Military Review

Russian universal landing ships - who wins?

77
Russian universal landing ships - who wins?

Less than two months before the expected date of transfer of the Vladivostok universal landing craft (UDC), the first of two UDCs being built for the Russian fleet in Saint-Nazaire, Paris turned its position 180 degrees. The Champs Elysees issued a statement stating the following: “President Hollande notes that despite the prospects for a ceasefire (in Ukraine), which requires confirmation and implementation, the conditions under which France permits the delivery of the first UDC have not yet been created” . The statement was issued following a meeting of the Security Council, chaired by the President of the country.

Growing pressure from the allies of France

Last week, Francois Hollande had no reason to impede the delivery of Vladivostok to Russia, doubts were expressed only about the same type of ship Sevastopol, whose program is scheduled for 2015. Meanwhile, diplomatic pressure on Paris has greatly increased. For several months, the United States, the United Kingdom, the countries of Eastern Europe, and Germany that recently joined them expressed their displeasure, if not the opposition, to the transfer of Russia to the UDC. Despite the annexation of Crimea by Russia in March, so far France has resisted criticism, hoping that the fighting in Ukraine will end, and diplomatic reconciliation, which will follow, will make it possible to fulfill the contract. But the situation, on the contrary, has become even worse, at the moment the West is accusing Russia of directly intervening on the side of the Ukrainian separatists in order to divide the country into parts. For the Elysée Palace, a symbolic line was passed: “The recent actions of Russia in the east of Ukraine contradict the basic European concepts of security,” the French president told 3 on September.

Getting out of isolation on the eve of the NATO summit

The statement appeared exactly before the start of the NATO summit in the UK. The heads of 28 states and governments from alliance member countries will gather in Newport. And Ukraine will be the main topic for discussion. Although Europe is considering a new package of sanctions against Russia, the plan for overcoming the crisis, proposed by Vladimir Putin, will also be studied. But on the agenda is the question of revising the strategy of NATO, to give the organization the necessary tools to solve the most important task: ensuring security in Europe. That is why the issue of creating a NATO rapid reaction force will be on the agenda. A program for creating a more mobile association of several thousand people must be approved, capable of being deployed anywhere in the world within 48 hours. Therefore, weapons will be deployed in Eastern Europe. Other sensitive issues should also be considered: Ukraine’s entry into NATO and the creation of a missile defense system to protect Europe from ballistic missiles.

One of the main goals of the summit is to reassure some countries. First of all, the Baltic states and Poland. It is worth recalling that Poland, which is adjacent to Ukraine, is just a few hundred kilometers from the combat zones. For members of the EU and NATO, who have spent several decades under the Soviet yoke, Russia still represents a danger. Just as after the conflict in Georgia six years ago, many view the events in Ukraine as evidence of Moscow’s expansionist aspirations.

In response from the Europeans and Americans to these fears, reliance is placed on two institutions: the EU in terms of diplomacy and economic sanctions, and NATO in the field of collective security. Before arriving in Newport, Barack Obama visited Tallinn the day before. The American president held talks with his Baltic counterparts and reaffirmed his continued support and guarantees given by NATO with regard to their protection and territorial integrity. Therefore, in connection with Russia, the White House recalled that in the event of aggression, NATO members are interconnected. Not only in the case of a direct military invasion, but also that is less known and more likely if one of the countries of the alliance becomes an object of destabilization.

Looking for the trust of Eastern European countries

In this very tense context, the position that prevailed in France regarding the UDC is no longer suitable. Criticized and isolated within its allies, Paris faced deep disagreements even in Europe; Eastern European countries do not understand its position, which is often regarded as a departure from political considerations in favor of economic factors. It was urgent to give an answer. Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian paid a visit to Poland on the occasion of the opening of the MSPO Naval Salon, which opened in early September. His participation was to show that trust on the part of Warsaw is a priority for France, both from an economic and political point of view. Since the French military-industrial complex is counting on weapons contracts from this country.

Thus, the issue with the Russian UDC may have unpleasant consequences for the French in terms of obtaining these contracts. That’s why Paris put up heavy artillery, offering Poland, if she opted for Scorpene submarines, presented by DCNS, to deliver the most advanced model cruise missiles along with the boats. This missile, which is seen as a strategic weapon and a deterrent, has never been exported. Thus, the Polish Navy offers a first-class variant in terms of the possibility of striking land targets from a long distance. What bothers Russia, which with great irritation will observe the appearance of such weapons in the immediate vicinity of its borders.

France sets out its terms

But this proposal, which equally distinguishes the geopolitical and commercial component, is not sufficient, even despite the double message that it carries to Poland and Russia, in order to sweeten the pill on the UDC issue. On the eve of the NATO summit, under the pressure of his allies, President Hollande had to publicly speak about the possibility of revising the contract with Russia signed in 2011 for the first time. Every word in the statement of the Elysian Palace was carefully verified. Unlike what was reported in most media outlets, Francois Hollande did not decide to suspend the transfer of "Vladivostok". The Foreign Minister in the evening of the same day gave a written explanation: “The President wanted to say the following: are there necessary conditions for this today? No, but we hope that they may arise later. ” And in addition, Laurent Fabius voiced the conditions under which the execution of the contract is possible: “a cease-fire must be reached, at least preliminary, then it should be applied, and in addition requires a political agreement to prevent clashes between Russia and Ukraine”

That is, France managed to find a less risky formula. She reserves the right to put the UDC in the event that these well-known conditions are achieved, while making a concession to her partners by increasing the pressure on Russia. Thus calming down critics and destroying the isolation in which France ended up in Europe and NATO. The reaction of the Allies was not long in coming - the United States welcomed the “sensible decision”, and Latvia noted that it was “a good decision at the right time.”

Returning to the Cold War?

Today it remains only to observe how this will end. The epilogue of this very confusing stories will depend on many factors that are not at the mercy of anyone today. The evolution of the situation in Ukraine will be fundamental, but the decisions that will be made on the basis of the NATO summit in Newport and their implementation should also be taken into account. It should not be ruled out that this summit will become a really turning point, as well as a sign (according to some diplomats) that the Cold War between the West and the East has returned. It is not possible to assess the consequences, especially in the field of economics. The NATO bloc created in 1949 to restrain Soviet penetration into Central Europe, according to some, may return to the days of its youth and make those who claim its obsolescence fall silent. It must be recognized that in the face of the inability of the European Union to obtain a means of collective protection of sufficient power, NATO today remains the only shield that is trustworthy. It will be very interesting to study the statements that will be made during the summit in order to understand what the next steps will be.

On the contrary, the reaction of the Russians will also be decisive, Vladimir Putin is pursuing a very tough policy. Russia is confident in its right to expect that Ukraine is in the sphere of its direct influence, and the attempts of the EU and NATO to attract it to the Western bloc represent actual aggression. Thus, if, after the collapse of the USSR, Russia was too weak to withstand the “transition” to the West of its former allies, today it considers Ukraine as the last bastion. And maybe, quite possibly, somewhere in the subconscious there is a motive of revenge on the West, whose actions in Eastern Europe after 1989 have often been viewed as humiliation. It also has to somehow be decided today by Europe, the United States and NATO.

