Military Review

"Mistral" on the background of the international situation

114
On April 30, the aft section of the amphibious assault ship dock (DVKD) “Sevastopol” was launched at the Baltic Shipyard (St. Petersburg). In the middle of June she will be sent to the shipyard of STX Europe in Saint-Nazaire, where French specialists will complete the assembly of the ship's hull. Last week, the completed ship of the same type, the Vladivostok, made its fourth voyage for testing. Construction and testing of two amphibious ships of the French Mistral project continue in full accordance with the work plan. However, the work of French and Russian shipbuilders is accompanied by many, at least, ambiguous statements of European and American politicians.




Foreign states that do not share Russia's position in the current Ukrainian crisis are trying to find new levers of pressure on it. Among other things, it is proposed to use the Russian-French contract for the construction of two amphibious assault ships of the Mistral type as such a “lever”. Russia in the 2011 year ordered two such ships from France. There is also an option for the third and fourth ships of the same type. Until recently, the purchase of ships from France was the subject of numerous disputes, but still did not go to the international level. Now, ministers and presidents of several foreign countries joined the dispute.

For almost three years the contract for the construction of ships was considered only from an economic and military point of view, but not so long ago politics intervened in the matter. In addition, a third party, the United States, was actively involved in the discussions. The United States, pursuing its own policy toward Russia, demands from official Paris not only to join the existing sanctions against Moscow, but also to take its own steps of this kind. First of all, the French leadership is required to terminate the contract relating to two Mistral-type DCCDs.

The French leadership was in a difficult situation. It is under pressure from one of the main allies - the Americans. France, on the other hand, must take into account the terms of the contract. STX Europe shipbuilders are obliged to transfer two landing craft to Russia, and the breach of the terms of the treaty threatens penalties and fines. Thus, the French leadership has to choose between political and economic interests.

The complexity of the situation is vividly demonstrated by the statements of high-ranking officials of NATO countries and France, voiced in the last two weeks. 8 May official Washington reaffirmed its position on the issue of building French ships for Russia. The next day, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen recalled that the Alliance had ceased military cooperation with Russia. In addition, he recommended that the organization’s member countries do the same.

The day after the NATO Secretary General, the French President Francois Hollande made his statement. He noted that the French side continues to perform work in accordance with the signed contract. Almost simultaneously with the president, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius expressed his opinion. In an interview for the Washington Post, he said that the final decision on the two landing ships would be made in October. A few days later, he recalled the final decision in the fall, but confirmed that all work was being done in accordance with the contract. L. Fabius acknowledged that France has no legal reason not to comply with the terms of the contract.

In general, the position of the French authorities on the construction of the Vladivostok and Sevastopol DVKD looks quite balanced, although taken under pressure from two sides: all work will be continued, but in October, official Paris intends to make a final decision. How it will be and whether it will be at all - time will tell.

In the meantime, Russia continues to fulfill its obligations. In the middle of last week, RIA News quoted the representative of the company Rosoboronexport Vyacheslav Davydenko. According to him, Russia regularly transfers payments to the French shipbuilders as part of a contract payment. Timely payment is one of the reasons that both parties carefully follow the schedule.

In early June, about 400 Russian sailors, the future crews of the new landing ships, will arrive in Saint-Nazaire. In France, they will undergo the necessary training course, after which they will be able to work on new ships. Crew training, like all other work, is still being carried out in full compliance with the schedule.

The financial aspects of the contract turn out to be one of the most painful issues for France. In accordance with the agreement of 2011, Russia will pay approximately 1,2 billion euros for two ships. If Paris “joins the sanctions” and prohibits shipbuilders from transferring ships to Russia the fleet, then he will have to return the money already transferred (according to various sources, Russia has already paid more than half of all the work), and also pay a penalty, the exact amount of which is unknown. Thus, when the contract is broken, France will receive two ships with which it will be necessary to do something. In addition, such an unreasonable move will entail fines and loss of trust from potential customers.

In the context of finance, it will be useful to recall the option to two more amphibious ships. It was originally intended to purchase four Mistral type DVKDs. However, at the end of 2012, a different decision was made: according to the updated plans, so far France should build and transfer to Russia only two new ships. Having gained experience in operating such equipment, the Russian military will decide whether they need two more Mistrals. Thus, the contract for the third and fourth ships can be signed no earlier than 2015-16. In the light of recent events, such plans of the Russian Ministry of Defense look very interesting.

Given the possible signing of an additional contract, France finds itself in an even more difficult situation. Having refused to give Russia the transfer of the Vladivostok and Sevastopol ships, the French authorities will hit hard on their shipbuilding. The STX shipyard in Saint-Nazaire and related enterprises will not receive 1,2 a billion euros for the first two ships, and will also lose any opportunity to earn money on the construction of the third and fourth Mistral for Russia. Total, the total cost of failure may exceed 2,4-2,5 billion euros, not counting fines.

As for the political component of the current situation, it is not the first time when France has to make decisions under the pressure of foreign partners. The first statements condemning the delivery of Russian ships appeared in 2009, when the two countries were only discussing the terms of a possible contract. Then officials in the US and European countries spoke in a disapproving tone, and this pressure continued for the next few years. However, as a result, the contract was signed, with the result that by now one ship has been built, and the construction of the second one will be completed no later than autumn. It follows from this that the French authorities preferred a promising monetary contract to preserve good relations with foreign partners. It is worth noting that the United States or European states only condemned the signing of the contract, but did not take any real action.

Official Paris is again under pressure, and this time it has to take into account the possible payment of a penalty in the event of a contract break. Apparently, any decision of the French authorities will have negative consequences for the country, which is why they are literally trying to drag out time for now. The ministers of defense and foreign affairs, as well as the French president, have already announced that the final decision on the landing craft for Russia will be made only in the autumn. They are probably hoping that by this time the international situation will stabilize and that shipbuilders will have the opportunity to conduct business without regard to third countries.

Meanwhile, officials from different countries continue to discuss the implementation of the Russian-French treaty, and STX Europe employees continue to carry out all the work under the existing contract. The position of the shipbuilders is simple and clear: the order has been received and must be carried out without regard to political intrigues.


On the materials of the sites:
http://ria.ru/
http://rg.ru/
http://bbc.co.uk/
http://ft.com/
http://rbc.ru/
http://inopressa.ru/
Author:
114 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Afinogen
    Afinogen 19 May 2014 08: 17
    +10
    The French leadership was in a difficult situation. One of the main allies, the Americans, is crushing him. France, on the other hand, must consider the terms of the contract.


    Mistrals sow discord in the camp of the enemy laughing
    1. from punk
      from punk 19 May 2014 08: 58
      +7
      Quote: Athenogen
      Mistrals sow discord in the camp of the enemy

      the Russian fleet is already at the forefront. smile
      1. Kibalchish
        Kibalchish 19 May 2014 09: 37
        +27
        Mistrals are still unfinished, and they are already striking at the European Union wink
        1. crazyrom
          crazyrom 20 May 2014 03: 18
          +1
          The article constantly calculates billions of prices for ships (1,2, etc.) and constantly says "not counting fines" but it is the fines that are important here !!! With the price of ships at 1,2 billion, the penalty is in the region of 3-6 billion, and most importantly - the technologies - we have already received, now we can make such coprales ourselves without the help of the French.
    2. Blondy
      Blondy 19 May 2014 09: 24
      +7
      No, Mistral is a special case. The usual, well-known toad - it is for these prosperous all serious sanctions in the bud strangling.
    3. sub307
      sub307 19 May 2014 12: 20
      +5
      "Mistrals" "sowed" a dilemma for France: tolli "blow into one pipe" with the United States (then the opponents of the "Mistrals" can begin to "quietly rejoice", there is also the option of the United States "pay for refusal" if it "stuck" at all), if " do not blow "- Russia gets" problematic "Mistrals" (side of "Mistrals" ... see above, the United States "tears and flies").
      Question: and, for Russia, which is preferable: to get the same "Mistrals" or "grown" money and use (if) with benefit?
      1. Denimax
        Denimax 19 May 2014 13: 37
        +2
        One Mistral for the Black Sea Fleet, in my opinion would be enough.
        1. Ptah
          Ptah 19 May 2014 14: 01
          +11
          The French project was originally sharpened for walking on "warm seas", but "Vladik" and "Seva" were modernized for passage over seas with a thickness of "ice surface" up to 0.8 m. Not to mention the insulation of the interior.
          In the Far East, in the light of the "funny events" unfolding there, such a UDC is desperately needed ...
          I wouldn’t hurt KSF either ...
          And also, in which case, they can be transferred from one theater of military operations to another. The whole catch is in the absence of cover for these "bricks" ... Everything will be over time ... yes
          1. Denimax
            Denimax 19 May 2014 15: 44
            0
            When the Georgian conflict began, I realized that one large paratrooper would have approached. But where to shove four such ships? I personally do not understand the policy of this contract.
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 19 May 2014 21: 49
              +1
              And after him they decided that it was necessary to purchase UDC.
            2. tchoni
              tchoni 20 May 2014 17: 28
              +1
              Consider them some kind of ersatz aircraft carriers. To the Pacific Fleet a couple, well, to the Baltic with the Black Sea Fleet one at a time. Although there they are more a tribute to fashion than a real need (take what is said seriously is not necessary, since this is just speculation). In general, I won’t be surprised if, after a couple of years, they’re talking about arming these ships with anything like vertical take-off and almost airplane capabilities. (something like a tiltrotor DLRO, Yak 141, or whatever attack drone)
      2. adept666
        adept666 19 May 2014 14: 05
        +4
        Definitely get it!
      3. sub307
        sub307 19 May 2014 16: 32
        +1
        And here is the "first swallow": "According to two German political researchers, the European Union may buy from France two Mistral-class helicopter carriers, which are being built for the needs of the Russian Navy.
        About it writes the French portal Auest France.
        Claudia Major and Christian Molling, researchers at the German Institute for International Politics and Security, note that while “the crisis in Ukraine is getting worse and Russia's geostrategic position remains unpredictable in the long term, France should not no way to arm the Russian military fleet. "
        This is the option - "pay for refusal".
      4. The comment was deleted.
    4. The comment was deleted.
  2. PLO
    PLO 19 May 2014 08: 40
    0
    I sincerely hope that the United States will still kill Hollande and Mistarli will not give us winked
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 19 May 2014 10: 16
      +8
      Quote: olp
      I sincerely hope that the United States will still kill Hollande and Mistarli will not give us

