Military Review

Juan Carlos I selected in Turkish tender for universal landing craft

71
The Department of Defense Industry (Savunma Sanayii Müsteşarlığı - SSM) of the Turkish Ministry of Defense on December 26, 2013 officially awarded a victory in the tender for the Havuzlu Çıkarma Gemisi (LPD) program for the construction of a universal landing ship (UDC) for the Turkish Navy of the Turkish shipbuilding company SEDEF Gemi İnşat (Istanbul), having decided to start negotiations on concluding a contract with the latter. SEDEF was a tender representative of the Spanish shipbuilding association Navantia with a proposal for the design of the universal landing ship Juan Carlos I, previously built for the Spanish fleet.


The Havuzlu armaıkarma Gemisi (LPD) program worth 1,7 billion, launched in 2006, provides for the acquisition of one UDC for the Turkish fleet and, for use from it, four LCM tanks, two small landing boats LCVP and 27 amphibious tracked armored vehicles. . The lead contractor in the delivery should be a private Turkish shipyard. In February 2010, the SSM, sent tenders to seven Turkish shipbuilding companies (ADIK, Çelik Tekne, Dearsan Shipyard, Desan Shipyard, RMK Marine, SEDEF and Naval Shipyard in Istanbul), which operated mainly in cooperation with foreign partners (and mostly foreign projects). In May, 2011 of the year included SEDEF (which presented the project UDC Juan Carlos I of Spanish Navantia), RMK Marine (with its own project developed with the assistance of the British design company TDC) and Desan Shipyard (presented the project of South Korean Hanjin Heavy Industries based on UDC Dokdo - in the end, SSM 26 December 2013 awarded him the second place). The final decision on the tender was originally planned to be taken by May 2012 of the year, but in the end it was made with more than a year and a half late.

This is the second export success of the project developed by Navantia Juan Carlos I after a well-known contract for two ships of this type with Australia. Most likely, the construction of the UDC for Turkey will be carried out according to the Australian scheme - with the construction of the ship hull at the Navantia shipyard in El Ferrol, followed by completion at the SEDEF plant in Istanbul.

Juan Carlos I selected in Turkish tender for universal landing craft

Design image of the universal landing ship of the Juan Carlos I type in the version for the Turkish Navy (c) SEDEF Gemi İnşaatı A.Ş
Originator:
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/
71 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. WIN969
    WIN969 30 December 2013 12: 40
    +2
    And from our Mistrals, even a fighter cannot take off
    1. olegff68
      olegff68 30 December 2013 12: 49
      +9
      Quote: WIN969
      And from our Mistrals, even a fighter cannot take off

      H.Z. it can fly up and take off, but it’s unlikely to land - if only by braking about an obstacle. laughing
      1. sledgehammer102
        sledgehammer102 30 December 2013 16: 10
        +5
        Quote: WIN969
        And from our Mistrals, even a fighter cannot take off

        We have Kuzya for fighters. And for the Mistral will find application, don’t worry, although I was initially against this purchase, but over time you realize that two such units in such a short time are really nothing, provided that we also have carrier-based attack helicopters, and they are for landing much more necessary than any of the attack aircraft or fighters.
        1. Charon
          Charon 30 December 2013 18: 42
          +5
          I, too, was not enthusiastic about the Mistral, considering it a diversion of the Serdyukov’s gang. However, ours, as always showing an unplanned ingenuity, managed not only to minimize damage, but also to make a functional Mr. not just candy, but a completely acceptable combat unit. Including thanks to attack helicopters.
          As life and Syria have shown, Mistral is a highly sought after ship.
        2. The comment was deleted.
      2. Gluxar_
        Gluxar_ 3 January 2014 00: 25
        0
        Quote: olegff68
        H.Z. it can fly up and take off, but it’s unlikely to land - if only by braking about an obstacle.

        Well, on other UDC landing is possible only in an upright position. the contract figure is more interesting. $ 1,6 billion for 2006. I wonder what the price is today.
    2. Wiruz
      Wiruz 30 December 2013 12: 51
      +1
      Well, depending on which, the Yak-141 could
    3. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 30 December 2013 12: 56
      +12
      Quote: WIN969
      And from our Mistrals, even a fighter cannot take off