Although Moscow has already made it clear that, following the announcement of the launch of the project for the reorganization of NATO’s rapid reaction forces, Russia will follow the same path, the evolution of the French position on the UDC will certainly have diplomatic consequences. It can be assumed that the Kremlin’s statement by the Elysée Palace is regarded as an insult, and that Russia will try to repay France one way or another. This situation in any case strengthens the position of the nationalists, who actively criticized the purchase of large warships abroad and noted that Russia is fully capable of covering their own military needs.

Under these conditions, Paris could, at least in the eyes of Moscow, cross the red line. In any case, the Deputy Minister of Defense of Russia made a rather unexpected statement in the evening of the same day, as if the contract for him no longer existed: “Refusing this contract would not be a tragedy for us in the matter of rearmament, even though it is an absolutely undesirable event which introduces certain tensions in our relations with French partners, ”said Yuri Borisov to ITAR-TASS.

What are the implications for STX France and DCNS?

Now all eyes are on Saint-Nazaire, where two massive silhouettes of "Vladivostok" and "Sevastopol" rise. The first ship is almost completed construction and is used for crew training. For this reason, at the end of June, the 400 of Russian sailors arrived in France aboard the training ship Smolny, which serves as the floating squad. These seafarers will become the main future two crews (200 seafarers on the ship) and their training is conducted simultaneously, despite the fact that the delivery times of two UDC are separated by a year. Russian sailors climb aboard "Vladivostok" for training on board, but at the same time they take it to sea - the next exit is scheduled for September 10.

For STX France, the first UDC is of little interest from the point of view of workers loading, which cannot be said about its twin, which employs 400 workers and representatives of subcontracting companies. Like his older brother, "Sevastopol" is built of two parts. The aft part was built by the United Shipbuilding Corporation in St. Petersburg, the UDC construction program represents a significant source of technology transfer to increase the technological level of Russian shipyards. After completion of construction in Russia, the feed was towed in July to Saint-Nazaire, where it was welded to the bow, built by STX France. The French shipyard is responsible for the completion of construction, whose launch is scheduled for October. At this stage of construction, even if the contract with the Russians is suspended, it is difficult to assume that the second building will not be completed. In the worst case, pending the final decision, work on it may be suspended, which may have consequences in terms of shipyard loading, which has already manifested itself in the case of the construction of a new ship for the shipping company Brittany Ferries.

As for the financial side of the contract, which reaches 1,2 billion euros, it must be recalled that the Russian Navy is not a customer of STX France. This company is a subcontractor of DCNS. The French holding, which developed the UDC project, is the real beneficiary of the contract under which it is associated with Rosoboronexport. And those parts of the hull that were built in St. Petersburg were ordered by STX France from USC, which acted as a simple supplier of the French shipyard. In essence, Russia is paying DCNS, which transfers money to Saint-Nazaire. Note that, unlike civilian courts, payments for which are progressive in nature, military contracts are for the most part largely paid before delivery. It seems that the Russians to a large extent have advanced this contract. In addition, as is the case with most export contracts, this transaction is covered by a guarantee from the export agency Coface. A priori, French manufacturers should receive the full amount, regardless of the volume of the contract. However, if France cancels the contract, the state will in one way or another be forced to get into its pockets in order to pay Russia's funds. In addition, Russia may demand a penalty due to non-performance of the contract, except for a situation where the strengthening of economic sanctions may in itself be considered sufficient legal protection.

What could be the different fate of both ships?

Finally, when considering the option that both ships will not be delivered to Russia, the question arises, what will be their fate? Although the ships are adapted to certain requirements of the Russian side, for example, the possibility of using in low temperature conditions, the Vladivostok and Sevastopol are very close to the ships of the Mistral type that are part of the French fleet. Initially, the French Navy was supposed to have four such ships, but the latest edition of the White Paper on Defense and the armaments program reduced this number to three units due to budget cuts. Thus, it becomes possible to return to the original version. This decision is feared by some French sailors, since the inclusion in the French fleet of one or two UDC will be compensated by a reduction in funding for other programs. The ideal option would be to search for another customer, which, however, is not obvious, due to the presence of diplomatic questions: who would risk annoying Moscow by selling ships destined for the Russian Navy for sale? Another alternative may come from some European states, such as Germany, but also from the USA. They expect to transfer the UDC under NATO control in order to strengthen the capabilities of the alliance on the projection of force, and in particular the naval component of the NATO rapid reaction force. This idea looks attractive on paper, but along with it there are operational issues (NATO does not have a fleet, and thus a crew), financial (who pays?), Without missing the diplomatic aspect, since such a scenario will in any case become the highest degree of humiliation for the Kremlin.

Although rope dragging continues between the West and Russia, the UDC construction program for Russia, which at the very beginning was distinguished by very good commercial and political results, eventually became a real burden. If the case ends with the freezing of the contract, France will eventually have to find an opportunity not to shoulder all the responsibility and consequences. At a minimum, this decision should be made at the European level. Another pitfall for Paris could be the need to minimize the risks for the French defense industry in the international market. The defense industry does not rule out that this situation can be exploited by competitors who have been referring to this precedent for several months. If France does not hold its commitments to a country like Russia, why would it comply with them in relation to another country whose political decisions might not build France? The argument will be extremely dishonorable, but when it comes to selling guns, this does not stop sellers, especially when they are representatives of the Anglo-Saxon world.
Originator:
http://periscope2.ru/2014/09/10/8236/
77 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Cherdak
    Cherdak 12 September 2014 14: 40
    +49
    "Gotta take money!" (from)
    1. 12423 student
      12423 student 12 September 2014 14: 51
      +12
      increased economic sanctions may in themselves be considered sufficient legal protection.
      Is that a hint? You are outcasts outside legal protection, and you will not see ships, and we will not pay you money.
      1. VICTOR-61
        VICTOR-61 12 September 2014 14: 55
        +16
        FRANCE will lose confidence and this can result in sideways failure to fulfill the contract and much more
        1. severniy
          severniy 12 September 2014 16: 45
          +7
          Quote: Cherdak
          "Gotta take money!" (from)


          And to give surrender to the slap in the mouth, the scent has finally been lost by the paddling pool .... Another educators have appeared ...
          And the article was strained by the excessive number of buzzwords and the phrase: "annexation of Crimea by Russia", some kind of pro-Western style ...
          1. Cherdak
            Cherdak 12 September 2014 16: 50
            +3
            Quote: severniy
            And give a blow in the face


            What is the change? They don’t have enough budget for penalties laughing
          2. zao74
            zao74 12 September 2014 18: 25
            +2
            And here it is:
            For EU and NATO members who spent several decades under the Soviet yoke, Russia is still a danger.
            What is this article?
          3. observer.ru
            observer.ru 12 September 2014 18: 36
            0
            "under the Soviet yoke"
          4. dmitriygorshkov
            dmitriygorshkov 12 September 2014 20: 03
            +1
            Quote: severniy
            , the style is some kind of pro-Western .....

