Military Review

"Korean" instead of "French"

161
France's refusal to supply Mistral: a crisis or a window of opportunity?

The political events of recent months connected with Ukraine have most seriously affected military-technical cooperation. Under EU sanctions, not only arms and military equipment purchases from our country, but also the import of European arms and technologies into Russia, have been included. By itself, military imports from Europe are not significant for domestic defense capability (possibly, except for the supply of certain materials and components), and a number of sensational contracts in the past were curtailed even before the promotion of the sanctioned flywheel, for example, for the supply of Italian light armored vehicles Iveco LMV65. But clouds are gathering over the symbol of relations between Russia and the EU - a contract worth 1,16 billion euros for the supply of two French universal landing ships (UDC, in our naval traditions - DVKD, landing helicopter dock ships) of the Mistral type.

They were ordered by Russia in 2011 from the French shipbuilding association DCNS. The cost of the two ships will be 980 million euros, and the remaining costs imply the transfer of technical documentation and licenses, training, etc. The contract parameters assumed the acquisition by Russia of two UDCs, which are being built in France with the head role of DCNS by the STX Europe shipyard in Saint-Nazaire ( parts under the contract were manufactured in St. Petersburg at LLC Baltiysky Zavod - Shipbuilding), and an option for two more ships, which should be made in Russia in the future. It should be noted that, according to the available information on the contract structure, the shipborne automated battle control system SENIT 9 is transmitted to the Russian side only if four UDC are ordered.

Let's pay attention to the fact that already in 2012 year it was reported: the order of the Russian Navy for a Mistral type UDC can be reduced from four to two buildings. Allegedly about this, President Vladimir Putin told his French counterpart Francois Hollande. As compensation, Paris was invited to take part in the construction of five ski resorts in the North Caucasus under the program to create the notorious North Caucasian tourist cluster.

Anyway, as a result only two UDC should be transferred to our Navy. It should be noted that, at the request of the customer, changes were made to the basic project, related to the need to install Russian weapons systems, as well as to adapt ships for operations at low temperatures. It is reasonable to assume that the SENIT 9 system is not transmitted.

Before the Ukrainian events, despite the criticism of this purchase in Russia and objective difficulties, construction was carried out almost without deviations from the schedule and the lead ship - Vladivostok should have come to Russia in October 2014 to complete the construction of Shipyard Severnaya Verf OJSC . However, high-order events intervened in the business deal, connected with Western discontent with the Russian policy toward Ukraine. And the contract for two UDC has become a bargaining chip, a means of blackmail.

Although France until recently resisted pressure from other EU countries, NATO and the US, which demanded to freeze the supply of ships, on the eve of the summit of the North Atlantic Alliance in Wales, President Hollande nevertheless made a statement about the conditions for transferring the first UDC of the Mistral type to Russia. Under them at that time meant a cease-fire in the east of Ukraine. Traditionally, there were responses of official and unnamed Russian individuals who threatened France with lawsuits and penalties, but as far as can be judged, the real red line will be 1 November of this year, when under the terms of the contract Vladivostok should be handed over to the customer (“Sevastopol” - 1 November 2015 of the year).

"Korean" instead of "French"


In anticipation of this event, many are wondering: how will the situation develop if Paris nevertheless decides to suspend the transfer of the ship. It is obvious that the negative consequences of such a move will hit primarily France itself, and they are being actively discussed in the pages of the foreign press. But much more interesting are the possible actions of Russia.

If we leave out the question of the need for a UDC as part of the Russian Navy and how to accept that the fleet needs them, the question immediately arises of the possibilities of the Russian defense industry to import such a class of ships.

Recall that the "Mistral" have a full displacement of 21 300 tons and are a kind of reduced version of the classic American UDC, presenting a balanced design for specific French needs. These are expedition ships for long-term operations in remote waters, including use as a control ship, with minimum requirements for the combat component. The Mistrals have a high degree of automation, were designed to a significant extent according to commercial standards, and were the first in the world — out of large combat units — equipped with an electric power installation and steering-wheel propellers. In the ship's internal dock it is possible to place boats: four amphibious LCM types, or two American LCAC air cushions, or two high-speed L-CAT catamaran “water cutting” type.

Interestingly, in the shadow of the main contract for the Russian Navy, an agreement was signed with the French on the 2013 spring for the supply of four STM NG landing boats (built by STX Lorient), which must also be transferred before 1 in November 2014. There is an option for four more boats, for the Vladivostok DVKD, but in the light of recent events its fate remains vague (however, it cannot be excluded that it was possible to sign it during the summer of 2014).