      Apparently because it's still a transport ship, and not an aircraft carrier? Enough can whine already?
      1. WIN969
        WIN969 30 December 2013 14: 30
        -7
        This is a universal landing ship, and it must have at least two light fighters on board.
        1. Siberian German
          Siberian German 30 December 2013 21: 26
          +4
          and also pills for greed - Mistral udk, what kind of planes are you talking about, let's then mix the vinaigrette ice cream tea in a saucepan and give you a chow because everything will mix in the stomach - if udk then udk and if there are fighters then let it be an aircraft carrier
          1. PSih2097
            PSih2097 31 December 2013 13: 54
            0
            Quote: Siberian German
            and also pills for greed - Mistral udk, what kind of planes are you talking about, let's then mix the vinaigrette ice cream tea in a saucepan and give you a chow because everything will mix in the stomach - if udk then udk and if there are fighters then let it be an aircraft carrier

            the same Doc-DO and the Hyuuga can have on board aircraft with vertical and short take-off and landing of the AV-8B Harrier II and F-35 Lightning II types.
          2. PSih2097
            PSih2097 31 December 2013 13: 54
            0
            Quote: Siberian German
            and also pills for greed - Mistral udk, what kind of planes are you talking about, let's then mix the vinaigrette ice cream tea in a saucepan and give you a chow because everything will mix in the stomach - if udk then udk and if there are fighters then let it be an aircraft carrier

            the same Doc-DO and the Hyuuga can have on board aircraft with vertical and short take-off and landing of the AV-8B Harrier II and F-35 Lightning II types.
        2. Geisenberg
          Geisenberg 31 December 2013 00: 33
          +3
          Quote: WIN969
          This is a universal landing ship, and it must have at least two light fighters on board.


          ... still a submarine and a field brothel, but the universal ship is universal ...
      2. cros
        cros 30 December 2013 14: 53
        0
        Commentators do not whine, but state the technical features of the vessel.
        Cross
    4. URAL72
      URAL72 30 December 2013 13: 51
      +11
      "And even a fighter cannot take off from our mistrals"
      Is he needed there? To support the landing, a turntable is preferable to a high-speed aircraft, which, given our painful problems with communication and reconnaissance on the battlefield, will not be able to timely detect and destroy the target. Two Mistral near Syria, it is better than 6 BDK ...
      1. not good
        not good 30 December 2013 14: 55
        +2
        Yes, two torpedoes (missiles) are cheaper than six, What a saving for the enemy.
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 30 December 2013 20: 00
          +1
          What is easier to drown - BDK (total displacement of about 4000 tons) or UDC (total displacement of about 21000 tons)?
        2. Botanologist
          Botanologist 30 December 2013 20: 33
          0
          Quote: Negoro
          Yes, two torpedoes (missiles) are cheaper than six,


          Are you implying that the cost of torpedoes is such that the US Congress should consider a separate application? Or "the main thing is mass character"?
          1. not good
            not good 31 December 2013 00: 40
            +4
            I mean that one torpedo will be enough for the Mistral. Because the large landing ships were built in the USSR in accordance with the requirements for the warships of the Navy, namely, the ability to remain buoyant when two adjacent compartments are flooded. And the Mistral is essentially a FERRY (as an example , the official version of the flooding of the ferry "Estonia", the separation of the bow ramp in a storm), according to the open access drawings of the "Mistral", you can estimate the free surface area when water enters the interior, plus a high freeboard, etc. And also, before us, "Mistral" proposed by Australia, but those having studied the design refused due to the problems of this project with seaworthiness.
      2. Flooding
        Flooding 30 December 2013 17: 19
        +3
        Quote: URAL72
        Two Mistral near Syria, it is better than 6 BDK ...

        Without disputing, but only out of interest I ask: what is better?
    5. cros
      cros 30 December 2013 14: 50
      -5
      French Mistrals, prioritized by the professional, ex-Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Serdyukov, involved in a number of criminal cases as WITNESS.
      CROS
    6. DMB87
      DMB87 30 December 2013 17: 47
      0
      And the men don’t know ...
    7. The comment was deleted.
    8. andrey682006
      andrey682006 30 December 2013 22: 24
      +1
      Hmm ...
      Do fighters take off from Juan Carlos?
      What?
      Is there a vertical takeoff fighter in Turkey?
      Yes, and why be piped in the Black Sea?
      With the Turks you can agree on a good one.
      1. nerd.su
        nerd.su 31 December 2013 01: 28
        +1
        Quote: andrey682006
        Is there a vertical takeoff fighter in Turkey?

        Buy not for long. But especially for nothing, given the size of Turkey and the seas surrounding it, Turks and land-based aircraft will be enough.

        Quote: andrey682006
        Yes, and why be piped in the Black Sea?