            So the article is a translation from French, and for them I consider it more or less sane!
          5. Gomel
            Gomel 13 September 2014 23: 41
            0
            This is a roundup of various sources.
      2. Setrac
        Setrac 12 September 2014 16: 26
        +6
        Quote: student 12423
        Is that a hint? You are outcasts outside legal protection, and you will not see ships, and we will not pay you money.

        We are nationalizing Renault, France has something to lose in Russia.
      3. Riperbahn
        Riperbahn 12 September 2014 17: 00
        +3
        Probably in Russia is the property of the French government and national companies? All this can be implemented to repay the contractual penalty. A good international lawyer will help you get it right. And he will be with margin and Russia with a profit.
        1. slavbag
          slavbag 12 September 2014 21: 10
          -2
          Are you serious? Of course not. Russia abroad has much more that can be taken away. Especially not feasible by the acquired labor of the majority of people's deputies. So it’s better not to start selecting.
      4. Oblozelo
        Oblozelo 12 September 2014 20: 26
        0
        Quote: student 12423
        [I]
        Is that a hint? You are outcasts outside legal protection, and you will not see ships, and we will not pay you money.

        Student, and for whom are you? belay
        According to you, you are for the bourgeois am
    2. volot-voin
      volot-voin 12 September 2014 15: 08
      +4
      Quote: Cherdak
      "We must take money!" (from)

      And build UDC in Russia. In addition, 2 ships are planned to be built with us. + economy, employment. All this is great, but the question is, when will these ships be needed in the near future? After all, to build such a ship is not one day and not a month.
      In general, the Mistral were a harpoon in the body of the French government, which is sorry for the United States and to please the hunt.
      1. STALGRAD76
        STALGRAD76 12 September 2014 15: 18
        +4
        And the scenario in which France will throw Russia, say, come up with another sophistry, vet a few years ago "confiscated" in Cyprus the money of the wrong people and who now remembers this ??
      2. Sergei1982
        Sergei1982 12 September 2014 15: 56
        +1
        Quote: Cherdak
        "We must take money!" (from)
        And build UDC in Russia. In addition, 2 ships are planned to be built with us. + economy, employment. All this is great, but the question is, when will these ships be needed in the near future? After all, to build such a ship is not one day and not a month.
        I agree with you that it is necessary to build in the Russian Federation, but the reality is that now we don’t pull it in the matter of finances but the possibility of a shipyard.
      3. Altona
        Altona 12 September 2014 17: 28
        +5
        Quote: volot-voin
        In general, the Mistral were a harpoon in the body of the French government, which is sorry for the United States and to please the hunt.

        ---------------------
        Maybe in 2008 this "weight" was thrown in France on purpose? And she gladly bought into such a large-scale contract ... If France jumps off, then the prospects for its arms export are by no means cloudless ... The Rafale production will have to be completely curtailed, image losses will go worse than direct financial ones ...
    3. LaGlobal
      LaGlobal 12 September 2014 15: 10
      +6
      Return your money back and collect a penalty! Let these dogs know who they are contacting! What kind of manner did this go ... ??? There is a contract that needs to be implemented. No - that means you are not a reliable partner, and in the future you will be sent if you (France) have a future.
      1. svd-xnumx
        svd-xnumx 12 September 2014 22: 40
        0
        if they decide not to transfer the ships, no one will return the money to Russia, not to mention the forfeit. They will stupidly postpone the transfer of the ships in connection with the situation in Hohland or impose an embargo because of sanctions, and they stupidly rot somewhere near the wall, since I understood the money for the construction received in advance.
    4. Prager
      Prager 12 September 2014 15: 33
      +4
      I fully support your opinion. This pathetic prostitute in France needs to be taught a good lesson !!
    5. capitosha1rang
      capitosha1rang 12 September 2014 15: 36
      +2
      Here I am about money!
      The ships are beautiful, no words. Now, ask someone dedicated - how much is the content of these toys? Even if they just stand on barrels and are ready just about to go into battle on the First order?
      There is already an aircraft carrier in the Black Sea, and the unsinkable Crimea. And the maintenance of Crimea, together with the population, will probably be commensurate with the costs of maintaining the Mistral.
      Far East? Japan, upon the appearance of such a ship, will have to self-destruct, according to the samurai tradition. And what else is there, in the Far East, "Mistral"? Hawaii or Alaska will not be allowed to be captured under any alignment of forces, even if there are ten Mistrals. What else is there - Korea, China, Vietnam? Indonesia is the question.
      What is all this for?
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 12 September 2014 16: 28
        0
        Do you propose abandoning the landing ships as such?
      2. goose
        goose 12 September 2014 16: 33
        0
        In the Far East, they are just what they need: there are just a lot of islands + Sakhalin. And perhaps Camran again appears in Vietnam. There are also many islands in the field of operating activities of the SF, but, it seems to me, the Mistrals are not intended for permanent deployment in those latitudes.
        That's where they definitely do not need, so it is the BSF and BF.
      3. g1v2
        g1v2 12 September 2014 16: 36
        +3
        In addition to being a landing ship, it is essentially a full-fledged mobile military base with which local operations can be carried out. Possible applications are landing and control of the coast of Georgia or Ukraine, for example {the fact that these are hostile countries is a fact}, Syrian convoys, operations against pirates, guarding the canal in Nicaragua, which were going to dig from the PRC, controlling mineral extraction zones from the Arctic to Antarctica - wherever complications may arise, etc. The main application of these ships is a mobile operational base for coastal operations and monitoring the situation in those places where we need it. These are not ships for global war, but for local wars and operations. In principle, such a ship could come in handy in Georgia in 2008, and it can still come in handy in dill, since nobody knows how it will all end. In principle, if the francs give us one ship, the second is no longer needed, but in general we already have a project, trained personnel and crews, as well as documentation. In general, in any situation, we do not lose, and the Franks, on the contrary, if they fulfill the contract, then NATO colleagues will arrange a bike for them, and if they do not, they will lose a lot of money and reputation in the arms market.
      4. arnar114
        arnar114 12 September 2014 16: 38
        -5
        Leave your hatred attitude towards Japan! Compare their fleet and our Pacific Fleet ..... And study the geography of the region. What can we do if they cover the La Perouse and Sangar Strait? Kamchatka, Magadan, Chukotka, Kuriles "Will die like mammoths" ...
        1. severyanin
          severyanin 12 September 2014 19: 51
          0
          Plus. Here, unfortunately, you can’t argue ...
        2. Oblozelo
          Oblozelo 12 September 2014 20: 36
          0
          Think of the "Old Air Force Commander":
          "... What is Japan? Yes, two cruise missiles and no Japan ..."
          at the bottom there are a lot of tectonic tensions ...
          1. slavbag
            slavbag 12 September 2014 21: 17
            -3
            was, though a commander. Is he a geologist or a seismologist? Better in the kitchen at home commands with such statements.
        3. slavbag
          slavbag 12 September 2014 21: 16
          -4
          You are right, for which you have paid with your reputation. Let them just watch the Japanese army on a wiki, and on YouTube how the Japanese army is training. Immediately in smart people militancy will decrease.
    6. Juborg
      Juborg 12 September 2014 15: 41
      +6
      I think this topic has nowhere to go. We’ll wait and see, but we all see how impudently and grossly violate not only international law, but also the laws of the market (the same WTO!), More than one agreement with Russia does not work, which would limit the West at least in something. This resembles two pre-war years 39-40. I recently read an analysis of the economic situation in Europe and partly in the United States, in short, that I understood for myself everything that happens when the carbon copy takes place today, all the same double standards, all the same fooling of the people, under the same practically slogans (slightly changed for today moment).
      There will be Mistrals, they won't, they won't make the weather. This is most likely a Trojan horse launched by someone, and this one by someone, probably Russia. We can only watch the development of events, analyze the situation, make predictions, bets and feel like a part of the history being created before our eyes.
      1. Roman 1977
        Roman 1977 12 September 2014 16: 41
        +8
        And I do not belong to the category of people shouting that "everything is lost" and everything was cut ... ", I am just a realist and I do not consider virtual ships, but those that are in service and which can go to sea. at the present time we do not have ANY working submarine-B-261 "Novorossiysk" on the Black Sea, we do not yet consider it, it has not yet passed all the tests completely, and when God knows at the World Cup, against 14 Turkish; and in the Baltic , we have one diesel-electric submarine, project 877, built in 1983 - B-227 "Vyborg" against 5 Polish, 5 Swedish, of which 3 projects "Gotland" with air-independent Stirling engines and 6 German newest project 212A with an electric motor. and surface ships, 6 BOD pr.1155-clean "anti-submarine" without anti-ship missiles, and 3 destroyers pr. 956 due to problems with the DKU became essentially ships of the near sea zone, and they are not expected to be replaced, but our only ship, which can be called the destroyer "Admiral Chabanenko" pr. 1155.1 under repair at least until nza 2015.