Obviously, neither the Russian nor the Soviet shipbuilders had any experience of such construction, especially at such a technological level. Those large landing ships that were part of the USSR Navy and were inherited by the modern fleet, conceptually and technologically represent a completely different direction. Taking into account the fact that, according to known data, the design of the UDC was not ordered by the Russian design bureau in the post-Soviet period, we can assume: at best, there are only draft designs made initiatively. That is, with the possible issuance of an order by the Ministry of Defense, it will take several years only to prepare a project. Experience in developing projects of an aircraft carrier by the forces of Nevskoye PKB, as well as a smaller displacement ship of the squadron destroyer class (design has been going on for several years) eloquently speaks of possible difficulties on this path.



The underlying difficulties in the construction of their own can be traced by stories with the modernization of the Tavkr 11434 “Admiral Gorshkov” project for an Indian customer, with a series of frigates of the 22350 project, as well as with the lead large landing ship of the 11711 project “Ivan Gren”, we note, much simpler in design than the Mistral.

Considering the fact that today the main shipyards of the country are already engaged in the implementation of the established armament program for the period up to 2020, as well as a number of civilian programs, and taking into account the limited number of sites with long berths or docks, orders being built or planned for laying, among them, two more UDC in the coming years looks unlikely.

Finally, we must not forget about the technological aspect. We have already mentioned that the UDC Mistral is equipped with an electric power installation and propeller propellers, the development of which in Russia in the light of the embargo on the transfer of dual-use technologies looks almost unreal. The same can be said about a number of other ship systems, such as the SENIT 9 combat information management system mentioned above. The possibility of developing domestic analogues in a reasonable time is in doubt. And the cost of these ships is a big question.

There remains the option of cooperation with other countries. If we recall the history of the contract for the purchase of UDC for Russia, then along with the French, the projects of the Dutch company Schelde Shipbuilding, the Spanish Navantia and the Russian "Zvezda" took part in the tender. They put up for tender landing ships of the Rotterdam, Juan Carlos I and Dokdo classes, respectively. At the same time, Zvezda acted as a partner of the South Korean Daewoo Marine Shipbuilding & Engineering (DSME). For obvious reasons, the Dutch and Spanish projects are already irrelevant, but attention should be paid to the potential for cooperation with South Korea, even despite the not entirely successful experience of joint construction of a shipyard with the same Daewoo.

Dokdo has a total displacement of 19 tons, is equipped with a docking chamber with two LCAC LCVs and an under-deck hangar for 000 UH-10 helicopters. Landing capacity is 60 people and up to 720 pieces of equipment (including six tanks) The ship carries significant defensive weapons. Diesel EC provides a speed of up to 23 knots.

Moreover, as can be judged, unlike similar units in other countries, the Korean UDC is not focused on overseas expeditionary operations, but on operations in coastal waters. That is, its purpose is more in line with the interests of the Russian Navy. At the same time, the South Korean fleet plans to have three such ships, considering them as flagship units of the three formed strike groups. The second UDC of the series was ordered in 2012 year.

Of course, as in much of the other Korean military equipment, Dokdo has a significant amount of components and equipment made in the USA, that is, it falls under the American export control regime ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations). In fact, a ship cannot be delivered abroad without the consent of the United States government. Washington has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to apply the ITAR principles, that is, for our country, the threat of failure when trying to purchase military products and dual-use equipment is not at all contrived. But this also opens up a possible field for cooperation with Russia, which, for its part, can supply or develop analogues of American systems.

Note that we have extensive experience of cooperation with Korean enterprises in the field of high-tech military developments. So, our country supplied the RD-191 engine for the KSLV-1 launch vehicle, in Russia a multifunctional radar for the KM-SAM medium-range air defense systems was actually developed, we took an active part in the development of the Chiron-1 MANPADS. That is, experience, we emphasize once again, is available, and on a mutually beneficial basis. Another interesting fact is that some developments in the interests of Koreans have found application in Russia. So, thanks to the KSLV-1 flight, the universal rocket module (first stage) for the Russian Angara was actually tested, and the radar from the KM-SAM system will become an integral part of the new Russian Vityaz complex.