        In the Black Sea, Turkey may not be worth anything, but in the Mediterranean they have contradictions with Greece and Cyprus. Again, the oil shelf of the Mediterranean exacerbates these contradictions at present.
    9. Nayhas
      Nayhas 2 January 2014 07: 59
      0
      Quote: WIN969
      And from our Mistrals, even a fighter cannot take off

      Yes, even if they could, we still do not have VTOL.
  2. gispanec
    gispanec 30 December 2013 12: 53
    +3
    Well, stupid Turks ... why do they buy a barge? ... do they want to fight with Russia? ... or Somali pirates? ... after all, these barges are good for nothing ... I just drank the dough ... I’m right I say? .. and ?? haters of the Mistral !?
    1. APASUS
      APASUS 30 December 2013 13: 40
      0
      Quote: gispanec
      Well, stupid Turks ... why are they buying a barge?

      Why are they stupid? You just read the text carefully
      The $ 1,7 billion Havuzlu Çıkarma Gemisi (LPD) program, launched in 2006, provides for the acquisition of one UDC for the Turkish fleet, as well as for the use of four LCM-type tank landing boats, two small LCVP-type landing boats and 27 amphibious caterpillar ones AAV armored personnel carriers. The lead contractor in the delivery should be a private Turkish shipyard

      Everything is as it should be and the Turkish contractor and a set of watercraft are provided, and the stupid ones sit in the chairs of our Moscow region and buy the Mistral. Then the race with boats, some misunderstanding with helicopters, and the whole complex had to be foreseen at the stage of concluding the contract. that everyone completely forgot!
      1. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets 30 December 2013 14: 35
        +4
        Quote: APASUS
        Everything is as it should be, and the Turkish contractor and a set of watercraft are provided, and stupid people sit in the chairs of our Moscow Region and buy Mistral

        It seems all in one, and the developers are not domestic, and we also have cooperation.
        Quote: APASUS
        as well as for use with it - four tank landing craft of the LCM type, two small landing craft of the LCVP type and 27 amphibious tracked armored personnel carriers AAV.

        Quote: APASUS
        Then a race with boats, some misunderstandings with helicopters, and the whole complex had to be foreseen at the stage of concluding a contract

        USE and DELIVERY together with the ship are two different things, don’t you? The contractor (read - Spain) will also not supply anything with UDC.
        1. APASUS
          APASUS 30 December 2013 16: 23
          -1
          Quote: Vladimirets
          It seems all in one, and the developers are not domestic, and we also have cooperation.

          We deliver them a blank, and they stuff it with equipment. Everything is as usual! We sell oil gas, and then from oil we buy tights, tires, etc.
          Quote: Vladimirets
          USE and DELIVERY together with the ship are two different things, don’t you? The contractor (read - Spain) will not supply anything with UDC either

          Yes, of course, different things, but ...... thinking about assembling watercraft for UDC, helicopter equipment, fuel and lubricants, those repair kits relies on the stage of concluding a contract, and not later. And at first we decided to make landing craft ourselves, then like refused because of the size and went leapfrog. Then we don’t buy helicopters, we kind of have our own and it went off - the heights do not match, then in fact we only began to fit Kamov for this vessel, before that it wasn’t manufactured in the marine configuration.
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 30 December 2013 16: 50
            +3
            In fact, the Mistral was redesigned, in particular, for our helicopters.
            1. APASUS
              APASUS 30 December 2013 19: 06
              +3
              Quote: Dart2027
              In fact, the Mistral was redesigned, in particular, for our helicopters.

              Do not tell anyone !! Do not !!
              You can’t even imagine the amount of funds in order to raise the deck by 30 cm, it is almost anew to build half of the ship.
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 30 December 2013 20: 08
                +1
                Just imagine. And what kind of scandals are there because of some little things like the Dy20 valve, which I needed to put during the construction process ...
                By the way, in Soviet times, the "owner of the premises" in the design bureau, that is, the person who placed the equipment in the compartment, received a salary more than the head of the sector in which he worked.
              2. VADEL
                VADEL 31 December 2013 08: 21
                +1
                half of the ship is here: hi
          2. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 30 December 2013 18: 25
            +2
            Quote: APASUS
            then, in fact, we only began to adapt Kamov to this vessel, before that he was not produced in the marine configuration.

            Yes, because the hangar did not fit in height. And as for the "sea configuration" Kamov worked for sailors all his life: Ka-25, 27, variants of PLO, PS, 29-strike, airborne transport, even 31-RLD - everything for the sea.
            1. APASUS
              APASUS 30 December 2013 19: 21
              0
              Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
              Yes, because the hangar did not fit in height. And as for the "sea configuration" Kamov worked for sailors all his life: Ka-25, 27, variants of PLO, PS, 29-strike, airborne transport, even 31-RLD - everything for the sea.

              Which of the following will fit into Mistral's hangar !?
              Ka-25, 27, options PLO, PS, 29-shock, assault-transport, even 31-RLD - all for the sea.