        Which of the 5 TFRs, on the move 3: "Yaroslav the Wise", "Sharp-witted" pr. 01190 - the last of the "singing frigates" pr. 61, built in 1969, the air defense of which is represented by the Volna-N air defense system, which is a naval version of the ancient S -125 "Neva" and "Pytlivy" pr. 1135M, built in 1981, also a pure "anti-submarine" (anti-ship missile system), and the air defense system is only 2 "OSA-MA" air defense systems, i.e. practically also not, but they are also not foreseen soon, out of 6 zazed TFR pr. 11356, only 5 were laid, and GTUs were installed only on 3, since they were built in Ukraine, which refuses to supply them, despite the fact that they have already been paid ...

        And in total, from 2000 to the present day (14 years), 1 (ONE) ship of the second rank-SKR pr. 11540 "Yaroslav the Wise", with a total displacement of 4350 tons, laid down on 27.05.1988/1990/19.07.2009, launched in June XNUMX, was delivered to the fleet. transferred to the fleet on July XNUMX, XNUMX

        The corvettes of project 20380, with a total displacement of 2220 tons, have been under construction for 8 years, in the Far East all 9 (the Corvette "Perfect", laid down on June 30.06.2006, 22350 has not even been launched into the water), and the construction of the frigate of project 8 also lasts for 01.02.2006 years (laid down on 29.10.2010, launched on XNUMX) and it is not known when it will end, we can only dream of destroyers.
        Everything else is "Soviet groundwork", which is rapidly deteriorating and there is nothing to replace. How will you replace the BOD of Project 1155 or the same destroyers of Project 956?
        1. Roman 1977
          Roman 1977 12 September 2014 16: 45
          +3
          We now have all the fleets, in fact, these are flotillas of diverse forces, well, maybe with the exception of CFL and then: firstly, it’s difficult to resist there; secondly enclosed space.
          And there everything is not as perfect as we would like, since the Iranians in November will take their Fateh submarine, with a displacement of 500 tons, which is currently being tested in the Caspian.


          And anti-submarine ships in the KFL-0, there are not even ships with anti-submarine weapons.
          I don't particularly want to recall the rest of the fleets, since the repair of any ship of rank 1-2 makes an irreparable gap. Let us recall that Kuznetsov and Petra and Levchenko in the Mediterranean were planned to replace the Moskva and Smetlivy SCR with the Black Sea Fleet, the Yaroslav Mudry SCR with the Baltic Fleet and the Admiral Kulakov with the Northern Fleet. Of all these ships, only the BOD pr.1155 "Kulakov" (without anti-ship missiles) and the TFR "Smetlivy" 1969, with the obsolete "Volna" air defense missile system, turned out to be in Mediterranean. RRC "Moscow" has enough work to do at the World Cup, where ships of our "sworn friends" regularly climb, and "Yaroslav the Wise" was under repair until May, and only on August 9 went on a campaign to the Gulf of Aden to fight pirates. And there is nothing to replace these ships: the second TFR pr. 11540 "Fearless" is under repair by the end of 2015, and the RRC pr. 1164 "Varyag" has enough work to do in the Pacific Ocean. Now, with regard to the landing on Hokkaido, I'm afraid at this rate we can land it on the Kuril Islands.
          At this rate, following the destroyers of Project 956, we will finally kill the resource of the "workhorses" of the BOD fleet of Project 1155, used as destroyers, and the remaining BDKs and there will be nothing at all to withdraw from large ships into the sea.

          The situation with the MPK is no better: MPK pr.1124 (20 units) is aging rapidly (the youngest (MPK Snezhnogorsk is 20 years old), and is already outdated (PVO-1 PU "OSA-MA", 20 missiles, no helicopter), IPC pr.1331 (7 units) on the BF, do not have missile weapons at all and are practically useless against modern submarines.
    7. Bassoon
      Bassoon 12 September 2014 15: 55
      -2
      Or gold and platinum.
    8. Giant thought
      Giant thought 12 September 2014 16: 06
      -2
      Yes, even if the French did not give this Serdyukovsky gift, the Mistrals are not really needed by the Russian Navy, but France will bear economic, and most importantly, reputational costs.
    9. Blondy
      Blondy 12 September 2014 16: 21
      +1
      We must take the money!

      Will not work. For the third time I quote myself. France will not refuse supplies. The same losses per half a billion euros. With the states they will crush, strangle themselves, but they will not refuse.
      1. Wiruz
        Wiruz 12 September 2014 16: 48
        +4
        The same losses per half a billion euros.