A project of this kind can also be claimed on the world market. The construction of their UDC is currently assumed, in particular, Germany, Italy and, apparently, the PRC. A number of foreign companies are developing projects of such ships for export offers. In India, announced a tender for the construction of four UDC. At the same time, they are ordered and put into service by several other countries. In September of this year, UDC Kalaat Beni-Abbes was transferred to the Algerian fleet by the Italian company Orizzonte Sistemi Navali. Myanmar also declared its interest in the procurement of UDC, and, which is typical, for the DSME project.

Thus, there is reason to assume that the Russian-Korean UDC has the right to exist and can be implemented in the metal. With a successful localization, the “Russified” Dokdo is able to become an even more formidable player in the global arms market, with our participation.

The Russian shipbuilding industry showed its ability to be a reliable cooperation partner in the implementation of the contract for the same Vladivostok and Sevastopol, when, although not without roughness, the stern parts were built on time and docked with what the French had made, with millimeter "gaps. Finally, a joint Russian-Korean project could fill the production program for the Far-Eastern shipyard under construction with new content.
Author:
161 comment
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. RESEARCHER
    RESEARCHER 25 September 2014 14: 18
    +10
    These are all forced options. There should be domestic versions of the UDC, unless of course there is a need for them and they organically fit into the military doctrine of Russia.
    1. jjj
      jjj 25 September 2014 14: 21
      +5
      I read these notes yesterday, but I didn’t get to the essence of the meaning.
      1. kodxnumx
        kodxnumx 25 September 2014 14: 25
        0
        Yes, in general, now we ourselves can even build them better, all that is necessary we already know from the French, plus we did the stern ourselves, we will improve the performance characteristics and we’ll do an order of magnitude and the French will also pay us wink
        1. chunga-changa
          chunga-changa 25 September 2014 15: 26
          +32
          Have you read the article? We cannot build "even better and an order of magnitude steep" for the next five years. There is no project, no free shipyard, no propulsion system, in principle, no landing catamarans. What the damp dreams of the military and manufacturers about "the main thing is to start building and then we'll figure it out" can be observed in the example of Gren, Gorshkov and St. Petersburg. Fabulous timing and unrestrained rise in price. Incl. if we start right now, then we are fifteen years old before our UDC, during which time the Mistrals will have time to write off.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. zheka
            zheka 25 September 2014 15: 33
            -5
            If you really want to, you can do it faster than in 5 years.
            1. lelikas
              lelikas 25 September 2014 16: 09
              +4
              Quote: zheka
              If you really want to, you can do it faster than in 5 years.

              From cardboard and plywood.
              1. podpolkovnik
                podpolkovnik 25 September 2014 16: 56
                -3
                Quote: lelikas
                Quote: zheka
                If you really want to, you can do it faster than in 5 years.

                From cardboard and plywood.

                From plasticine and snot ...
              2. Rostislav
                Rostislav 25 September 2014 18: 35
                +14
                And how long was the new technology designed and produced in 1941-45? Already accustomed to smear snot "Impossible!" Peaceful life spoiled. The best teacher is necessity. Everything is as usual, the thunder will not break out, the man will not cross himself. When it is secured, we will do everything.
                1. smith7
                  smith7 26 September 2014 10: 03
                  +1
                  The scope of design work is colossal. Design UDC and tank IS-3 things are not comparable. In 1941-1945, only tugboats converted to artillery boats and torpedo boats left the slipways. And I certainly wanted an aircraft carrier to cover the PQ caravans on the northern route.
                  1. Kassandra
                    Kassandra 28 September 2014 04: 14
                    0
                    The most difficult thing is aviation and submarines - both of which the USSR had its own in the war.
            2. Aljavad
              Aljavad 25 September 2014 20: 22
              +3
              can be done faster than in 5 years.

              And then 15 years to bring to mind ....
              And to find out, during the operation, that this is superfluous, that is insufficient, and there is nothing necessary at all ...
            3. zheka
              zheka 26 September 2014 08: 53
              0
              And again the effect of the herd of sheep.
            4. zheka
              zheka 26 September 2014 08: 53
              0
              And again the effect of the herd of sheep.
          3. Sandov
            Sandov 25 September 2014 15: 46
            +10
            Quote: chunga-changa
            Have you read the article? We cannot build "even better and an order of magnitude steep" for the next five years.