              Do you want to answer for you?
              It'S Nothing!
              The Ka-52 began to be upgraded to the marine version only when it became clear that we had nothing to equip Mistral.
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 30 December 2013 20: 12
                0
                Or maybe vice versa - they decided to install new helicopters on new ships, which previously had nothing to put on?
      2. Armata
        Armata 30 December 2013 14: 39
        +2
        Quote: APASUS
        Everything is as it should be and the Turkish contractor and a set of watercraft are provided, and the stupid ones sit in the chairs of our Moscow region and buy the Mistral. Then the race with boats, some misunderstanding with helicopters, and the whole complex had to be foreseen at the stage of concluding the contract. that everyone completely forgot!
        For truth threw friend laughing drinks Pezhiki, unlike seat, lose a lot. Only the majority does not want to admit it to themselves. Self-deception calms. laughing
        1. APASUS
          APASUS 30 December 2013 16: 31
          0
          Quote: Mechanic
          Pezhiki, unlike seat, lose a lot. Only the majority does not want to admit it to themselves. Self-deception calms.

          I think this is just the beginning! We’ll fly in with these fawn. The fact is that we don’t have the technology to use such an apparatus. We should try to fit it into our battle tactics. Whatever they say, it was designed to fit the Western idea of ​​an airborne landing operation, if you decide to buy for abroad it was worth thinking, making changes, creating a joint project ........... well, I already wrote that there was no time to think
          1. Armata
            Armata 30 December 2013 18: 50
            +3
            Quote: APASUS
            I think this is just the beginning! We’ll fly in with these fawn. The fact is that we don’t have the technology to use such an apparatus. We should try to fit it into our battle tactics. Whatever they say, it was designed to fit the Western idea of ​​an airborne landing operation, if you decide to buy for it was worth thinking abroad, making changes, creating a joint project ........... well, I already wrote that there was no time to think
            in our country only engineers think their heads off. All the others are just screaming about betrayal. Yes, in general, something like "Hooray GDP outweighs everything." Only the patience ends, it got to sit for 40 rubles. for 000 years already. And when they say that Kuyvashev came (after his speech he began to consider himself an idiot), now everything will be in a chocolate. Workers are told that 4 foreigner spends 1 a day on a living room and about 60000 on grub (estimate how much a worker and his family can eat). And this is speaking to the workers. It's not even funny.
            1. samoletil18
              samoletil18 31 December 2013 01: 48
              0
              Kuyvashev is an amazing character. For what it will not undertake - all the trouble. Since September we have been waiting for organizational conclusions on it.
        2. gispanec
          gispanec 30 December 2013 21: 13
          +1
          Quote: Mechanic
          Pezhiki, unlike seat, lose a lot. Only the majority does not want to admit it to themselves. Self-deception calms.

          Yes, really ?? ?? wife since 1998, not wad ... 106, ... 206 ...., 1007, now on the ssr ds4 ... there were no breakdowns at all !! (on 1007, the robot’s brains covered 12000 rubles ) ... each car from scratch for 50000-90000km mileage for excl ds4 .... she just 3 months ... she and I are delighted ... I bought a car, closed my wallet !! ... but with Seat Leon I had to change my head and Korbakh ... and the starter ... the scribe was tired (he took a friend’s car from scratch) ... so that the frogmen are all industrialists, but the inhabitants of the collective farm are collective farmers
          1. Armata
            Armata 30 December 2013 21: 32
            0
            Quote: gispanec
            Oh really??
            Oh really? I bought a wad for the cosmonauts in the salon. From 2004 to 2007. 4 times a week was on the type of "warranty repair" I bought a Skoda "Analog Seat Leon". Serves honestly for 6 years. But the conversation is not about cars. Juan Carlos is an order of magnitude taller than the mistralka. Let's argue whether we need them at the Pacific Fleet. And in general, is the Pacific Fleet ready to accept them? And about pyzho, duck for me is better than a sitruh, much more reliable.
            1. fzr1000
              fzr1000 31 December 2013 13: 59
              0
              Seat- never Skoda.
              1. Armata
                Armata 3 January 2014 13: 03
                0
                Quote: fzr1000
                Seat- never Skoda.
                Yah? And Folks have never Skoda, and Audi has never Folks ?. So then all the innovations are tested on the Seat and Skoda, and years through 2 (after successful tests), put on stream on the Volks and Audi. laughing But do you know how many former independent companies they own? Google as you are used to.
    2. RUSS
      RUSS 30 December 2013 15: 45
      +3
      gispanec
      Well, why are you so harsh, you can once again be happy for the Turkish military, well done, not only do they buy a lot of new foreign equipment, but they also develop their own equipment.
      1. alone
        alone 30 December 2013 15: 59
        +5
        This is still a good decision. Although the project is foreign, but as a contractor it is its own firm. It is still better to do everything without America.
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 30 December 2013 18: 34
          +2
          Quote: lonely
          All the same, it’s better to do everything without America.