        Not one and a half, more. The amount of the penalty depends on the reason for the refusal of supply, and it varies from 3 to 10 billion euros. Not sickly, yet good It is necessary to conclude such contracts every year. laughing
    10. tilovaykrisa
      tilovaykrisa 12 September 2014 16: 22
      +1
      That's right, we already have the technology and documentation, and our sailors climbed them and looked at what kind of beast.
      1. kodxnumx
        kodxnumx 12 September 2014 20: 57
        +1
        I think Russia is able to build such facilities! It’s a pity the time has been spent, but again technologies have appeared, so let the grandmas drive and we can build ourselves.
        1. PSih2097
          PSih2097 13 September 2014 04: 56
          0
          Quote: kod3001
          I think Russia is able to build such facilities! It’s a pity the time has been spent, but again technologies have appeared, so let the grandmas drive and we can build ourselves.

          WHERE??? excuse me, but Nikolaev is still under the dill ...
          1. tilovaykrisa
            tilovaykrisa 13 September 2014 12: 26
            0
            SPB shipyards are able to build on the docks.
    11. PSih2097
      PSih2097 13 September 2014 04: 48
      0
      Quote: Cherdak
      "Gotta take money!" (from)

      What the hell ??? we have all the capacities of the USC up to the age of 18, do not indulge in the most, if Nikolaev would have been beaten off - then yes, drive 10 lards to the domestic UDC and AB ...
      1. tilovaykrisa
        tilovaykrisa 13 September 2014 12: 27
        0
        We have ships of this type unnecessarily more than 4 units.
  2. Evgen4ik
    Evgen4ik 12 September 2014 14: 40
    +12
    I personally do not belong to the critics of the Mistral. UDC is needed by Russia. In all the major fleets of the world they are. They carry out their tasks. May be useful in the Baltic, Black Sea, Pacific Fleet. In addition, if we put our weapons on them, the same marine version of the shell, it can turn out very well. Very much. So the presence of ships of this class with us will advance our technologies, because we will manufacture 2 more at home. And on their basis then something very sensible can come out.
    1. MIKHAIL-163
      MIKHAIL-163 12 September 2014 15: 15
      +1
      And do not forget to equip with a domestic "digital", then they will fit.
    2. Wiruz
      Wiruz 12 September 2014 16: 54
      0
      Russia needs such ships, but escort ships are needed. Now, unfortunately, Russia does not have a single modern ship of the ocean zone. And in my opinion, of course I could be wrong but it’s not necessary to repair old barely alive ships, ships, it is necessary to build new ones. The frigates seem to have started, the TTX of project 22350 is especially pleasing, not only the time it took for the construction of the head building to last was pleasing. Of course, special emphasis should be placed on destroyers. And only then it will be possible to talk about UDC
      1. PSih2097
        PSih2097 13 September 2014 04: 59
        0
        Quote: Wiruz
        Russia needs such ships, but escort ships are needed. Now, unfortunately, Russia does not have a single modern ship of the ocean zone. And in my opinion, of course I could be wrong but it’s not necessary to repair old barely alive ships, ships, it is necessary to build new ones. The frigates seem to have started, the TTX of project 22350 is especially pleasing, not only the time it took for the construction of the head building to last was pleasing. Of course, special emphasis should be placed on destroyers. And only then it will be possible to talk about UDC

        Can you imagine how much it will cost a ship of the first rank such as "Eagle" or "Atlanta" ???
  3. bmv04636
    bmv04636 12 September 2014 14: 40
    +8
    Let the Mistals leave for themselves an advance payment, pay fines for forfeit, and of course, we need to demand our feed back
    1. Mooh
      Mooh 12 September 2014 14: 42
      +8
      Have you read the article? There about the feed parts in great detail.
      Well, in general: fines are certainly good, but ships are much better. While we will build our own, several more years will pass. And he wants to upgrade the fleet now.
      1. bmv04636
        bmv04636 12 September 2014 15: 03
        0
        they read an article for our money, we made feed parts
        1. Mooh
          Mooh 12 September 2014 15: 49
          0
          And what reasons do you see for their return?
          1. bmv04636
            bmv04636 12 September 2014 16: 14
            0
            due to penalties and fines, you can return
            1. Mooh
              Mooh 12 September 2014 16: 41
              0
              Quote: bmv04636
              due to penalties and fines, you can return

              Ah, now I understand. What a fool you are winked And what's the point of such an operation to repurchase your iron in what?
        2. parkan
          parkan 12 September 2014 16: 10
          +1
          and the rules. ours learned french technology along the way
      2. arnar114
        arnar114 12 September 2014 16: 58
        0
        I do not agree with you. The Navy doesn't need these pelvis. Big unprotected targets, nothing more. At the Pacific Fleet remained: 1 cruiser, 4 BODs, 2 destroyers and any other "trifle". Taking into account their condition and the fact that some of the ships are being repaired, Russia today can assemble only 1 group consisting of: an armored vehicle, a tanker and a rescuer, for the war with pirates in Somalia. The Syrian crisis has really shown the ENTIRE existing ship composition of Russia. Sadly .... Dozens of frigates and corvettes are urgently needed to feel at least a little safe. "MiSrali" is a suitcase without a handle! And it's inconvenient to carry and it's a pity to throw!
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 12 September 2014 17: 29
          0
          We build frigates and corvettes ourselves. Like the submarine. Can you explain what the Mistral has to do with it?
          1. severyanin
            severyanin 12 September 2014 20: 08
            0
            Despite the fact that we are trying to build frigates and corvettes ourselves! but so far nothing sensible has been obtained. Have you read previous 1977 posts? I myself serve in the Navy and fully confirm this disheartening, or rather disastrous situation ... The sadness is that we got too late - the military shipbuilding in the country is ruined, the remaining enterprises break up SUCH prices for components that even the US budget is not enough sad So this is what I mean: anyway, the Mistrals are REAL ships that can begin to perform their tasks in the near future, which will at least slightly reduce the load on our "oldies"! You look, and they will last a certain number of years before being replaced by frigates and corvettes "under construction" ...
            1. Oblozelo
              Oblozelo 12 September 2014 20: 45
              0
              Do not be afraid, do not ask, do not celebrate the coward.
              We are such Rusichi can do a lot
            2. Dart2027
              Dart2027 13 September 2014 10: 45
              0
              Quote: severyanin
              I myself serve in the Navy and fully confirm this joyless

              Yes, I don’t argue, there are enough problems.
              Quote: severyanin
              WE TRY to build ourselves! but so far nothing sensible

              As far as I understand, the main problem was the development of new weapons, so now the process should go.
              Quote: severyanin
              "Mistrals" are REAL ships that can begin to perform their tasks in the near future, which will at least slightly reduce the load on our "oldies"

              Actually, I always said that. It would be great to build your own, but since such a situation, it is not a sin to buy, as long as there is an opportunity.
  4. Stiletto
    Stiletto 12 September 2014 14: 41
    +3
    Frogs hit the grandmothers, in a word. And why? They wanted to eat fish, and to sit somewhere. It turned out only the last ...
    1. Evil Pole
      Evil Pole 12 September 2014 15: 03
      +4
      Quote: Stiletto
      Frogs hit the grandmothers, in a word. And why? They wanted to eat fish, and to sit somewhere. It turned out only the last ...

