite fresh: "Russia stumbled over the" Mistral ". More details: http://www.arms-expo.ru/049051124051048051055055.html. Do not add, do not subtract. Like this the ship suddenly became "in demand" for our Navy, in my opinion, we can add one more version. Let's remember that before the events of 08.08.08, a simple Russian man in the street did not hear about these ships. But then suddenly almost everyone, even the laziest ones, started talking about them It can be assumed that this was a kind of payment to the French President Sarkozy for a political settlement of the military conflict.
  43. Borman_ru
    Borman_ru 27 November 2013 04: 52
    +1
    Hmm ... how many more of our army to rake the shit of Serdyukov?
  44. i.xxx-1971
    i.xxx-1971 29 November 2013 12: 17
    0
    I think vertical take-off planes will be based on it. A sort of escort aircraft carrier.
  45. kirpich
    kirpich 29 November 2013 18: 49
    0
    Quote: Marconi41
    And at the expense of the joint venture - so Tikhiy can’t swim over them ...


    And the Mistral will simply not be able to leave the Sea of ​​Okhotsk or the Sea of ​​Japan. Well, where will he land the troops?
  46. kirpich
    kirpich 29 November 2013 21: 19
    0
    Quote: Marconi41
    And at the expense of the joint venture - so Tikhiy can’t swim over them ...



    Ah, the Bering Strait? wink
  47. kirpich
    kirpich 29 November 2013 23: 37
    0
    Quote: i.xxx-1971
    A sort of escort aircraft carrier.



    A sort of "parquet bearer"