            It is necessary to work, and not to cut the loot. Once that they could do everything themselves, that’s why it is necessary to return to independence from the West. We do not need unreliable partners.
            1. Aljavad
              Aljavad 25 September 2014 20: 33
              +3
              Once they could do everything themselves,

              To be a patriot is right. But you shouldn’t tear yourself away from reality. The aircraft carriers could not. Although we went to this.
              When propped up - they bought in the West both licenses and finished products.
              Hands should not be lowered. But do not put all the eggs in one basket. And even more so - do not waste time and resources on the invention of a bicycle.
          4. lelikas
            lelikas 25 September 2014 16: 08
            +9
            Quote: chunga-changa
            T.ch. if you start right now, then to your UDC we’re about fifteen years old,

            Golden words, well, maybe with ideal layouts of 10 years, if everyone with a stick stands behind everyone.
            1. Aljavad
              Aljavad 25 September 2014 20: 35
              +1
              man with a stick

              ... but not one, but five thousand ... or ten ...
          5. volot-voin
            volot-voin 25 September 2014 16: 22
            +7
            Quote: chunga-changa
            We cannot build "even better and an order of magnitude steep" for the next five years. No project, no free shipyard, no propulsion system in principle

            http://www.paralay.com/atakr.html
            There are projects, they are even doing something in this direction. Do we have time for this? The enemy is already gnawing at Ukraine, we are following the plan.
            Oh, how much time has been missed, how many opportunities .... What has been and then sold out during the dashing years of the power of traitors.
            1. chunga-changa
              chunga-changa 25 September 2014 23: 16
              +2
              I do not quite understand what the aircraft carriers have to do with it, but oh well. There are no projects. What they show is outline designs. Based on them, you can make a model for estimating the general form and testing in the pool, no more.
              Further, to put it simply, on its basis, a preliminary project is made and agreed with the customer. Then technical and technological design begins, and at the end of this stage the real project appears. Roughly speaking, a folder with drawings and specifications that goes to the factory. There, on the basis of project documentation, they make their own working drawings and those processes. Then they begin to manufacture fixtures and fittings, order metal and products of a long production cycle (machines, electronics, weapons). Then the commander-in-chief arrives and a mortgage board is welded to the pile of iron, and construction has officially begun. So, if a design organization can make a sketch and a model at its own expense by trainees and students, then everything else is strictly for the customer's money. The design stage, from sketch to "folder to the factory" for such a ship takes 3 to 5 years of hard work of highly paid specialists. I hope it is clear that if there is no customer who will pay for the development, then no project will ever appear.
              1. Kassandra
                Kassandra 26 September 2014 01: 17
                +1
                where is the information that there are no such projects? are they ...
                the class "Ivan Rogov" had a well dock, there were only 4 helicopters, but they could fly for the landing from other ships or vessels.
                aircraft carrier despite the fact that UDC is a light aircraft carrier with a well dock for lighters.
                1. chunga-changa
                  chunga-changa 26 September 2014 11: 31
                  +1
                  I didn’t write that there were none. But Ivan Rogov, let's face it, the project is not entirely new, all the same, 50 years have passed since the beginning of development, but of course you can build it. There was also pr.11780 newer, they did it only 30 years ago, you can tin it. And then there are no projects, only models.
                  1. Kassandra
                    Kassandra 28 September 2014 04: 28
                    0
                    and better than a rhino so far have not come up with anything. nowhere.
                2. chunga-changa
                  chunga-changa 26 September 2014 12: 11
                  0
                  And UDC is not
                  Quote: Kassandra
                  lightweight carrier with well dock for lighters.
                  From the point of view of design, it is more likely that the cruiser project is easier to transform into the project of a light aircraft carrier than the aircraft project at the UDC. More precisely, this is not possible at all. The case, its geometry and layout are completely different. Other calculations, other loads, a different price and the project will turn out completely different. In LA and UDC, only the bow and superstructure will be similar,
                  1. saturn.mmm
                    saturn.mmm 27 September 2014 13: 46
                    0
                    Quote: chunga-changa
                    From the point of view of design, it is more likely that the cruiser project is easier to transform into the project of a light aircraft carrier than the aircraft project at the UDC. More precisely, this is not possible at all. The case, its geometry and layout are completely different. Other calculations, other loads, a different price and the project will turn out completely different. In LA and UDC, only the bow and superstructure will be similar,

                    The British decided that fishlessness and cancer are fish.
                  2. Kassandra
                    Kassandra 28 September 2014 04: 30
                    0
                    a cruiser or container ship in a light aircraft carrier,
                    lighter carrier in UDC.
              2. Ptah
                Ptah 26 September 2014 01: 30
                0
                Quote: chunga-changa
                Then the commander-in-chief arrives and a mortgage board is welded to a pile of iron