      And it doesn’t work out, they sit on two hooks, they swallow it specifically ..
  5. wolfhunter2035
    wolfhunter2035 12 September 2014 14: 44
    +3
    But where will they go? these Mistrals will give us, and they will pay for the forfeit (unless the ships are delayed, of course), but though ... it’s better to take money, and let these ships be left to themselves. in general, you need to look for pluses in everything)) ships will not give up - great! will pay us! give - wonderful! our fleet will be replenished with two ships!
  6. little man
    little man 12 September 2014 14: 46
    +6
    IMHO. The title does not match the content. I thought there would be technical comparisons. And then another hundredth sucking on this topic. "-"
  7. Grzegoš
    Grzegoš 12 September 2014 14: 53
    +3
    Think Paris Think!
  8. Roman 1977
    Roman 1977 12 September 2014 15: 00
    +10
    The Mistral must be defended with all our might, since we have nothing to replace it with and, unfortunately, our own industry will not lift such a ship ... Give me a Russian BDK (as part of the fleet), capable of landing amphibious assault "over the horizon" DKA and helicopters, as well as provide air support to the landing? I'm sure you won't. Our BDK, both project 775 and project 1171, are capable of landing personnel and equipment only on the coast, being exposed to the danger of being destroyed or damaged.

    And under construction for 8 years (since 2004, they plan to enter the fleet next year), the large landing craft "Ivan Gren" pr. 11771 carries only one Ka-29 airborne combat helicopter, does not have a dock chamber, that is, it is not capable of transporting a submarine and for the landing of the amphibious assault is also forced to be washed ashore.

    The Vladivostok UDC of the Mistral type was built in 2 years (laid down on February 01.02.2012, 15.10.2013, launched on October 8, 52) carries 8 Ka-29K fire support helicopters, 2 Ka-1 transport and combat helicopters and 1996 DKA project CTM NG and will become the first surface ship of the XNUMXst rank, which joined our Navy since XNUMX, after the transfer to the fleet of the TARKR "Peter the Great"
    http://russian-ships.info/boevye/mistral.htm

    Yes, in the Soviet Navy there were similar ships 3 BDK project 1174 "Rhino", which carried 4 Ka-29 and 6 DKA pr.1176 or pr.1785 or 3 on an air cushion pr.1206. (SF- "Mitrofan M_oskalenko"; Pacific Fleet: "Alexander Nikolaev", "Ivan Rogov"), but all of them are currently decommissioned: "Ivan Rogov" in 1995; "Alexander Nikolaev" and "Mitrofan M_oskalenko" in 2006.


    Is our military-industrial complex capable of building a corral similar to Mistral in 2 years? I'm sure not. The timing of the construction of "Ivan Gren", the displacement of which is 3,5 times less (6000 tons versus 22500 tons for the Mistral), I indicated above, and now, to carry out the "Syrian Express", we have to repair the ancient large landing craft of project 1171: the Saratov large landing craft has been transferred fleet in 1966, large landing craft "Orsk" in 1968.
    1. Roman 1977
      Roman 1977 12 September 2014 15: 06
      +6
      Unfortunately, time does not wait, the Soviet legacy: BDK pr. 775, built from 1974 to 1991. (as part of the Navy-15), and where to repair them? For obvious reasons, the Poles are falling away, well, we get out ourselves, but the Bulgarians help, although they are NATO members themselves.

      arrival of the large landing craft "Caesar Kunnikov" for repairs in Varna.
      BDK pr.1171 are generally the oldest ships of the fleet, for they were built from 1966 to 1974. (BDK "Saratov" the oldest ship of the Navy was transferred to the Navy in 1966). Now the Orsk, which was transferred to the fleet in 1968, is being repaired.
      Now keep in mind that the ships over the past 2 years have been extremely worn out by the "Syrian Express", for which it was required to create a grouping of large landing ships from all 4 fleets and the transportation of "polite people" from Novorossiysk to Crimea.
      And to replace them, only 2 (TWO) BDKs of project 11771 are being built: "Ivan Gren", laid down already in 2004, well, it seems that next year they are going to transfer it to the fleet (11-2010 years) and the second ship of the series laid down in October 2017 , which according to the plan should become part of the fleet already in November XNUMX.
      Yes, and we don’t have 10 years, after 10 years, the Soviet BDK will fail (God forbid, of course), but we will finally mature to build our landing ships ...
      The landing forces of our Navy are morally obsolete back in the 80s, and now they are physically obsolete in terms of combat capabilities, not even in the top ten. This imbalance is designed to quickly eliminate the "Mistral". In the late 80s, the USSR began to develop analogues of the American UDC of the "Tarava" type UDC of project 11780, the so-called. "Ivan Tarava" (displacement: 25 tons; options: landing version - 000 Ka-12; anti-submarine - 29 Ka-25. In the dock chamber - 27 landing craft project 4 or 1176 landing craft on air cushion project 2)

      UDC was supposed to have a continuous deck, which allowed the use of both helicopters and Yak-38 vertical take-off and landing aircraft. The development was carried out throughout the 80 years, and was completed by the 1991 year, but everyone was no longer up to the UDC ... Yes, and they were planned to be built on the Black Sea Shipyard, in Nikolaev, the stocks of which at that time were occupied by the TAVKR ave., 1143.5 .
      1. surovts.valery
        surovts.valery 12 September 2014 15: 21
        +3
        Yes. Ships of the LST concept of the WWII, BDK 1171 and 775 are their development, in the fleets of developed countries there are almost no left, the main ones are the ships of the UDC, DVKD classes of over-the-horizon landing. But, I think it's not a fact that such ships as our current large landing craft are not needed. And the Mistrals are needed. Our shipbuilding industry, in the same time frame and for the same money as the French, will not master their construction.
    2. little man
      little man 12 September 2014 15: 17
      +2
      Thanks to Roman.
      This is how the article should have been. I'm not talking about a point of view, but about "interestingness"
      1. Roman 1977
        Roman 1977 12 September 2014 15: 33
        +9
        The same "Mistral", in addition to being able to land "over the horizon" with the help of a DKA, is capable of providing air support to the landing force (8 KA-52K, 8 KA-29), and any ship can be drowned, it all depends on the air defense forces and PLO support. Now, as for the UDC, forgive all the more or less advanced countries of the world, they are trying to have them in their forces: p_indos, small-britters and the French completely abandon the landing ships in favor of the UDC, the Chinese are building a series of UDCs of the "Qinchenshan" type, pr. 071 (already 3 in service), with a displacement of 19 tons, 000 paratroopers, 1000 Z-4 helicopters, 8 air-cushion landing ships in the dock, 4 armored combat vehicles;

        South Koreans - "Dokdo";

        the Japanese Izumo (this is more of a light aircraft carrier);

        the same South Koreans, having tonsured the Indonesians 2 UDC "Makassar", the total displacement of 11 400 tons, landing capacity: 500 people, 13 tanks, 2 submarines, gave them a license for their construction, and now the Indonesians are building them for the Philippines and Myanmar.