      If the Mistrals were really critical for our fleet and raised it to a higher quality level, then this contract would never have been signed. The construction of ships that are generally useless for our fleet, for which there is currently no base infrastructure and escort ships, saved the shipyard in Saint-Nazaire from bankruptcy.
      1. Ptah
        Ptah 19 May 2014 13: 11
        +18
        Quote: Bongo
        The construction of vessels that are generally useless for our fleet, for which there is currently no base infrastructure or escort ships


        Let’s go on the other side. What do you think, due to the supply of arms of which country has THREE years been so successfully held by Syria? In confrontation with scumbags around the world.
        The answer is correct!
        But the Russian Navy, which, in principle, act as "shuttle traders" were represented by large landing craft "Peresvet", "Admiral Nevelskoy", "Minsk", "Novocherkassk", "Alexander Shabalin", "Nikolai Filchenkov" (each with a displacement of 3.5-4.3 tons .t. / about /.
        Only one "Sevastopol" (if Russia had it three years ago) with a deadweight of up to 32 thousand tons on one (?) Flight will deliver what would have required several large landing ships and several flights. Count yourself.
        And also think about what, for example, it would be if a year ago not "three tanks" were brought to Syria, but 30 were immediately brought.
        Also the correct answer. There would be silence on all fronts.
        As for the "cover" ... Many ships went to the same Syria. BPK "Admiral Panteleev", patrol boats "Neustrashimy", "Smetlivy", military supply vessels, and even "marked" the Guards RK "Moscow" as the flagship of the group.
        I'm not specifically talking about how many wounded (or refugees) you can take on board the Mistral. Aviation can only dream of this ... hi
        1. adept666
          adept666 19 May 2014 14: 10
          +12
          Here, I see a sane person! In principle, it is not necessary to cover the ship with an order without having an active military conflict at sea, especially since frigates of 11356 and 22350 projects are on their way (maybe even the need to create an order will finally speed up the construction of these ships, which was very long unfortunately)
          1. Ptah
            Ptah 19 May 2014 14: 55
            +5
            Quote: adept666
            And to cover the ship with a warrant without currently having an active military conflict at sea, in principle, it is not necessary

            good That's it!
            Well, for one, or maybe two full-fledged combat orders, Russia will pick up ships now. Assuming you have to go around the corner.
            And "to fight the Papuans" is enough and a marching warrant (with service ships).
            1. PLO
              PLO 19 May 2014 18: 03
              +1
              all the "Papuans" now have one or another roof (NATO, Russia, China), so no one will give you the Papuans to fight now because the Russian Navy now has no opportunity to provide an amphibious operation in the world's oceans far from its territory and will be if you are lucky only for years in 10
              1. adept666
                adept666 20 May 2014 06: 43
                +3
                I'll tell you more, no one has such an opportunity. All military operations in one way or another have many months of preparation and are carried out from land, and the landing is the second front in order to disrupt the enemy's defense as much as possible. However, do not confuse the projection of force and its real use, because until the force has been applied, no one is completely sure how big it is))) Believe me, a floating helicopter airfield with a displacement of more than 20 thousand tons, and even with an order from multifunctional ships near your economic zone will be any state-woo is not to taste. And what about the roof ... Did it help the Georgians in 2008? ("Covered" the EU and the US) Or maybe Libya? ("Covered" China). At the moment, the roof helped Syria a little (and did not help terrorist organizations, which are "covered" by the US and the EU), and even then not to the end, and only thanks to the "Syrian Express" carried out by the Russian landing ships! Wouldn't they have been transported on what? So, as practice has shown, in any case, the roof leaks when a conflict between the nuclear powers becomes very likely.
        2. PLO
          PLO 19 May 2014 17: 59
          -4
          it's all far-fetched.
          no one will send Mistral to deliver multiple tanks.
          you probably go to the grocery store on the 4-kosny KAMAZ and go shopping for a year ahead?
          1. Ptah
            Ptah 19 May 2014 19: 34
            +5
            Using your store analogies ... belay what
            You, shopping for "capital saturation and treats" before the New Year, do not go to the store with a purse or ladies' clutch, as a "body", but take a bag, a basket? Taking out a whole cart of groceries past the checkout, then you don't make the n-th number of trips to your home, but "rush to the hole" all at once ...
            Well, admit, I never wanted to steal this cart from hyper? After all, you do not have such a personal use?
            So Russia did not have such "floating carts", but now they will !!!
            Quote: olp
            no one will give you now fight the Papuans

            This is an allegory. Talk about the tasks of the fleet, and not about the relationship between the countries. hi
            1. PLO
              PLO 20 May 2014 09: 12
              0
              your "cart" is a real BDK, and the "Syrian Express", if you haven't noticed, does not go to Syria with all available trains, but only in the number of one or two ships, but regularly, which directly indicates the absence of transfer tasks at a time a large number of equipment

              and a certain absence of this type does not make it useful and necessary in the current realities of the fleet.
              1. adept666
                adept666 20 May 2014 10: 40
                +2
                The cart is not mine, alas smile but if essentially, then:

                "Syrian express", if you have not noticed, does not go to Syria with all available trains, but only in the number of one or two ships


                Of course, it doesn’t go who in their right mind will send their entire composition of landing ships to distant distances, thereby substantially weakening their main area of ​​responsibility - the Black Sea?

                but regularly what directly indicates in the absence of tasks the transfer of a large amount of equipment at a time


                And it is precisely because it regularly follows that the tasks are big, but the possibilities are limited, and therefore they sail back and forth, wasting a precious resource of already not new ships.
                1. PLO
                  PLO 20 May 2014 16: 43
                  -3
                  what nafig area of ​​responsibility for landing ships?
                  these are auxiliary ships, not warships.


                  just because they go regularly it means that the tasks are small but regular.
                  even the Black Sea Fleet does not fully utilize its capabilities, not to mention the BDK of other fleets.
                  and about a precious resource this is a very funny joke. their price is negligible compared to the cost of the Mistrals, not to mention the fact that previously the BDK was repaired in Bulgaria for free for Soviet debts.
                  so come up with something smarter
                  1. adept666
                    adept666 20 May 2014 17: 49
                    +2
                    what nafig area of ​​responsibility for landing ships?
                    these are auxiliary ships, not warships.


                    Are you serious or just joking like that? Landing ship (DC) - a class of BATTLE ships intended for transportation (delivery, transportation) of military equipment and personnel, capable of landing them on an unequipped coast. Auxiliary ships are support ships: a floating base, a tanker, etc. And their area of ​​responsibility is determined by the class and purpose - this is the landing of the sea landing on the Black Sea coast at any point for the time allotted according to the standard and in accordance with the assigned combat mission. A combat mission may appear at a time when all the ships in a friendly formation will sail into the Mediterranean Sea. Are you taking equipment and people on rafts?

                    just because they go regularly it means that the tasks are small but regular. even the Black Sea Fleet does not fully utilize its capabilities, not to mention the BDK of other fleets.