                Well, from this and something else you can refuse ...
                And the rest -
          6. tkhonov66
            tkhonov66 25 September 2014 16: 26
            +9
            "...
            no propulsion system in principle
            ..."
            .
            uh ...
            Well, that is, judging by the picture of this "pepelatsa" made in the title of the article - "rudder propulsion" is located just IN THE FEED. In the very box that Russia was making.
            .
            Those. TECHNOLOGY "rudder propulsion system" - Russia has ...
            - And about the author's moaning about the "electric power plant" - it's just STRANGE to me ... Or is it too weak for Russia to make an ELECTRIC GENERATOR ?!
            Well, it seems - something, but it’s precisely the electric generators — for nuclear, thermal and hydroelectric power stations — and it was in RUSSIA that it was remodeled UNMISSIBLE. As they say - ahead of the rest.
            - so what's the problem?!
            8-)
            .
            In a word - I did not understand SCORBY ...
            8- (
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 25 September 2014 17: 04
              +1
              It's a little different. The Russian Federation made a "bare" stern - only "iron", with the attachment points of the VRK. The VRK themselves were staged in France.
              As part of the saturation of the first DVKD building with the Baltic Plant foundations for screw-steering columns were installed, aft and side ramps, lifting platforms for helicopters, ammunition lift, hangar gate gates. A ballast pump room has been equipped, towing and mooring equipment has been mounted for transporting the hull to Saint-Nazaire. All hatches and doors provided for by the project were installed, electrical equipment was installed (cable trays and foundations for electrical appliances). Also, the body was saturated with pipes of ballast, waste and fire systems. The total length of the pipes is about 5 thousand meters.


              As for the DEU, it is not a problem to make it ... in a few years. "Vyartsilya" was chosen for the French because of its serial production, reliability and delivery time.
              1. skeket
                skeket 25 September 2014 20: 00
                +1
                Quote: Alexey RA
                As for the DEU, it is not a problem to make it ... in a few years. "Vyartsilya" was chosen for the French because of the serial production, reliability and delivery time

                Of course, I did not ship, but why is an electric generator with rotary screws a stumbling block? Why not make classic propellers with a classic steering wheel?
                1. Aljavad
                  Aljavad 25 September 2014 20: 40
                  +1
                  Why not make classic propellers with a classic steering wheel?

                  Ask how large ships dock. They have "classic screws". The French system is more maneuverable.
                  1. Kassandra
                    Kassandra 26 September 2014 01: 19
                    +1
                    in the picture "Spaniard"

                    an English diver died while studying at his port such a installation of a Soviet warship
                2. Ptah
                  Ptah 26 September 2014 01: 35
                  0
                  Quote: skeket
                  Why not make classic propellers with a classic steering wheel?

                  With such airborne sailing and other parameters, to bring him to the wall will require a dozen auxiliary RB (raid tugs) and half a day of time ...
                  The mandatory presence of a bow thruster is not discussed at all ...
                3. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 26 September 2014 10: 37
                  0
                  Maneuverability. Plus, this "landing barge" has such a height that at low speeds it is noticeably blown away by the wind - with the classic system, you will have to put some thrusters anyway.
            2. Konsmo
              Konsmo 25 September 2014 17: 38
              +6
              I agree.
              And that vigorous submarines twist the screw cores?
              No boats? So ours land BMD and other landing almost ashore.
              Another concept.
              The article is illiterate from an engineering point of view.
              Why apply French solutions when you have your own.
              Zenith some, is that the control of the sailors that would not go to the left in the ports?
              What is famous for?
              Horror stories come up without knowing why.
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 25 September 2014 18: 34
                +8
                These are not "French decisions", but the experience of military and post-war landings. Bringing a large landing craft to the shore with an assault force and equipment on board (and even more so throwing it ashore / maneuvering on the smallest when landing) means turning it into a target even for army soldiers. Our fleet had the experience of the same Feodosia, when the landing on the "Red Caucasus" suffered heavy losses even before the landing - even mortars were working on the ship.