          And what side of the USA did the Spanish UDK Juan Carlos I (Spanish Navantia) pester? Or is there a state weapon? So no: ZURO -1RAM, 4 Golciper. Ah, yes UHV - F-35! So these can fly away.
  3. Bradley
    Bradley 30 December 2013 13: 00
    -7
    Quote: gispanec
    Well, stupid Turks ... why do they buy a barge? ... do they want to fight with Russia? ... or Somali pirates? ... after all, these barges are good for nothing ... I just drank the dough ... I’m right I say? .. and ?? haters of the Mistral !?

    Well, with Mistrals there really is no profit for Russia.) The exceptions are the Mistrals of the OTOZ corporation.
  4. Manager
    Manager 30 December 2013 13: 07
    +5
    Quote: WIN969
    And from our Mistrals, even a fighter cannot take off

    If you put 2 in a row, and put between the boards, it will fly up.
    In general, Mistral is not an aircraft carrier but a transporter.
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 30 December 2013 13: 12
      +7
      UDC, that something, that something. It’s just that the Mistral is made exclusively for helicopters, and Carlos is for VTOL (but it carries 6 pieces).

      An ordinary plane takes off, it may take off, but it does not land either on Juan Carlos or on the Mistral.
      1. Panikovsky
        Panikovsky 30 December 2013 13: 52
        +1
        Quote: donavi49
        UDC, that something, that something. It’s just that the Mistral is made exclusively for helicopters, and Carlos is for VTOL (but it carries 6 pieces).

        An ordinary plane takes off, it may take off, but it does not land either on Juan Carlos or on the Mistral.

        which (harriers) are discontinued.
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 30 December 2013 18: 45
        +6
        Quote: donavi49
        and Carlos under VTOL (but already carries 6 pieces).

        The Turks have announced the 8 F-35, which are planning to be deployed on Carlos,
        although initially spaniards talked about 7 machines: "The hangar can accommodate 7 F-35Bs or 12 NH90 helicopters, or 8 CH-47 helicopters, and taking into account the placement on the flight and landing decks, the ship is capable of carrying up to 30 aircraft in the" aviation "configuration."
        Australians went further, taking Carlos as the basis:
        "UDC of the Canberra type, like the Spanish prototype, is planned to be used for basing the F-35B VTOL aircraft, and it is believed that it was the increased aircraft carrying capabilities of the Spanish project that largely ensured its success in Australia." Infa slipped that up to 20 units. VTOL aircraft will be carried by Canberra.
    2. cros
      cros 30 December 2013 15: 01
      -6
      Mistral is an excellent moving target for aircraft carrier aircraft and missiles with minimal protection.
      Cross
      1. Charon
        Charon 30 December 2013 18: 44
        +6
        So I see how the carrier group is chasing Mistral.
        1. gispanec
          gispanec 30 December 2013 21: 18
          +4
          Quote: Charon
          So I see how the carrier group is chasing Mistral.

          Yeah, consisting of: 5 moose, 1 sivulf + 6 arly + 4 ticondegas, well, a couple of Nimits ........
      2. The comment was deleted.
  5. Roman 1977
    Roman 1977 30 December 2013 13: 12
    +9
    Well, you can congratulate the Spanish shipbuilders:
    first built the "light aircraft carrier" "Chakri Naubert" for Thailand, then received an order from Australia for the "Juan Carlos", now Turkey., even the spin "Prince of Asturias" was attached to Angola (but why Angola, whose crew exceeds its western personnel fleet)?
    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/680258.html


    thailand spanish-built aircraft carrier
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Roman 1977
      Roman 1977 30 December 2013 18: 54
      +2
      Yes, we lack the supersonic Yak-141, the work on which was discontinued due to lack of funding:
      In subsequent years, work on fine-tuning and improving the characteristics of the aircraft at the Design Bureau was carried out at its own expense, counting on promising, including export orders. On the basis of the Yak-41M (Yak-141) and its promising modifications, a flexible mobile defense system with a high degree of combat survivability could be created, capable of maintaining the combat potential of the defending side in the event of a sudden massive enemy attack. The emergence and development of W / KVP aircraft was due to the entire course of scientific and technological progress. The authors of some publications argue that the development of VTOL aircraft was a mistaken direction, that they would never reach the flight characteristics of conventional takeoff and landing aircraft. This is not entirely true. A VTOL aircraft is an aircraft that has received, in comparison with an aircraft of a conventional aerodynamic design, new properties, and, consequently, new opportunities. For example, the experience of the combat use of the AV-8V "Harrier" VTOL aircraft showed that when using tactical techniques of helicopters in close air combat, it is 2-3 times superior to F / A-18 "Hornet" fighter-attack aircraft and F-14A fighters " Tomcat ", although in ranged combat loses to them with a ratio of 1: 4.