                    This is your personal unfounded statement, which has no foundation. To drive regularly between 1000 and 1500 tons of cargo at the same time with two or three BDKs - is that small in your opinion? The amphibious assault ships of the Black Sea Fleet use their capabilities practically on an acceptable aisle. BDK of other fleets? Well, it’s generally sailed ... Can I ask which ones exactly? lol

                    and about a precious resource this is a very funny joke. their price is negligible compared to the cost of the Mistrals, not to mention the fact that previously the BDK was repaired in Bulgaria for free for Soviet debts.
                    so come up with something smarter


                    Yes, it’s you who live in some kind of parallel reality. These ships are already more than 20 years old (the youngest - 24), despite the fact that they are constantly being driven by the resources of their power plants, hulls are decreasing with each trip, replacement of these ships is not yet expected, and landing ships in the Black Sea are an urgent need. Each ship put on an unscheduled / planned / overhaul is a significant weakening of the capabilities of landing operations by the Black Sea Fleet, while still regularly sailing into the Mediterranean Sea will need to be the same. Well, if a repair lasting up to 2 years is nothing for you, then what can be even smarter here to come up with? When a person calls a warship auxiliary laughing
                    1. PLO
                      PLO 20 May 2014 20: 29
                      -2
                      Landing ship (DC) - a class of BATTLE ships intended for transportation (delivery, transportation) of military equipment and personnel, capable of landing them on an unequipped coast.

                      absolutely seriously
                      you can call the landing ships as fighting as you like, but they don’t directly affect the combat effectiveness of the fleet

                      And their area of ​​responsibility is determined by the class and purpose - this is the landing of the sea landing on the Black Sea coast at any point for the time allotted according to the standard and in accordance with the assigned combat mission.

                      the current landing capabilities of even the entire Navy are absolutely insignificant with the capabilities of the ground forces of the Russian Federation, and landing is possible only in the Air Force cover zone. any landing operation, for example, on the Turkish Black Sea coast, in principle, will not be successful.
                      so your perky reports about anywhere in the Black Sea coast look extremely funny

                      A combat mission may appear at a time when all the ships in a friendly formation will sail into the Mediterranean Sea. Are you taking equipment and people on rafts?

                      do not make me laugh
                      all possible conflicts will be primarily resolved by ground forces under the cover of aviation, the importance of the BDK in former and possible future conflicts is extremely small.


                      This is your personal unfounded statement, which has no foundation. To drive regularly between 1000 and 1500 tons of cargo at the same time with two or three BDKs - is that small in your opinion? The amphibious assault ships of the Black Sea Fleet use their capabilities practically on an acceptable aisle.

                      my personal allegation is much more logical and adequate than your allegation bully

                      BDK of other fleets? Well, it’s generally sailed ... Can I ask which ones exactly?

                      How interesting)
                      I bring to your attention that in addition to the Black Sea Fleet, Russia also has the Baltic, Northern and Pacific Fleets lol
                      and in these three fleets there are also 4 BDKs (there are 7 units at the Black Sea Fleet)
                      and of these 19 ships, only 2-3 ships go to Syria. the limit here doesn’t even smell close

                      Yes, it’s you who live in some kind of parallel reality

                      everything is true, I dare to assure you that even by your own logic, it is you who live in parallel reality)
                      only your reality is "wrong" and for some reason in your stupid reality the price of delivery with the help of old BDKs that are already available is more expensive than the price of a hypothetical delivery with the help of two UDCs for which you first need to pay 1.2 billion euros, and the motor resource of which is incomparably more valuable than the motor resource of the old BDK

                      the cost of repairing the BDK is a penny in comparison with the cost of the Mistral
                      landing ships in the Black Sea Fleet in the current situation is far from an urgent need
                      statement of the BDK for repairs minimally affects the combat readiness of the Black Sea Fleet
                      but it will be funny when a person who calls an auxiliary ship fighting tries to send him against real warships.
                      1. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 20 May 2014 22: 27
                        +2
                        Quote: olp
                        you can call the landing ships as fighting as you like, but they don’t directly affect the combat effectiveness of the fleet

                        Landing ships have always been warships. They have their own range of tasks like any other ship.
                        Quote: olp
                        the current landing capabilities of even the entire Navy are absolutely insignificant with the capabilities of the Russian ground forces

                        Airborne capabilities are always an order of magnitude less than the capabilities of all ground forces and always require the support of aviation. What's new in this?
                        Quote: olp
                        conflicts will be primarily resolved by the ground forces

                        Only where there is an opportunity to transfer these troops overland.
                        Quote: olp
                        the cost of repairing the BDK is a penny in comparison with the cost of the Mistral

                        In theory. In fact, the fact that the equipment they have been discontinued for a long time means terrible hemorrhoids from which those who will repair will damn all the white light. Money is important, but it does not determine everything.
                      2. PLO
                        PLO 21 May 2014 00: 00
                        -3
                        Landing ships have always been warships. They have their own range of tasks like any other ship.

                        it's verbiage
                        subtleties of terminology will not help the landing ship in battle

                        Airborne capabilities are always an order of magnitude less than the capabilities of all ground forces and always require the support of aviation. What's new in this?

                        the new one is that at the present time the Russian Navy is not able to provide landing operations far from our borders

                        Only where there is an opportunity to transfer these troops overland.

                        in all possible future conflicts, the Russian Federation will have the opportunity to transfer troops by land

                        In theory. In fact, the fact that the equipment they have been discontinued for a long time means terrible hemorrhoids from which those who will repair will damn all the white light. Money is important, but it does not determine everything

                        again far-fetched.
                        as soon as you find out what exactly terrible hemorrhoids are there, let me know.
                      3. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 21 May 2014 22: 55
                        +1
                        Quote: olp
                        it's verbiage

                        The cruiser has its own tasks, the submarines have their own, the UDC has their own.
                        Quote: olp
                        landing operation far from our borders

                        And far and not necessary - the Black Sea is now fun.
                        Quote: olp
                        Russia will be able to transfer troops by land

                        This is sometimes a little difficult.
                        Quote: olp
                        as soon as you know what exactly terrible hemorrhoids are there - tell

                        If certain equipment is delivered to the ship, then replacing it with other equipment requires a lot of coordination, and this provided that everything fits into the place of the former and the matter is limited to bureaucratic red tape. If not, then dances with a tambourine begin, since one change leads to another and changes begin in ship systems, control algorithms and room layout. Not to mention that understanding the documentation of 20-30 years ago is not an easy task in itself - a manual drawing and 10-15 times corrected is something with something.
                  2. adept666
                    adept666 21 May 2014 09: 16
                    +2
                    absolutely seriously
                    you can call the landing ships as fighting as you like, but they don’t directly affect the combat effectiveness of the fleet


                    What do you mean by the combat effectiveness of the fleet? Have you ever heard of the area of ​​responsibility and tasks of the fleet? Ensuring landing operations - this is one of its important tasks, which you need to be able to provide in the required amount.

                    the current landing capabilities of even the entire Navy are absolutely insignificant with the capabilities of the land ... so your perky reports about any point on the Black Sea coast look extremely funny


                    Do you have any idea about the objectives of the landing operations? Apparently very mediocre, otherwise they did not carry such nonsense.

                    do not make me laugh
                    all possible conflicts will be primarily resolved by land ...


                    To a person far from the idea that such a landing operation is useless, to explain something ...

                    How interesting)
                    I bring to your attention that in addition to the Black Sea Fleet ...
                    and in these three fleets there are also 4 BDKs (there are 7 units at the Black Sea Fleet)
                    ..it doesn't even smell close


                    Yes, what are you saying? Seriously? Already 4 units. M ... I dare to ask you what geography was your estimate? I suspect that everything was bad. Otherwise, you would understand the absurdity of using the BDK of other fleets of the Russian Federation. The use of the Pacific Fleet’s BDK would be especially beneficial. laughing Despite the fact that those ships have tasks performed as part of their fleets, no one canceled them either. yes Of course it takes 2-3 ships - this is half of the entire composition of the landing ships, taking into account those in service (not repaired). The remaining half is in reserve and provides the tasks of the Black Sea Fleet.

                    and for some reason, in your stupid reality, the price of delivery with the help of old DBKs that are already available is more expensive than the price of a hypothetical delivery with the help of two UDCs for which you first have to pay 1.2 billion euros, and whose motor resource is incomparably more valuable than the motor resource of old DBK


                    And where did I talk about the delivery price? You came up with it, I talked about a precious resource - these are two different things. For old ships, which so far have no replacement, but they are vital to the fleet already worn out. To develop a resource for half of the landing ships, which cannot be replaced, is it more correct for you than to start operating a new ship that can transport in one flight, what are three or four BDKs transporting? In general, the above example is a special case, the place where Mistral would be useful today. But it is far from the only possible one.

                    but it will be funny when a person who calls an auxiliary ship fighting tries to send him against real warships.


                    It's funny when a person does not know the classification of ships and tries to be clever, this is funny. Two people have already written to you the combat mission of the landing ships - landing. Each warship has its own purpose. The weapon of the BDK is a landing. It is not against other ships, but against ground forces (but this is one of the tasks of the fleet). Just like torpedoes of an anti-submarine ship are not against airplanes.
                  3. PLO
                    PLO 21 May 2014 10: 25
                    -2
                    What do you mean by the combat effectiveness of the fleet? Have you ever heard of the area of ​​responsibility and tasks of the fleet? Ensuring landing operations - this is one of its important tasks, which you need to be able to provide in the required amount.

                    I’m talking about the possibilities of providing amphibious operations.
                    the current composition of the Russian Navy is not able to provide any landing operation, so the number of landing ships does not affect the combat effectiveness of the fleet as a whole.


                    Do you have any idea about the objectives of the landing operations? Apparently very mediocre, otherwise they did not carry such nonsense.

                    ha) very convincing. I almost believed lol


                    Yes, what are you saying? Seriously? Already 4 units. M ...

                    it would be better if instead of asking me about my assessment of geography (4), you would have the courage to go to it yourself, at least sometimes.
                    perhaps in this case you would have had a little mind to get acquainted with the history of the "Syrian Express" campaigns. for example, how, in December last year, Project 775 BDK Alexander Shabalin of the Twice Red Banner Baltic Fleet left Novorossiysk towards Syria lol
                    apparently your religion does not allow you to accept the reality in which ships can be temporarily based on "non-native" bases.

                    however, I see a man of principles, but damn it, how in that case the Mistrals, which will be based in Vladivostok, can hypothetically help the "Syrian Express"?