        The other day, even Algeria, clearly not a legislator of naval fashion, received an Italian UDC with a total displacement of 9000 tons. The ship's dock chamber provides the basing of three LCM-class tank landing boats (which were built in Algeria by the Navy shipyard according to Fincantieri's drawings). In addition, on davits and sponsons, the Algerian DVKD will carry three LCVP-type small landing craft, one LCP (L) type and two semi-rigid motor boats. The small hangar ("garage") deck can accommodate up to 15 armored vehicles or five T-90SA tanks. The ship's crew will be 150 people (including the air group), and the landing capacity is 440 people.
        http://bmpd.livejournal.com/tag/Алжир


        Some of us all choose whether we need UDC or not? Everyone agrees that, of course, they are needed and the second question arises, but can we build them ourselves? And it turns out that no ...
  9. Borets
    Borets 12 September 2014 15: 03
    -3
    Yes, it would be better if the money was returned, we will build 955 boreas on them.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 12 September 2014 20: 35
      +1
      Quote: Borets
      Yes, it would be better if they returned the money,

      My dearest! Well, you can’t love money so passionately! You can’t land troops on them and you can’t deliver them to the landing site!
      Quote: Borets
      we will build 955 boreas on them.

      Where is it, if not a secret? Sevmash? So there the schedule is such that you squeeze the figs. Or do you have the know-how: two hulls on one slipway - that way, one on top of the other!
      And what? Sounds new, fresh and orrrriginally s!
  10. surovts.valery
    surovts.valery 12 September 2014 15: 05
    +1
    Quote: Cherdak
    "Gotta take money!" (from)

    I agree. The guardians will have an even greater headache from this. Where to put this iron? They can and expect that Russia will butt, threaten with sanctions, beg to betray the Mistral. And then, in order to save face, finally give it away from the master's shoulder. But to give equivalent denyuzhkami is very sad for them.
  11. lexx2038
    lexx2038 12 September 2014 15: 12
    +1
    Yes, they will not go anywhere, they just need to stand for some time in the "third position" to save their face. The time will come, immediately for them the circumstances will be resolved in a "good" direction, and of course they will deliver ships. The best or the worst situation, this is a subjective concept for them, what will be beneficial, that will be.
  12. capitosha1rang
    capitosha1rang 12 September 2014 15: 14
    +2
    And maybe everything is simpler and more familiar?
    1. Shipbuilding guys, in the process of this shipbuilding itself, revealed (or suggest) the negative consequences of changing the design of the ship. Well, not everything can be adapted or adapted to the wishes of the customer.
    2. Not wanting to "lose face", they start looking for opportunities to "extinguish" the contract by any means and measures. Is this a rarity in world and domestic practice?
    3. And here is such an opportunity! Sell ​​scrap metal to NATO or the United States. What will they do with him is a question. Maybe a floating barracks or a target ship is the purpose of the Mistrals?
    Do you remember Serdyukov? Is his smile sly? If this is his "kidok" and a snake idea - to substitute Europe for "retaliatory sanctions" by Russia, then it is time to amnesty Anatol publicly, but with confiscation, so that he does not conceal the prosperity that threatens him - the people - from the people.
  13. inkass_98
    inkass_98 12 September 2014 15: 25
    +6
    Whinnying yesterday (the day before yesterday?) Heartily - I read svidomye comments on an article in "Ukrainian Truth" about the problem with these troughs. Along with NATO's advice to buy them for oneself and other heresy by the Chelyabinsk meteorite, a brilliant ukroidea flashed - to transfer them to the Ruinoflot with the port of registration "Odessa". Morons do not even understand that these are just boxes that still need to be equipped and armed, leaving out of brackets such an obscure fact that they need to be serviced, equipped with berthing infrastructure, and the crew must be trained, in the end.
    1. Cristall
      Cristall 14 September 2014 18: 56
      0
      Quote: inkass_98
      transfer them to the Ruin Fleet with the port of registration "Odessa"

      port of registry - Odessa, obviously disappears. There is no such infrastructure. It is necessary to prepare it separately in Nikolaev.
      With us, it can only be temporarily contained .. maximum.
  14. Major Yurik
    Major Yurik 12 September 2014 15: 35
    +1
    Quote: Grzegosh
    Think Paris Think!


    Money back, forfeit to the fullest, banners stretch marks: France-bullshit! -On all the roads of Russia, both Mistral obama in the ass! RUSSIA GO! am
  15. thinker
    thinker 12 September 2014 16: 11
    +2
    Since such a scenario will in any case become the highest degree of humiliation for the Kremlin.

    Or rather, the humiliation of France that Uncle Sam raped!
  16. ttv-cfo
    ttv-cfo 12 September 2014 16: 22
    +4
    IMHO the fleet needs such a ship
    a real warship - it hasn’t left the slipways yet, but already fights for the Fatherland (on the economic front), sowing confusion and contradictions in the camp of the enemy laughing
    1. Oblozelo
      Oblozelo 12 September 2014 20: 56
      0
      Let them fight on the slipways smile .
      and "Sevastopol" and "Vladivostok" love
  17. Alexander
    Alexander 12 September 2014 16: 34
    -6
    Yes, to buy ferries at the price of warships, I had to think it over! I hope they don’t give it away. And for the money to build their ships. NO MISRALAM in the Russian Navy.
  18. goose
    goose 12 September 2014 16: 35
    0
    Quote: Blondy
    Will not work. For the third time I quote myself. France will not refuse supplies. The same losses per half a billion euros. With the states they will crush, strangle themselves, but they will not refuse.

    I agree in everything !!!
    1. Oblozelo
      Oblozelo 12 September 2014 20: 58
      0
      You know, let their toad crush them lol
  19. Winged 38
    Winged 38 12 September 2014 16: 51
    +2
    Quote: inkass_98
    Whinnying yesterday (the day before yesterday?) Heartily - I read svidomye comments on an article in "Ukrainian Truth" about the problem with these troughs. Along with NATO's advice to buy them for oneself and other heresy by the Chelyabinsk meteorite, a brilliant ukroidea flashed - to transfer them to the Ruinoflot with the port of registration "Odessa". Morons do not even understand that these are just boxes that still need to be equipped and armed, leaving out of brackets such an obscure fact that they need to be serviced, equipped with berthing infrastructure, and the crew must be trained, in the end.