      http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/yak141.html


      Landing of Yak-141 on the deck of "Baku", then "Admiral Gorshkov", and now "Vakramapidya"
    3. nerd.su
      nerd.su 31 December 2013 01: 35
      +1
      Quote: Novel 1977
      (But why does Angola need an aircraft carrier whose crew exceeds the personnel of its fleet)?

      They will sell to China. And then the Spaniards will not directly sell NATO (read the USA) to China.

      In general, one should not neglect Angola. This is a very promising country.
  6. vanaheym
    vanaheym 30 December 2013 13: 14
    0
    It is strange that the Spanish - the Spaniards that the experience of building a single, that the operating experience - zero.
  7. donavi49
    donavi49 30 December 2013 13: 16
    +9
    Well, the Turks are hoping for the F-35, so the acquisition of Carlos or the German (project) was read.

    The French, by the way, also made the Mistral project for VTOL, but he did not go, because the French clients do not have VTOL and do not really want to.

    We also do not need VTOL, because our own are not even in development programs. The Yak-141 can be forgotten, because today you will have to make a new aircraft completely, and the epic will be a la F-35 in terms of costs. It’s no less stupid to take a VTOL aircraft by 1,5 lard for a ship hoping to buy a used Harrier.

    Helicopters absolutely identical feel, at Carlos and Mistral on 6 sites and 16 medium turntables in the hangar.
  8. FULL
    FULL 30 December 2013 13: 40
    -4
    why not mistral
  9. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 30 December 2013 13: 47
    +11
    $ 1,7 billion, begun in 2006, provides for the acquisition of one UDC for the Turkish fleet

    While I see whining - "they will have as many as 6 VTOL aircraft and we do not, so the capture of Voronezh in half a year from the beginning of the war is inevitable." Soon they will tell you that two mistrals at a price of 1.7 billion are drunk, theft and betrayal, and one juan for the same money is undoubted luck, democratic trade and prosperity.
  10. NIKOLAEV196
    NIKOLAEV196 30 December 2013 13: 59
    0
    WHY ARE THESE SHIPS TURKS AT ALL?
    1. Nasty pirate
      Nasty pirate 30 December 2013 15: 54
      +7
      Quote: NIKOLAEV196
      WHY ARE THESE SHIPS TURKS AT ALL?

      Cyprus. And you never know what will happen in the future, maybe Georgia’s help, or maybe something in the Crimea, or some other regional conflicts in the Mediterranean countries.
      1. Botanologist
        Botanologist 30 December 2013 20: 46
        +1
        Quote: NastyPirate
        Cyprus. And you never know what will happen in the future, maybe the help of Georgia or maybe something in the Crimea,


        Are you in all seriousness about Cyprus and Georgia? There are C-300, for information.
        1. nerd.su
          nerd.su 31 December 2013 01: 57
          +1
          Quote: Botanologist
          There are S-300s, for information.

          Now, if there was a Bastion or a Beach ...
  11. NIKOLAEV196
    NIKOLAEV196 30 December 2013 14: 01
    0
    MAYBE THEY WANT TO LEARN TO BUILD LARGE AND VARIOUS SHIPS?
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 30 December 2013 14: 37
      0
      Quote: NIKOLAEV196
      MAYBE THEY WANT TO LEARN TO BUILD LARGE AND VARIOUS SHIPS?

      Or fly to the moon?
      1. alone
        alone 30 December 2013 16: 02
        0
        Quote: Vladimirets
        Or fly to the moon?

        It’s the Iranians who are preparing for the moon. They launched the second macaque with a rocket. I just don’t understand why invent a bicycle if it was invented a century ago? request
        1. Vladimirets
          Vladimirets 30 December 2013 17: 04
          0
          Quote: lonely
          It’s the Iranians who are preparing for the moon. They launched the second macaque with a rocket. I just don’t understand why invent a bicycle if it was invented a century ago?

          I wrote this nonsense to the same post. wink
  12. Cherdak
    Cherdak 30 December 2013 14: 19
    0
    Quote: NIKOLAEV196
    WHY ARE THESE SHIPS TURKS AT ALL?