                    To summarize: you have obvious problems with logic, I recommend that you re-attend primary school and not miss the geography.)


                    And where did I talk about the delivery price?

                    enough bustle) unconvincing.
                    restoration and repair of the BDK costs a penny.
                    so your ravings about some inevitable resource development look extremely funny. winked
                    if you wish these ships will go for a long time, the benefit of the BDK is not much


                    In general, the above example is a special case, the place where Mistral would be useful today. But it is far from the only possible one.

                    actually far the only one.
                    the current composition of the Russian Navy does not allow to realize the remaining capabilities of the UDC


                    It's funny when a person does not know the classification of ships and tries to be clever ...

                    funny when a person who, in principle, does not understand the topic of the question, tries to juggle with terms)
                    you can call the BDK at least a hundred times a warship, but its capabilities will not change at all. with the same success, you can demand recognition of minesweepers as warships with weapons against mines) request
                  4. adept666
                    adept666 21 May 2014 11: 10
                    +2
                    I’m talking about the possibility of providing amphibious operations. The current composition of the Russian Navy is not capable of providing any amphibious operation


                    So any?

                    Quote: olp
                    it would be better if instead of asking me about my assessment of geography (4), you would have the courage to go to it yourself, at least sometimes.


                    Everything is fine with her (5), and I don’t complain about the mind. The temporary basing of the ships of another fleet only confirms that they cannot cope on their own - they plug holes. And this applies not only to landing ships. There was Kaliningrad of the same project. The movement between the fleets is a normal phenomenon, why not actually use the ships that already go past Syria to their native waters in order to drop the cargo. But to specially drive the ship to Novorossiysk, so that later from there you can bring cargo when your own ships are available, while you say that you can easily cope with your tasks. What for? Explain work hard in terms of your correct logic laughing

                    however, I see a man of principles, but damn it, how in that case the Mistrals, which will be based in Vladivostok, can hypothetically help the "Syrian Express"?


                    You seem to have lost the thread of conversation, initially it all started with the following: IF THERE WERE BEEN CARRYING A SERVICE IN THE BLACK SEA, whatever hypothetical advantages would be from this. Moreover, the issue of basing one of the UDCs on the Black Sea was seriously discussed.

                    enough bustle) unconvincing.


                    Yes, it’s you all moving from side to side, attributing what you did not write. And you trample on the logic of people, although they contradict themselves, then your ships of other fleets do not participate in the Syrian Express, because there are enough ships of the Black Sea Fleet, then write yourself that there are ships of the Baltic Fleet. Something with your correct logic IMHO is wrong laughing

                    actually far the only one.
                    the current composition of the Russian Navy does not allow to realize the remaining capabilities of the UDC


                    It’s not for you to judge, the headquarters of the Russian Navy knows better where, how and why to realize the capabilities of these ships. The tasks of the fleet are not static; they change depending on the military-political situation in the world.

                    it is funny when a person who, in principle, does not understand the topic of the question, tries to juggle with terms) you can call the BDK a warship at least a hundred times, but its capabilities will not change at all.


                    Well, where am I to you) Of course, the electronic, artillery, anti-aircraft, missile armament of the same 775 project does not allow it to compete on equal terms with the project 1164 cruiser, but this does not make it a non-combat ship. And by the way, according to your "classification", the UDC of the Mistral type is also not a combat ship?
                  5. PLO
                    PLO 21 May 2014 11: 40
                    -1
                    So any?

                    any

                    The temporary basing of the ships of another fleet only confirms that they cannot cope on their own - they plug holes.

                    ahah)
                    what are you talking about the absurdity of using the BDK of other fleets.
                    quickly your arrogance in uniataz merged)

                    in any case, it does not mean anything.
                    all this perfectly shows that the BDK is used far from the limit.

                    You seem to have lost the thread of conversation, initially it all started with the following: IF THERE WERE BEEN CARRYING A SERVICE IN THE BLACK SEA, whatever hypothetical advantages would be from this. Moreover, the issue of basing one of the UDCs on the Black Sea was seriously discussed.

                    you do not seem to have found the thread of the conversation.
                    the conversation didn’t begin with you at all, so what you imagined there is of no interest to me.
                    the fact that the Mistrals will be based in Vladivostok is a settled issue, it’s another matter that, if desired, they can be driven to Sevastopol, but such a need will not arise.


                    Yes, it’s you all moving from side to side, attributing what you did not write. And you trample on the logic of people, although they contradict themselves, then your ships of other fleets do not participate in the Syrian Express, because there are enough ships of the Black Sea Fleet, then write yourself that there are ships of the Baltic Fleet. Something with your correct logic IMHO is not so laughing

                    again unconvincing)
                    after your flight with a whistle about the BDK of other fleets, your excuses look extremely funny)
                    I never said that the BDK of other fleets did not participate in the Syrian express, I said that the capabilities of the BDK are far from being used to the limit. so again you sat a little in a puddle)
                    read your words again, maybe finally you will understand what you wrote)


                    It’s not for you to judge, the headquarters of the Russian Navy knows better where, how and why to realize the capabilities of these ships. The tasks of the fleet are not static; they change depending on the military-political situation in the world.

                    not for you to judge who knows better)
                    In any case, I do not judge, because there are no such powers for me, but I express my opinion on what we are all doing on this forum)


                    Well, where am I to you) Of course, the electronic, artillery, anti-aircraft, missile armament of the same 775 project does not allow it to compete on equal terms with the project 1164 cruiser, but this does not make it a non-combat ship. And by the way, according to your "classification", the UDC of the Mistral type is also not a combat ship?

                    Hard case(
                    you can even call all ships in the Russian Navy warships this does not change the essence.
                    for me Mistral is definitely an auxiliary ship, because he is absolutely unable to protect himself, because It has neither air defense nor anti-aircraft defense, and is completely dependent on cover by warships.
                  6. adept666
                    adept666 21 May 2014 12: 43
                    +1
                    any


                    A great strategist who does not know what an airborne operation made is a conclusion.

                    ahah)
                    what are you talking about the absurdity of using the BDK of other fleets.


                    Not carried, but spoke. Now carefully read the correspondence and finally bind the following into your correct logic:

                    and of these 19 ships, only 2-3 ships go to Syria. the limit here doesn’t even smell close


                    Yes, what are you saying? Seriously? Already 4 units. M ... I dare to ask you what geography was your estimate? I suspect that everything was bad. Otherwise, you would understand the absurdity of using the BDK of other fleets of the Russian Federation.


                    CAREFULLY we read and try to find the words DO NOT USE in my post. And to drive the BDK of other fleets there (I’ll notice the dipped beam), where, in your opinion, 2-3 BDK would have been enough, even if there were already 7 in the Black Sea Fleet (such as the BDK that was worthless, except for carrying cargo and must serve in the Black Sea) - is this not absurd? Just do not write again about plums, etc. for if you do not see the context, these are your problems.

                    I never said that the BDK of other fleets did not participate in the Syrian express, I said that the capabilities of the BDK are far from being used to the limit.


                    I repeat once again: WHY? What are the BDKs of the Northern and Baltic Fleet driving there?

                    for me Mistral is definitely


                    Ah for you))) I thought we were about facts, not about castles in the air laughing And so it’s just a snap to the Syrian Express for 2014 (and even that is not complete):
                    02.01.14/XNUMX/XNUMX "George the Victorious" and "Yamal" - from the Mediterranean Sea.
                    ??. 01.14 “Kaliningrad” - from the Mediterranean Sea.
                    18.01.14/XNUMX/XNUMX "Azov" and "George the Victorious" - to the Mediterranean Sea.
                    27.01.14/XNUMX/XNUMX "Minsk" and "Kaliningrad" - to the Mediterranean Sea.
                    01.02.14/XNUMX/XNUMX "Azov" and "George the Victorious" - from the Mediterranean Sea.
                    10.02.14/XNUMX/XNUMX "Azov" and "George the Victorious" - to the Mediterranean Sea.
                    20.02.14/XNUMX/XNUMX "Saratov" and "Yamal" - to the Mediterranean Sea.
                    ??. 02.14 "George the Victorious" and "Olenegorsk miner" - from the Mediterranean Sea.
                    26.02.14/XNUMX/XNUMX "Minsk" and "Kaliningrad" - from the Mediterranean Sea.
                    04.03.14/XNUMX/XNUMX "Saratov" and "Yamal" - from the Mediterranean Sea.
                    23.03.14/XNUMX/XNUMX "Kaliningrad", "Minsk" and "Olenegorsk miner" - to the Mediterranean Sea.
                    03.04.14/XNUMX/XNUMX "Kaliningrad" and "Olenegorsk miner" - from the Mediterranean Sea.
                    ??. 04.14 "Minsk" - from the Mediterranean Sea.
                    10.04.14/XNUMX/XNUMX "Saratov" and "Yamal" - to the Mediterranean Sea.
                    16.04.14/XNUMX/XNUMX "George the Victorious", "Minsk" and "Novocherkassk" - to the Mediterranean Sea.
                    ??. 04.14 "Saratov" and "Yamal" - from the Mediterranean Sea.
                    29.04.14/XNUMX/XNUMX "George the Victorious" and "Novocherkassk" - from the Mediterranean Sea.
                    30.04.14/XNUMX/XNUMX "Saratov" and "Yamal" - to the Mediterranean Sea.
                    10.05.14/XNUMX/XNUMX "George the Victorious" and "Novocherkassk" - to the Mediterranean Sea.