    And better in Mariupol. The militias will wrest them away (and we will certainly help) from the "ukrovoyaks". And Novorossiya will have its own fleet. With the service and equipment, I think there will be no more questions bully
  20. sined0707
    sined0707 12 September 2014 16: 52
    +1
    IMHO. Do not judge strictly, but it seems to me that so far the French will try to throw us both on money and on ships. It’s now fashionable to minus Russia and put the wheels in the wheel. As someone correctly noticed in Cyprus, they also threw them on the headstock.
    1. Oblozelo
      Oblozelo 12 September 2014 21: 03
      0
      I'm sorry ...
      You are for the Soviet Union, I read it.
      change Flag, and be Zdrav!
    2. Cristall
      Cristall 14 September 2014 18: 59
      0
      Quote: sined0707
      while the French will try to throw us both on money and on ships

      I’m sure that so far it’s only holding back the amount of compensation - as soon as the United States gives guarantees of the world legal system that there are no compensations - then France can easily and unconsciously issue a bill and win the court ..
      analogy - the Ukrainian fleet has not completely surrendered to the Russian Federation. It also delays in "in connection with the situation" ... here is the wording for Paris is very convenient .. Like "until the Crimea is returned, the situation does not change" and the RF will not have the Mistral. And the money too.
  21. Karabas
    Karabas 12 September 2014 17: 03
    0
    Paris should think hard before making a final decision on the Mistrals. The piquancy of the situation lies in both a positive decision in favor of Russia and a negative one in relation to us. We have already passed the path of refusal to supply arms with regard to Iran. As you know, Russia must pay Iran a penalty of 4 billion greenbacks in court, while this issue is hanging in the air, and they do not add positive emotions to relations between Moscow and Tehran. After all, everyone understands that we need, first of all, technologies, in the construction of this class of ships, and we can only get them with the completion of this contract. It is vital for us to get the Mistrals as soon as possible, since we will not see any compensation, and this is obvious. We did not pay Tehran, how will Paris pay us? I would like to note that the situation with both Iran and Paris arose under the influence of Washington, and the French should take this into account. Even if the "Mistrals" go into service with NATO, and this organization is collective, so NATO member countries will pay for them, without the participation of the United States. They will freeze at least for the simple reason that they will declare their highest financial contribution to the block.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 12 September 2014 21: 34
      +1
      Quote: Karabas
      We have already passed the path of refusal in the supply of weapons with respect to Iran. Russia must pay Iran a court forfeit of 4 billion of green, while this issue hangs in the air, and positive emotions in relations between Moscow and Tehran are not added.

      The West has always remained true to itself in relation to Russia. Their main goal is always to spoil us. I bring specific example.
      The Iranian Ministry of Defense and The Aerospace Industries Organization have filed a lawsuit against Rosoboronexport OJSC with the Geneva Arbitration Court for disrupting the supply of the S-300 air defense system, the agreement on which was concluded in 2007. The Iranians estimated the amount of damage at almost 4 billion dollars.(? Is it really?)
      Iran has already filed a lawsuit in this regard, insisting that Russia's refusal in the 2010 year to fulfill the contract goes beyond the sanctions imposed Resolution 1929 UN Security Council.
      Claims were made to the Russian Federation despite the fact that the sum of the advance in 167 million dollars was returned to the Iranians. The total value of the contract was estimated at 800 million.
      As for the 4 billions that Tehran allegedly intends to demand with the assistance of Geneva, it took into account not only the cost of missed air defense systems, but also the costs incurred in this regard - preparation for the arming of the C-300, moral damages and even forfeits for a number of other military contracts .
      However, it now turns out that Iran does not require and did not demand any additional compensation in excess of several hundred million for C-300.
      "Without the knowledge of the Iranian side and against the wishes of the Iranian side court added another 3 billion dollars of compensation as a punishment for Russia ... Iran really demanded 900 million dollars, and The court itself has already added 3 billion to this and sent it to the Russian side as part of the subpoena. This is the initiative of the court itself "- said the Ambassador of Iran, Sayed Mahmoud Reza Sajjadi. http://www.newsru.com
      The goal is to quarrel Russia with Iran!
      Quote: Karabas
      It is vital for us to get the Mistrals as soon as possible, since we will not see any compensation, and this is obvious.

      If the Geneva court out of nothing burdened us with 3 billion dollars in relations with Tehran, then here it is! Cynically fool these Russians.
      But it cannot be otherwise! Anglo-Saxons, however, their mother!
  22. air wolf
    air wolf 12 September 2014 17: 32
    0
    We now have the technology, it’s time to build light aircraft carriers and put the Yak-141M into production! And everyone will be happy. The need for our Navy is 4-5 light aircraft carriers. Just in compensation they can be built!
    1. Oblozelo
      Oblozelo 12 September 2014 21: 04
      0
      Plus +1
      But all weapons must be visible ...
  23. Bene valete
    Bene valete 12 September 2014 19: 02
    +1
    And they can drive them to the Chinese!)))
    The Chinese brothers will certainly buy. what
    1. Oblozelo
      Oblozelo 12 September 2014 21: 05
      0
      I support, let them buy
  24. Cap
    Cap 12 September 2014 19: 04
    0
    Do not deliver on time?
    Consider this a violation of the contract and demand a penalty!
  25. RUSOIVAN
    RUSOIVAN 12 September 2014 19: 18
    0
    How will they be able to sell them if the rear part (feed), by definition, ALREADY belongs to Russia?
    1. Oblozelo
      Oblozelo 12 September 2014 21: 07
      0
      for five or six "yards", each, we will give winked
  26. RUSOIVAN
    RUSOIVAN 12 September 2014 19: 22
    0
    And how will they give them up, call them "Sergei Lavrov" and "Vitaly Churkin". Let the Useians burst with malice. And we will build "Sevastopol" and "Vladivostok" ourselves according to their drawings!
  27. Plamenvarna
    Plamenvarna 12 September 2014 22: 08
    +1
    Do not need Mistral to you.
    The deal was political with Skrozi ... so that a statement would be made regarding the attitude of Georgia.
    Well, it happened - France admitted that the Georgians were the first to shoot.
    Now if the French refuse, you will have a forfeit, plus return the money and the junk that they possibly cram into what they want and where you don’t want to (remember how Saddam’s Frenish air defense systems of Fresco production did not work when America started bombing Iraqis tomahawks).
    Plus, the dissatisfaction of the French shipbuilders and allies ... and dissatisfaction will be at the crossroads of the US and NATO and the lack of will of their government.
    Sami can do helicopter carriers if hunting.
    Money should be spent on Iskander and S-400/500 and on hit drones.
  28. gregorich 77
    gregorich 77 13 September 2014 00: 04
    +1
    yes in figs it is necessary to build their own ships and better apl in modern conditions, I think they will be most effective
  29. dchegrinec
    dchegrinec 13 September 2014 07: 03
    0
    The comrades are not yet catching up with whom they are contacting. Well, they will create a group of quick reaction forces, so what, well, they’ll get into the boiler and cry there, and as for the reaction to all these scams with the Mistrals, humiliation is not suitable here, the weak are humiliated and we the people are great, so that all these people humiliate themselves both the French and the West and the USA, this once again proves that we are dealing with cheap comrades, and we need to do the same with them.
  30. Cristall
    Cristall 14 September 2014 19: 03
    +1
    If nothing is done, then Paris and Washington will find a way to leave the Russian Federation without the Mistrals and without money.
    Caps and sarcasm do not help. Something needs to be done urgently.