    Adopt Chinese experience: "Construction of the world's first hotel on the aircraft carrier" Kiev "

    see http://russian.peopledaily.com.cn/31516/7564225.html

    or http://batona.net/9656-roskoshnyy-otel-na-vode-15-foto.html
  13. Muadipus
    Muadipus 30 December 2013 16: 03
    0
    We would have to update our BDK
  14. Hitrovan07
    Hitrovan07 30 December 2013 17: 02
    +4
    The correct question is "why do the Turks need UDC" - they, in theory, have everything at their fingertips - just like Russia does. But if the Turks conceived the return of the Ottoman Empire - more precisely, the Turks will go where they will be led by whoever thinks for them.
  15. Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 30 December 2013 19: 36
    +5
    Compared to French Mistral UDCs, the Spanish Juan Carlos I is larger ship (27 000 / * 21300 t - numerator - data for Mistral) ship with enhanced combat characteristics and much larger aircraft-carrying and airborne transport capabilities. In fact, it is considered by the Spaniards as the second aircraft carrier of the Spanish fleet, designed to supplement the Principe de Asturias aircraft carrier, which is almost half the displacement. Aircraft can always be based on a VTOL AV-8B or F-35B. It is equipped bow diving board to facilitate their take-off. 7 (* -) F-35B or 12 (* 8) NH90 helicopters, or 8 (* -) CH-47 helicopters can be placed in the hangar, and taking into account the placement on the flight and landing decks, the ship is capable of carrying in the “aircraft” configurations to 30 (* 16) aircraft. At the same time, the Mistral hangar only accommodates 10 aircraft, but without VTOL and heavy airborne transport helicopters. The docking chamber houses 4 (* 4) landing craft of the LCM-1Е or 1 (* 2) KVP LCAC type.
    Landing capacity Juan Carlos I consists of 900 (* 500) people and 77 (* 110) units of equipment (including up to 43 (* 13) main tanks). There are headquarters for 100 (* 200) people. At the same time, the area of ​​airborne cargo decks on the BPE is 6000 m2, which is more than double that in the French Mistral (* 2650 m2). Like the Mistral, the Spanish ship has an electric power plant with propeller thrusters, but the ES includes gas turbine generators and provides full speed to the 21,5 node.
    Such attractive performance characteristics were taken by the Australians as the basis for the construction of their own UDC type Canberra. The BPE project won the Australian Navy competition for the construction of two UDCs (the French project 250 VRS was a competitor). The total displacement of Australian ships will reach 30 000 tons, the area of ​​airborne cargo decks - 6600 m2, and the landing capacity for people - 1124 people. Uberk type Canberra, like the Spanish prototype, is planned to be used for basing VTOL F-35B. It was the increased aircraft-bearing capabilities of the Spanish project that in many ways ensured its success in Australia.
    Certain interest in BPE was also shown in Russia - At the end of 2009, Juan Carlos I in El Ferrol was visited by a delegation of Russian military specialists. However, something did not grow together: either the price, or the construction time, or the issue of transferring individual technologies. But we bought the French Mistral, which came up to us according to the above terms of the transaction.
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 30 December 2013 20: 20
      +1
      Perhaps here I am mistaken, but the impha came across that the Spanish fleet (aircraft carrier, UDC and frigates) is based on developments received from the United States, and it is the United States that owns the technologies, and therefore any transaction is impossible without their consent.
  16. homosum20
    homosum20 30 December 2013 19: 55
    0
    So the F-35 can vertically take off and land. (http://video.sibnet.ru/video1148451-Vertikalnyiy_vzlet_i_posadka_F_35B_/)
    Why would he not be based on UDC?
  17. Manul
    Manul 30 December 2013 22: 31
    +1
    And for me, the following should be based on the BDK: 1. Landing high-speed boats; 2. Landing hovercraft; 3. Attack helicopters; 4. Transport landing helicopters; AND! 5. Assault aviation in the form of SU-25x upgraded to carrier-based aviation. Or their analogues. At least a couple of planes. They could solve very important tasks when landing. For high-speed fighter aircraft carrier designed.
    1. Manul
      Manul 30 December 2013 23: 00
      +1
      And if necessary, then switch to turboprop attack aircraft with (at least partially) a variable angle of direction of the engines to reduce mileage. For any such devices will have greater speed and range compared to fighter jets. And helicopters will solve the tasks of destroying coastal defense with them low speed will not be able. Still, the speed will be twice as different. And the strike must be delivered in advance of landing.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Manul
        Manul 30 December 2013 23: 48
        0
        I'm sorry. In the phrase "compared to fighters" I meant helicopters. Rough typo.
    2. Botanologist
      Botanologist 30 December 2013 23: 09
      0
      Quote: Manul
      the following should be based on the BDK: ... 5. Assault aviation in the form of SU-25x upgraded to carrier-based aviation. Or their analogues. At least a couple of planes.