                  7. PLO
                    PLO 21 May 2014 13: 24
                    -2
                    A great strategist who does not know what an airborne operation made is a conclusion.

                    how self-critical)

                    Not carried, but spoke. Now carefully read the correspondence and finally bind the following into your correct logic:

                    Why do you copy-paste your nonsense again?
                    he will not become less delusional from this)

                    I repeat once again: WHY? What are the BDKs of the Northern and Baltic Fleet driving there?
                    Oh, for you))) I thought we were about facts, and not about castles in the air laughing. And so it’s just a snap to the Syrian Express for 2014 (and even this is not complete):

                    castles in the air is your nonsense about the absurdity if you have already forgotten)

                    try to take a closer look and you will understand that in fact from the BDK Black Sea Fleet the couple is in the Mediterranean Sea. the second pair is preparing to change them at the base, the rest remain at the base.
                    the reason the BDK of other fleets are involved in order not to drive all the BFK of the Black Sea Fleet to the limit (so that you understand at the limit, this is when the ship is either under repair or on the go), and taking into account current events, the need to have free ships to transfer troops from Novorossiysk to Sevastopol obvious. and this despite the fact that a similar situation exists in fact only at the Black Sea Fleet.
                    if you look at the schedule of the BDK campaigns for an earlier period, you will see that the BDK of other fleets were used less often
                  8. adept666
                    adept666 21 May 2014 13: 52
                    +1
                    Why do you copy-paste your nonsense again?
                    he will not become less delusional from this)


                    This is nonsense only for a person who does not know how to think.

                    and taking into account current events, the need to have free ships for the transfer of troops from Novorossiysk to Sevastopol is obvious. and this despite the fact that a similar situation exists in fact only at the Black Sea Fleet.


                    Ah, here it is. Didn't you write:

                    just because they go regularly it means that the tasks are small but regular.
                    even the Black Sea Fleet does not fully utilize its capabilities, not to mention the BDK of other fleets.


                    What did I answer to this? This is not accidental:

                    Of course, it doesn’t go who in their right mind will send their entire composition of landing ships to distant distances, thereby substantially weakening their main area of ​​responsibility - the Black Sea?


                    So all the same, it was unexpectedly necessary to have landing ships of the Black Sea Fleet in reserve to fulfill their immediate tasks, through several posts. And suddenly it turned out that:

                    in all possible future conflicts, the Russian Federation will have the opportunity to transfer troops by land


                    Not really right? wink

                    But what about yours:

                    So any?
                    any


                    It turns out that they are capable of something wink

                    if you look at the schedule of campaigns of the BDK for an earlier period, you will see that the BDK of others


                    Less often, because the conflict also grew gradually, respectively, and the cargo flow increased.
                  9. Ptah
                    Ptah 21 May 2014 14: 21
                    +2
                    Stop it, guys. You have a different level of "communication directly with the fleet".
                    In "olp" it is close to "zero", but the potential to support the dispute itself for the sake of the dispute is very high.
                    I wanted to ask him about his direct relation to the fleet. Anyone, albeit commercial, river, fishing, or even small ...
                    I don’t want to ...
                    To you, "adept" (three sixes are very confusing and annoying) "Respect" for constructive dialogue and "unruly" discussion. Sorry, but I won’t read your further preparation ...
                    I will not answer any attempts to get me to the BAZAR from the side of the "olp" ... hi
                  10. adept666
                    adept666 21 May 2014 15: 12
                    +1
                    smile thanks, yes, I myself will not continue the discussion anymore, because I see no reason, the opponent began to cite my own, only processed ones, as arguments laughing
                  11. PLO
                    PLO 21 May 2014 19: 26
                    0
                    funny)
                    You obviously do not suffer from modesty, if you are firmly convinced that the whole debate was started in order to force you to enter into a discussion with me) lol
                2. PLO
                  PLO 21 May 2014 19: 52
                  0
                  This is nonsense only for a person who does not know how to think.

                  it’s you clearly talking to yourself, because at the beginning of the conversation, you obviously did not even know which BDKs went to Syria)

                  So all the same, it was unexpectedly necessary to have landing ships of the Black Sea Fleet in reserve to fulfill their immediate tasks, through several posts. And suddenly it turned out that:

                  these BDKs have already been in reserve for a long time, for this they absolutely did not give up suddenly to buy the Mistral.
                  and the current conflict only showed that even in this case there is an opportunity to build up the BDK grouping without any special problems, while not even getting close to the limit.

                  Not really right? wink

                  no, still quite)
                  I want to inform you that the Russian Federation Ukraine has an extended land border and it is there that at the given moment concentrated NE forces that really threaten Ukraine)
                  I'm afraid your legend about the top five in geography failed laughing

                  But what about yours:
                  Goes for something they are able to wink

                  again you are inattentively reading)
                  this is not even surprising)
                  troop transfers were carried out between their bases of the Russian Navy, and almost all branches of the Russian Federation took part in ensuring this operation.

                  Less often, because the conflict also grew gradually, respectively, and cargo flow
                  increased.

                  one more allegation
                  you don’t even know what kind of goods are being transported there, so how to relate them to the intensity of the conflict
                  the total number of ships that went to Syria for the most part, in principle, did not change

                  from all this information, only one thing can be understood, such volumes of cargo to force the BDK to go to Syria to the limit of their capabilities are not observed there, so your attempt to justify the purchase of the Mistrals is unsuccessful, which I actually stated at the very beginning)
  • xenod55
    xenod55 19 May 2014 15: 01
    0
    The Mistrals not only saved the French shipyards from bankruptcy, but also "helped" Serdyukov to postpone something on his pension. Mistral's price is 2 times overpriced. Kickbacks, kickbacks everywhere, and "vaunted Western democracy" is no exception.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 19 May 2014 19: 13
      +4
      Quote: xenod55
      Mistrals not only saved French shipyards from bankruptcy, but also

      but they also became a serious anchor for the French government in the matter of supporting the US sanctions against Russia. Jobs do not roll on the road during a crisis, and the popularity of politicians depends on the mentality of voters. So Mistral has said its word in Russia-France relations, too.
    2. Dart2027
      Dart2027 19 May 2014 21: 53
      +4
      Truth? And why on earth would the French build at cost?
      By the way, they had to completely redo the hull because we did not produce sheets of the required size, add an ice belt, remodel the insides for our helicopters and our weapons. The money spent for them is quite moderate.
  • saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 20 May 2014 00: 05
    +3
    Quote: Bongo
    The construction of vessels that are generally useless for our fleet, for which there is currently no basing infrastructure and escort ships, saved the Saint-Nazaire shipyard from bankruptcy.

    Previously, the paratroopers built us the Poles, the French are no worse.
  • saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 20 May 2014 00: 03
    0
    Quote: olp
    I sincerely hope that the United States will still kill Hollande and Mistarli will not give us

    lav: The four of us played Minecraft - me, Sul, Lena and Nadia
    lav: and we went to fight with mobs
    lav: everyone has already died, and Nagyka finished off all the mobs, collected our loot and ...
    lav: landed in lava
    lav: That's why hope dies last
    good
  • Mikhail m
    Mikhail m 19 May 2014 08: 47
    0
    For many, it will be joyful news of the termination of the mystical-serdyukovy contract. And if you take into account the forfeit, which can be sent to the development of its shipbuilding, then squatting can go for joys. Bravo, Obama! Crush the French to victory.
    1. tchoni
      tchoni 20 May 2014 17: 38
      0
      Guys, they will forgive the forfeit to us as we give them gas. So you can not roll a sponge on it.
  • VADEL
    VADEL 19 May 2014 09: 00
    +7
    Russian military will decide if they need two more Mistral

    And if you also say that maybe you will need about 6-7 Mistrals. Then the scribe will come to the "cardinal's guards", the brains will boil, the lid will rip off.
    1. schizophrenic
      schizophrenic 19 May 2014 09: 24
      +2
      Quote: VADEL
      cover will rip

      It will definitely be with such an order, although it is not necessary to Mistral, it may be possible to order something else.
      1. Morgan
        Morgan 19 May 2014 15: 08
        +2
        You need to order "heirs" 956pr. to intercept the AUG in the zone of operation of the base aviation + 1155 with a tint of "Orly Burke" for their escort abroad, covered by their aviation. The usefulness of the Mistrals is undeniable, but in a VERY long-term perspective.
        1. nvv
          nvv 19 May 2014 15: 25
          +3
          Why in the remote? Minstral ordered for green men. For PMCs
        2. The comment was deleted.
  • Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 19 May 2014 09: 17
    +14
    It is curious that they explained to us the purchase of these same "Mistrals" by the fact that we need to get acquainted with the modern NATO combat information and control system and the system for receiving amphibious boats in difficult weather conditions. It was said that even the NATO-Vskaya BIUS would be converted to our standards and this explains the increased cost of these ships. However, it has now become clear that we are being supplied with bare hulls with a civilian propulsion system - which can be bought without any problems on the regular "market", and the installation of a modern NATO-vskoy BIUS and a system for receiving amphibious bots WAS NOT INITIATED BY THE CONTRACT. That is, we were initially lied to. Thus, the purchase of ships that do not carry any new information, either in terms of design or in terms of combat use, and even at a price 2 times higher than the cost of a fully equipped ship for the French Navy, is quite a crime against the state. However ... we all know that the "purchase" of these ships, absolutely unnecessary for us, is a payment for the position of France, which allowed Russia to painlessly "settle" the situation "0808".
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 19 May 2014 09: 38
      +5
      However, it has now become clear that we are being supplied with bare hulls with a civilian propulsion system - which can be bought without any problems on the regular "market", and the installation of a modern NATO-vskoy BIUS and a system for receiving amphibious bots WERE NOT PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACT ORIGINALLY

      Where did you read that? Like BIUS will be delivered and integrated with our weapons and aircraft. The sailors are already preparing to study this ship - how will they do it on a bare ship? Trainers will not help here.
      1. ImPerts
        ImPerts 19 May 2014 09: 58
        +4
        According to the information of various media, the BIUS will be domestic, others write about SENIT - 9. I hope that the opportunity to delve into the combat systems of potential partners is agreed upon by the agreement)))
      2. Monster_Fat
        Monster_Fat 19 May 2014 11: 49
        +2
        Here I "subtracted":
        http://warfiles.ru/show-54434-vertoletonosec-sevastopol-osnastyat-rossiyskoy-sis

        temoy-upravleniya.html

        There, by the way, it is mentioned that no one was going to put Zenit-9 on all these ships initially.
        1. ImPerts
          ImPerts 20 May 2014 09: 01
          0
          USC: France does not refuse to equip Mistrals with BIUS Zenit-9

          http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20140430/1006070900.html
  • Wedmak
    Wedmak 19 May 2014 09: 33
    +6
    The situation with the ships turned out to be interesting. They seem to be what we need, but it seems like we can manage. But how the "seed of discord" is already working in full! Russia often built its ships at foreign shipyards, and paid well for such work, often even above market value. If the French hand over the ships, they will confirm that they are reliable partners not subject to momentary benefits. In general, everything goes to this. Therefore, they are playing for time in order to knock the ground out from under Obamych's feet. But if the contract is terminated ... The losses will be great, plus they will ruin their reputation in the world. And they will be left with two empty troughs (weapons will be installed in Russia), made to order. What to do with them in this case?
    1. adept666
      adept666 19 May 2014 14: 20
      +12
      It's just that we have already had a little from this contract - the experience of modular formation of a large corps. Few people pay attention to the fact that we dock two "pieces" of the ship, created at different shipyards, at the same time (which is a breakthrough for us! - one stern in displacement exceeds frigates of new projects smile) with the highest precision! Now the second stage is to learn how to saturate them as optimally as possible. Our specialists have already gone there, they will train there until the fall, and then these ships will not be sold to us - we will build according to our project, taking into account the fact that we’ll be very soulful at the great experience gained during the implementation of this project, and we’ll build a note for the French, who will return the advance and pay a penalty!
  • e_krendel
    e_krendel 19 May 2014 09: 48
    +3
    Run is impossible to refuse! A very difficult decision will have to be made by the French, and just a business, put one comma! wassat
  • Good cat
    Good cat 19 May 2014 09: 55
    +3
    France may refuse in one case, if the states go wild for everything, I don’t think that the stripes are so generous
  • alekc73
    alekc73 19 May 2014 10: 05
    +2
    The way out for us: order 6-8 ships. The thirst for money will outweigh everything. Choke on saliva.
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 19 May 2014 10: 21
      +5
      Quote: alekc73
      Exit for us: order 6-8 ships.

      Well, yes, and invest money that could go towards the development of our own shipbuilding industry in the country, which introduces sanctions against us. Moreover, our sailors still do not know how to use these vessels.
  • Balamyt
    Balamyt 19 May 2014 10: 36
    -1
    But this has already been discussed somewhere. Everyone agreed that the purchase of the Mistral is one of Serdyukov’s most disastrous projects. There are continuous problems wherever you look, starting with fuel that is not produced in Russia, ending with extremely complex and expensive maintenance.
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 19 May 2014 21: 56
      0
      We have this fuel. And "all" did not agree on anything.
  • Dragon-y
    Dragon-y 19 May 2014 10: 55
    +2
    "Loot triumphs over evil! .."
  • Russ69
    Russ69 19 May 2014 11: 01
    +7
    Latest photos of "Vladivostok" ...




    1. corsairs2
      corsairs2 19 May 2014 13: 04
      -12%
      full hat negative
      1. Ptah
        Ptah 19 May 2014 13: 21
        +11
        Andrew. The "hat" is between your legs. Stick out the elastic band from the underpants - make sure ... And in the pictures there is a SHIP OF THE RUSSIAN Navy. Whether you like it or not.
        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 19 May 2014 13: 23
          +4
          Quote: Ptah
          Protrude the elastic from the underwear - make sure ..

          And if he .... not at all?
          1. Ptah
            Ptah 19 May 2014 13: 49
            +6
            Are you shoooo, Sash? Greetings! Is it really possible !? Although, who knows ... what
            1. Alexander Romanov
              Alexander Romanov 19 May 2014 14: 07
              +7
              Quote: Ptah
              ! Is it really possible !?

              Hi Vadim! Look, you pull out the elastic bands so that sobering up in the morning going into the bathroom you will see HER (HIS), in short, there IT will lie in the rose petals in your bathroom wassat And remembering a happy night .......... looking at your "beloved" you will quietly slide down the wall laughing
            2. Morgan
              Morgan 19 May 2014 15: 21
              +3
              Perhaps, perhaps ... Bearded women are a respectable gayropic tradition. We must respect the mentality of theirs .... BUT ONE HECTARA I DO NOT SAT WITH THEM FOR THEY FORGOTTEN WHEN THE MAN W & PA NATURAL DESIGNED negative am angry stop negative
    2. kirpich
      kirpich 19 May 2014 14: 15
      -1
      Something I do not see the flag of belonging sad
      1. Alexander Romanov
        Alexander Romanov 19 May 2014 14: 22
        +1
        Quote: kirpich
        Something I do not see the flag of belonging

        Whose flag, Conchita or Ptah, so Ptah has a weather vane, not a flag laughing
        1. Ptah
          Ptah 19 May 2014 14: 59
          +1
          Guyuyuyuys, Sash. "Ptah" has a jack. Well, I can hang out a pennant sometimes.
          And why end (why with a capital letter, by the way?) A flag? This one / deleted by the Almighty / no flag, no homeland, no gender. One "dream" is to hang out a sanitary napkin ...
          1. Alexander Romanov
            Alexander Romanov 19 May 2014 17: 45
            +2
            Quote: Ptah
            (why capitalized, by the way?

            Well, you see that she swims in the bath and does not sink. IT does not sink, therefore, with a capital G (K). And in general, that IT laughing does in your bath belay
      2. Ptah
        Ptah 19 May 2014 14: 23
        +1
        Not accepted into the fleet. Sea trials.
        1. kirpich
          kirpich 19 May 2014 14: 55
          +1
          A ship, a ship going out to sea, MUST carry an affiliation flag even for sea trials!
          1. Ptah
            Ptah 19 May 2014 15: 12
            0
            In the Russian Federation, the right to fly under the State flag of the Russian Federation is obtained by vessels owned by the Russian Federation, constituent entities of the Russian Federation, Russian organizations, and so on. citizens of the Russian Federation. The ship acquires the right to fly under the flag of the Russian Federation from the moment of its entry in the State Ship Register in one of the maritime military, trading or fishing ports or from the moment of registration in the ship books of sea fishing ports, sports organizations or local administrations. The right to fly under the flag of the Russian Federation is certified by ship patents or ship ticket. When a seagoing vessel is acquired abroad, it gains the right to sail under the flag of the Russian Federation from the moment the Consul of the Russian Federation issues the certificate and until it is entered into the State Ship Register or registered in the ship's book.


            Also -
            www.vexillographia.ru/etiket.htm
            1. kirpich
              kirpich 19 May 2014 20: 22
              +1
              Maladets tibe. Did I understand correctly that the Vladivostok helicopter carrier went on sea trials without a flag?
              1. Ptah
                Ptah 20 May 2014 03: 05
                0
                Quote: kirpich
                Did I understand correctly that the Vladivostok helicopter carrier went on sea trials without a flag?

                I was not there, unfortunately. Otherwise, I would detail it. In the meantime, everything is at the level of assumptions. If you came out, perhaps a number of conditions set forth by the post above were not met ... request hi
                1. kirpich
                  kirpich 20 May 2014 14: 58
                  0
                  Any boat departing from the berth MUST carry an affiliation flag. These are not my troubles, these are the requirements for sailing ships at sea.
                  A flagless vessel is considered pirated and must be destroyed.
                  Who doubts Lloyd's register yes
    3. Wedmak
      Wedmak 19 May 2014 15: 03
      +1
      All the same, the question torments me - why did they "cut off" the nose? There would be a great hangar for a couple of turntables. Or some supplies.
      1. Ptah
        Ptah 19 May 2014 15: 22
        0
        Quote: Wedmak
        Why was the nose "cut down"?