      And you did not confuse BDK with an aircraft carrier? Still, he is for other tasks.
      1. Manul
        Manul 30 December 2013 23: 30
        +1
        It should ensure the landing. I was talking about a BIG landing ship comparable in displacement to Mistral. Such a ship can and should provide an assault on a well-fortified coastal defense. And it should be universal in the type of landing and assault. I basically do not consider such a pelvis a proper combat But since we have them, and other countries also take them into service, I’m talking about a specific combat unit. A ship with such cargo transportation capabilities must have an attack fighter with subsonic speed and low mileage.
  18. kplayer
    kplayer 31 December 2013 03: 47
    0
    Such ships as UDC, DVKD and aircraft carriers need escort ships (first destroyers and frigates, then wards), an escort is needed for air defense and anti-submarine defense (anti-submarine defense), if in the second case (anti-submarine) there are more or less suitable ships, then in the case of air defense, they simply do not exist (heavy nuclear-powered cruisers do not count, they themselves would be their priority goal to protect themselves).
    No esm. and fr. with naval air defense systems of long range, i.e. a range equal to at least the launch range of anti-ship missiles from aboard combat aircraft. SAM and ZRAK (1-4) short-range and close combat, again, does not count, because they are for self-defense, fighting off anti-ship missiles, is on almost all ships, but there is nothing to fight with the carriers themselves (aircraft) at long ranges.
    In the USA, this is the Stadart-2 / -3 air defense system, which is equipped with all classes of escort ships, starting with frigates.
    The point is to build more "defenseless" "Mistrals"?
    1. Manul
      Manul 31 December 2013 11: 12
      0
      That's right! The defenselessness of the Mistrals is simply horrifying! The problem is that we no longer argue whether we need the Mistrals or not. We have them! And we need to use them as efficiently as possible.
      1. kplayer
        kplayer 31 December 2013 15: 43
        0
        Well then! count two helicopter carriers already, the option provides for two more.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  19. kplayer
    kplayer 31 December 2013 16: 25
    0
    To use the Mistral as efficiently as possible, we need VVP (vertical takeoff and landing) aircraft - again "pitchforks".
    A low-speed helicopter is too vulnerable above the sea in the face of enemy air defense, you still have to fly to the coast where you can take advantage of the terrain, in addition, the helicopter has a lower combat load and range, and the main purpose of an attack helicopter in naval landing operations (MAO) is cover ) airborne transport helicopters work in the latter during the MAO uninterrupted.
    1. Manul
      Manul 2 January 2014 22: 23
      0
      On the same Juan Carlos, you can use only Harriers and the like. So there is no difference with the Mistrals. And the springboard can be completed by yourself. The most important thing that there is a need for naval aviation is the need to develop the latest technologies for short take-off. the resources are exhausted in this. And then it will be possible to compensate for the deficit of AUG by the take-off capabilities of UDC.
  20. ALEXXX1983
    ALEXXX1983 31 December 2013 19: 39
    0
    Quote: kplayer
    To use the Mistral as efficiently as possible, we need VVP (vertical takeoff and landing) aircraft - again "pitchforks".
    A low-speed helicopter is too vulnerable above the sea in the face of enemy air defense, you still have to fly to the coast where you can take advantage of the terrain, in addition, the helicopter has a lower combat load and range, and the main purpose of an attack helicopter in naval landing operations (MAO) is cover ) airborne transport helicopters work in the latter during the MAO uninterrupted.

    Then it’s better than a convertiplane hi
    Sorry we have neither one nor the other crying
  21. Gato
    Gato 31 December 2013 21: 32
    +2
    Well ... this is .. kagbe .. Happy swimming:
  22. polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 2 January 2014 17: 40
    0
    UDC is only UDC! Turkey's desire to have it is quite understandable, it can be driven from Aegean to Black and vice versa in a day and a half. The Turks are not stupid under our coastal complexes will never climb, but the Greeks or someone weaker, in the coalition, to scare, to show the flag - will go. We need to think about the development of developments on the "Lun", "KM", "Bora" and that they can with their own filling. And on the "Mistrals" - once already bought, you need to think where they will be more needed, and someone else's experience of using it is not a sin to thoroughly study.
    1. Manul
      Manul 2 January 2014 22: 16
      0
      I don’t think that ekranoplans can be used anywhere other than the Caspian Sea. Nevertheless, they have a dependence on excitement, which is more predictable and calm in the Caspian than in other areas. It will be unhappy if, during a combat exit, the wave height rises above a safe level and Lun will drift. If I am wrong - please correct.