        Tank. The tank was "cut down", thereby disfiguring its appearance.
        I have only one thought in this regard - the possibility of installing a ramp when mooring to the pier "nose".

        Here "Juan Carlos", in this regard, is beautiful and organic.
        And from such a deck you can take off using a catapult. tongue
        1. adept666
          adept666 20 May 2014 08: 33
          -1
          Quote: Ptah
          I have only one thought in this regard - the possibility of installing a ramp when mooring to the pier "nose".


          Something is doubtful)) Wow ramp, there the height of more than 20 meters will only + gentle slope smile Yes, and the equipment to pull out on the deck is another task laughing He seems to be unloading equipment from the board through the ramp (and if on the unprepared coast, then by landing boats.):



  • cerbuk6155
    cerbuk6155 19 May 2014 11: 08
    +1
    Of course Mistral is rubbish and how much its maintenance and operation will cost is unknown. But it is no longer possible to get involved in the situation with the purchase of weapons in the West. Everyone who will be involved in this should be stripped naked and together with their naked families, put on planes and expelled from the country naked. May the West accept them. good
  • Stasi
    Stasi 19 May 2014 11: 49
    0
    There is only one question: is it really possible that our shipbuilding industry cannot produce such warships for our fleet, and better than those of French production? How long can you place orders with foreign shipyards, while depriving our shipyards of work? About all electronic stuffing of BIUS. NATO will never allow a modern BIUS to be present on Mistrals, because such a system is found on many NATO warships and opening it means actually giving the enemy, that is, we have the opportunity to influence NATO ships. In the best case, the French will supply an outdated BIUS. I would very much like to believe that the decision made to produce our own weapons on our territory from its components and element base will not remain a paper project, but will actually be implemented. I hope Putin will be able to translate this plan into reality.
    1. jayich
      jayich 19 May 2014 13: 26
      +4
      She already produced them, etc. 1143. As an example, Admiral Gorshkov was remade into Wikimadril. And these wonderful ships were called TARK.
      1. common man
        common man 19 May 2014 14: 10
        +2
        And they did them in Nikolaev, i.e. in Ukraine.
    2. Serg 122
      Serg 122 19 May 2014 13: 55
      +1
      Only one question: can our shipbuilding industry really not
      Can! French in these two ships - only half (without filling), the rest - made in Russia
    3. Billy Bones
      Billy Bones 19 May 2014 15: 32
      +1
      Of course, our industry can make such ships, the question is in what time frame. Do you remember how long you built "Yaroslav the Wise" or "Admiral Grigorovich"? what
    4. Ptah
      Ptah 19 May 2014 15: 34
      +1
      Quote: Stasi
      About all electronic stuffing of BIUS. NATO will never allow a modern BIUS to be present on Mistrals, because such a system is found on many NATO warships and opening it means actually giving the enemy, that is, we have the opportunity to influence NATO ships. In the best case, the French will supply an outdated BIUS.

      In one you are right, but in another you do not own information.
      Rosoboronpostavka has published two tenders for the supply of elements of products that form the system of combat control and self-defense, cable products for the landing helicopter dock ship Sevastopol under construction

      Under the terms of the first auction, the means of shipborne equipment for radar identification 67Р for the total amount of 87,5 million rubles will be purchased:
      - product 6732P-32 - 2 kit (according to the attached specifications - small-sized radar interrogator of high power);
      - Product 6702P-1 - 1 kit (small-sized high-power radar transponder);
      - Product 6703P-3 (reserve small-sized radar transponder of high power);
      - KPA-67P - 1 kit.
      According to the documentation of the second auction for 24 million rubles. First-line combat information and control system "Sigma-E" assets are acquired.
      The delivery time of goods for both tenders is determined no later than July 31 2014


      Here are the links to the order -
      zakupki.gov.ru/epz/order/notice/ea44/view/common-info.html?regNumber=01731000008
      14000774


      zakupki.gov.ru/epz/order/notice/ea44/view/common-info.html?regNumber=01731000008
      14000775
      1. Stasi
        Stasi 20 May 2014 11: 58
        +1
        Thanks for the information, it was very interesting to know about our BIUS. I would like to hope that it is in no way inferior to foreign counterparts.
  • Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 19 May 2014 11: 58
    -4
    As reported on thematic forums, our type "representatives" "chose" the helicopter carrier according to the criterion of comfort for the senior command staff, such as a pleasure yacht. The French had the finest furnishings for their bosses. The Spanish version was much worse in this regard, not to mention the almost "Spartan" conditions of the Korean version.
    1. Ptah
      Ptah 19 May 2014 13: 31
      +3
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      The Spanish version was much worse in this regard.

      Maybe. If only "for comfort" ...
      In many respects, the ability to perform more extensive combat missions and performance characteristics "Huang" surpasses "Menstrual". Starting from the presence of a take-off deck for light aircraft and ending with its price (one and a half times lower than that of the guardian), but there is just costs FULL Murikos navigation equipment and weapons.
      Adapting the design to Russian systems would dramatically increase the cost of the project and other dubious prospects.
      Well, amers sharply objected ...
      Options Korean or Australian shallows already at the first stage of decision-making on the acquisition of UDC.
      1. Billy Bones
        Billy Bones 19 May 2014 15: 34
        +2
        The problem is that neither the Spaniards have their "Juan". for some reason the Dutch did not want to sell their "Amsterdam". And without a stamp, we write on a simple one.
        1. Ptah
          Ptah 19 May 2014 15: 50
          +1
          In addition to the French, the Dutch were invited to take part in the international tender for the construction of helicopter carriers for the Russian Navy, representing the UDC Jan de Witt and the Spanish company Navantia with their landing helicopter carrier Juan Carlos I, both Koreans and Australians. Also, for the sake of formality, Admiralty Shipyards, Kaliningrad Yantar and Far Eastern Zvezda took part in the tender - alas, Russian enterprises had no chance from the very beginning, due to the lack of their own projects.
          Spanishi were ready to build for Russia. They also have a crisis, and the shipyards were empty at that time.
          But then the "political moment" played a role. In exchange for a deal, "sarkozli" was ready to recognize the republics of South Ossetia, Abkhazia.
          On the Spaniard, almost all the weapons of the pro-va America. Relevant findings ...

          topwar.ru/19794-glavnyy-konkurent-mistralya.html
  • Hal_valera
    Hal_valera 19 May 2014 12: 07
    +2
    Our shipbuilding industry cannot produce such ships at least now, so that it could build such ships it needs to undergo modernization, and this is at least 10 years.
    1. jayich
      jayich 19 May 2014 13: 28
      +5
      Yes, boxes are not a problem, and this is how the stern parts are made in our Baltic factory. But the GEM, well, in principle, is also not a problem.
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 19 May 2014 12: 40
    +6
    An interesting situation. I think if France had not had such millstones around its neck, Russia would now have a completely different conversation about gas supplies and about Ukraine. We can assume that these ships have already recaptured their money in the fight against the West, one way or another, even at the stage of construction. I think, whatever the outcome of the case, you need to lay a frigate with the name "Mistral" and immediately give it the rank of guards.)
  • corsairs2
    corsairs2 19 May 2014 13: 08
    -3
    [media = http: // http: //www.samara.russian-club.net/news_show_8849.html wow, not that *****
  • kirpich
    kirpich 19 May 2014 13: 54
    -3
    Quote: Ptah
    And also think about what, for example, it would be if a year ago not "three tanks" were brought to Syria, but 30 were immediately brought.


    Indeed, that we do not think request Well, a ship with "three tanks" on board will run into a mine, go to the bottom. Or 30 (thirty) tanks will go to the bottom at once. what
    1. Ptah
      Ptah 19 May 2014 14: 43
      +4
      Quote: kirpich
      Well, a ship with "three tanks" on board will run into a mine, go to the bottom. Or 30 (thirty) tanks will go to the bottom at once.

      Afraid of mines - not to leave the pier at all? "We will be more whole" ...
      Fearing mines and "large one-time losses" - carry everything in suitcases and collect on the spot.
      The only people in Syria who raided RUSSIAN weapons were Israel. So they have to put mines? Maybe we ask them?

      What are we talking about? I gave a particular example - Syria. On your part, the possibility of hypothetical and potential losses during the database or transitions ...
      An argument for the argument itself? No. hi
    2. Stas57
      Stas57 19 May 2014 15: 13
      +2
      Indeed, we do not think this request Well, a ship with "three tanks" on board will run into a mine, go to the bottom. Or 30 (thirty) tanks will go to the bottom at once.

      very smart, valuable, balanced, comment.
      somewhere 5 or 6 high school class
      1. kirpich
        kirpich 19 May 2014 20: 38
        -1
        request Justify. But first read the thread
  • sxn278619
    sxn278619 19 May 2014 14: 16
    +3
    This contract was barter. Russia built a launch pad at the French spaceport for the Union, and France 2 ships.
    Beneficial or not?
    Now the French will be forced to buy Unions.
    1. kirpich
      kirpich 19 May 2014 14: 23
      +1
      better let them buy "Protons" wink
  • siberalt
    siberalt 19 May 2014 14: 38
    +2
    And what the "mistrals" are, so a special case in business, as well as sanctions. laughing
  • Capitalist
    Capitalist 19 May 2014 14: 56
    +9
    Quote: Ptah
    Maybe. If only "for comfort" ...
    In many respects, the ability to perform more extensive combat missions and performance characteristics "Huang" surpasses "Menstrual". Starting from the presence of a take-off deck for light aircraft and ending with its price (one and a half times lower than that of the guardian), but there is a FULLY Murikosov navigation equipment and weapons.
    Adapting the design to Russian systems would dramatically increase the cost of the project and other dubious prospects.
    Well, amers sharply objected ...
    Options Korean or Australian shallows already at the first stage of decision-making on the acquisition of UDC.


    Stop lying then .. What "broader capabilities" does Juan Carlos surpass the Mistral in? Juan Carlos is just a big barge. In terms of modularity and changes in the internal layout, it is inferior to Mistral. And what kind of light aircraft are you talking about? An-2 perhaps we could launch from it? ) We do not have and do not expect aircraft with short and vertical takeoffs. Without them, there is no point in such a trough. Both Spain and Australia built them for the F-35 program.

    Regarding the price - Mistrals cost 150 million euros more apiece than they cost for Carlos. Who told you that Spain would offer them to us at the same price ??? Before negotiating the price, the deal did not reach them, so one can only guess how the price tag could be voiced.

    While with Zenit Mistral is still really incomprehensible, then the I-Mast technologies and the very interesting 3-D Thales MRR-3D-NG radar that were very interested in our technology were definitely transferred to us.

    Carlos has nothing of the kind .. he has two simple radars, a marine navigation and a near radius radar for navigating helicopters


    And this ... where did you find "modern Murikov weapons" at Carlos? He has 4 machine guns and 4 20 mm cannons .. to drive seagulls apparently so that they don't shit on the deck wassat
    1. Ptah
      Ptah 20 May 2014 06: 26
      -2
      Quote: Capitalist
      In what way does Juan Carlos surpass the Mistral in "broader capabilities"? Juan Carlos is just a big barge. In terms of modularity and changes in the internal layout, it is inferior to Mistral. And what kind of light aircraft are you talking about? An-2 perhaps we could launch from it?

      Any ship is the essence of the BARGE, from a concrete landing stage to the Meteor hovercraft, differing "only" contours and destination.
      An-2 can also be launched. But only once, if he has enough takeoff. At Juan it is 203,2m by 32m, adapted for full-fledged flight support of Harrier II and F-35B aircraft and equipped with a bow springboard.
      MiG-29K with a declared take-off run of 110-195 m (with a springboard), and for the Su-33 - 105 m (also with a springboard), which is quite acceptable for the dimensions of the deck. Here at least I meant them, calling them "light" aircraft. Unlike "heavy" front-line bombers and attack aircraft.
      They can serve as at least a partial cover from the air.
      Quote: Capitalist
      one can only guess how the price tag could be voiced.

      You can guess, but Nov didn’t and just assumed. After all, the deal did not come true anyway. Nobody can say exactly about the price of the Mistral. It will change. And more than once ... IMHO.
      Quote: Capitalist
      Carlos has nothing of the kind .. he has two simple radars, a marine navigation and a near radius radar for navigating helicopters

      All of this can be classified as "change, adaptation and modernization". It will not have a strong influence on the general performance characteristics.
      Quote: Capitalist
      And this ... where did you find "modern Murikov weapons" at Carlos?

      Where did you find that I pointed to "MODERN". What prevents to put domestic instead of it? With appropriate modifications for the design. Or a design for weapons. In general, I do not consider the strength of all UDCs, their ability to repel attacks.

      And finally. If you want, you can blame the authors of the article from which I will take this quote
      Thus, "Juan Carlos I" in many respects surpasses the Mistral built by DCNS (a former partner of Navantia) for the French Navy. It was with this project that the Spaniards won the Australian tender for the construction of two Canberra-type UDCs.


      shipwiki.ru/voennye_korabli_2/desantnye_suda_2/huan_karlos_i.html

      Threat. Stop lying to everyone that I'm lying. We are not in court or at a reception with a psychoanalyst. Have something to say on the case - share. No - write your own articles in which you refute existing ones. It will be interesting to read. hi
    2. Andrey77
      Andrey77 21 May 2014 13: 18
      0
      While with Zenit Mistral is still really incomprehensible, then the I-Mast technologies and the very interesting 3-D Thales MRR-3D-NG radar that were very interested in our technology were definitely transferred to us.
      --
      Zenith will be transferred in any case. We stupidly will not accept the ship.
  • rudolff
    rudolff 19 May 2014 15: 09
    +5
    Capitalist, I’ll add. Since the French are the customer in relation to the Baltic Shipyard, they also pay for all work on the construction of 90 meter feed units. In other words, a significant part of the Mistral contract value is returned to Russia.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 19 May 2014 17: 21
      +5
      Quote: rudolff
      In other words, a significant part of the contract value of Mistral is returned to Russia.

      Rudolph, hello! Most importantly, the experience of large-tonnage modular shipbuilding is returning to Russia. Indeed, under the order, the shipbuilding base at the Baltic Shipyard was modernized.
      Severodvinsk freed up for the construction of boats. Delivery times are shortest. The weapons and basic systems are ours, but places for them are already reserved, apparently it will take another year of completion to get a combat unit. But this is 3 of the year, and not 5 as we had at our best time.
      So anyway, there is a reason for this.
  • marder4
    marder4 19 May 2014 16: 01
    +4
    once saw an interview with the president of France. he said quite clearly that the contract would be fulfilled ...
  • Capitalist
    Capitalist 19 May 2014 16: 36
    +4
    Well, that means we can be glad for our fleet ... for the first time in 16 years since the launch of the Petit, it will receive new large surface ships.

    maybe if we could make the project completely "for ourselves" they would be better ... or maybe not - in order to design our very, very UDC, it would be nice to at least get experience of operating such ships for a start. We have never had ships of this class, either in Russia or in the USSR (Rogov is a completely different ship in terms of ideology and tasks)


    no matter what the spiteful critics say, the ships are good. for peacetime and local wars - so in general, probably the perfect option. and we hope not going to the third world? )
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 21 May 2014 13: 12
      0
      I would say that if there is a third world war, they will definitely not be superfluous. Again - repainted in a hospital ship - 200 kilos of white paint. "Vladivostok" has not yet been built, but has already accepted the first battle with the Americans.
  • rudolff
    rudolff 19 May 2014 18: 16
    +4
    Boa, I welcome you! That's right, new ship building technologies will definitely not be redundant. Honestly, I was even surprised that Baltic managed such a serious order in such a time and with such quality. We can, however! But the matter is not only in construction technologies. We get not just new ships, but a new class of ships that we never had.
    1. kirpich
      kirpich 19 May 2014 22: 18
      0
      And is such a class of shipbuilders needed?
      1. Andrey77
        Andrey77 21 May 2014 12: 33
        0
        For America, no; for China, no. For us, yes. This is a cheap version of an aircraft carrier. He is needed so that Russia remains in the top of the world Navy. When they build it - there will be a question about creating a group - and these are new destroyers and BOD. Maybe in the Crimea shipbuilding will have to be revived - and these are jobs. Purely from a military point of view, its purpose is unclear so far, except for the squadron control ship, but only that.
        1. kirpich
          kirpich 22 May 2014 18: 01
          0
          Andrei, but now I got it said aptly? bully
    2. Andrey77
      Andrey77 21 May 2014 12: 39
      0
      We can, however!
      -
      Can not. but mogEm. (c) "Only old men go to battle"
  • corsairs2
    corsairs2 20 May 2014 11: 32
    0
    [quote = corsairs2] [media = http: // http: //www.samara.russian-club.net/news_show_8849

    .html wow, not *****
    I was expecting such a reaction from imbitsilov I’ll just get from you all who are in the city laughing brains are not boiling yet?
  • Capitalist
    Capitalist 21 May 2014 14: 14
    0
    Quote: Ptah
    An-2 can also be launched. But only once, if he has enough takeoff. At Juan it is 203,2m by 32m, adapted for full-fledged flight support of Harrier II and F-35B aircraft and equipped with a bow springboard.
    MiG-29K with a declared take-off run of 110-195 m (with a springboard), and for the Su-33 - 105 m (also with a springboard), which is quite acceptable for the dimensions of the deck. Here at least I meant them, calling them "light" aircraft. Unlike "heavy" front-line bombers and attack aircraft.
    They can serve as at least a partial cover from the air.

    laughing
    you do not know what you are talking about)

    1) Carlos is not suitable for working with conventional aircraft since it does not have a corner deck. he will NOT be able to simultaneously launch and receive conventional aircraft .. VTOLs yes, but ordinary no. this is a sentence
    2) the take-off length of the MIG-29K at Kuznetsovo with a full combat load of 180 m.
    3) now compare the dimensions of the springboard on Kuznetsovo (14 degrees and more than 50 m long) and Carlos (12 degrees and almost half as long) and you will understand that from Carlos Mig-29 will never take off .. at best, only half empty
    4) there are no finishers on Carlos .. and there is nowhere to put them particularly.
    1. kirpich
      kirpich 22 May 2014 20: 45
      0
      Ah, we don’t think Carlos is an aircraft carrier at all. tongue
  • sovety
    sovety 21 May 2014 22: 00
    0
    interesting and our whole alignment knew in advance? laughing