                DVKD - this is the optimal separation of transport and landing means: landing is compactly and conveniently transported on one large ship, and then transfers to small, high-speed and maneuverable means (which themselves would not have reached the landing zone) and land on them - while the base ship you can get from the coast unless RCC.
                By the way, in the Second World War, we practiced a landing with a transfer in the sea from transports to the Moscow Region and SKA.
                1. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 26 September 2014 01: 21
                  0
                  nothing optimal, on the contrary, barges take a long time
                  BDK unloads everything in 15 minutes, UDK in 2 days.
                  1. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 26 September 2014 10: 47
                    0
                    Yeah ... at the same time, the BDK is forced to enter with the landing on board the zone of destruction of all BW weapons, including mortars. And on the approach to the landing zone and in it is a large low-speed low-maneuverable target (unlike the same DCA). And he does not carry a platoon or a company, like a DKA, but a battalion (that is, the losses from the defeat of one BDK will be much higher).
                    1. Kassandra
                      Kassandra 28 September 2014 04: 24
                      0
                      the mortar will not cause serious troubles on it,
                      away from the coast it will still get artillery
                      landing time is critical
                      if the "rhinoceros" has a choice 1) to land on the water's edge, or 2) by barges and helicopters, he will choose the first
                      barges and helicopters simply make it possible to land an assault where he cannot bury his nose to lower the ramp.
                      the ministry has no such choice, so it's just a mass grave.
                2. Ptah
                  Ptah 26 September 2014 01: 42
                  +1
                  This entire class of dock ships initially provides for the presence of a "friendly" pier of an ally country somewhere on the naval base. For loading, mainly ...
                  At the moment, Russia "has" a broken-down berth in Tartus.
                  Not the most trump option
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  DVKD - this is the optimal separation of vehicles and landing means: landing is compactly and conveniently transported on one large ship, and then switches to small, high-speed and maneuverable means (which themselves would not have reached the landing zone)

                  I will add. The air wing provides fire support. And such "bricks" do not work alone. A battle warrant is required.
                  1. Kassandra
                    Kassandra 28 September 2014 04: 25
                    0
                    loading / evacuation of landing can also be carried out airless, with barges
            3. arnar114
              arnar114 25 September 2014 19: 40
              +4
              Do you think that there are our diesel engines, generators and air-propellers ......? Everything is delivered because of "plywood". Now we even buy metal products by import, a lot in China. Worked for 6 years at Vyartsilya - wonderful cars !!!!! principle one - feed the "mare", change filters and oil in time and ...... and DO NOT TOUCH anything !!!!!
            4. chunga-changa
              chunga-changa 25 September 2014 23: 43
              +2
              You do not trust this drawing strongly, it’s another drawing of the pepelats. An electric power plant is a complex of a generator, engine, propulsion, various converters and controls. In addition, there is a serious mechanical part, heavy weights and loads. So, if individually there is a lot, then in the complex, adjusted and tested, with the required characteristics - no. To develop and do this from scratch is a lot of money and time for a serious institution. In general, another bike that no one needs.
          7. TVM - 75
            TVM - 75 25 September 2014 17: 06
            +3
            Design offices need to be made to work. Then everything will be. So far, no one has encroached on their quiet life.
          8. Maks-80
            Maks-80 29 September 2014 11: 46
            0
            There are free shipyards in Crimea. At least in Sevastopol and Feodosia. They are just waiting to be downloaded with pleasure.
        2. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 25 September 2014 17: 24
          0
          Quote: kod3001
          and we’ll do an order of magnitude and the French will also pay us this

          Quote:
          "The difficulties that await construction on our own can be traced back to the history of the modernization of the TAVKR project 11434" Admiral Gorshkov "for the Indian customer, with a series of frigates of the project 22350, as well as with the lead large landing ship of the project 11711" Ivan Gren ", we note, much simpler in designs than Mistral. "
          The main difficulties there must be thought in conjugation of the latest weapons. With Mistral waiting for the same
        3. Iline
          Iline 25 September 2014 18: 39
          +1
          Quote: kod3001
          Yes, in general, now we ourselves can build them even better,

          No need to engage in cap-making. It would be better to study a little problem. Previously, ships of a similar purpose for the USSR were built at Polish shipyards. Starting from scratch oh how hard and long.
          And the fact that suddenly Serdyukov stopped on the Mistral, contrary to common sense, causes some bad thoughts about kickbacks, etc.
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 25 September 2014 19: 31
            +3
            Just Mistral is the only option that is not based on the achievements of the United States. Korean or Spanish, we would not be guaranteed to receive.
          2. Vitaly72
            Vitaly72 26 September 2014 01: 48
            0
            here from this and it is necessary to begin perdyukovsky order is bent
      2. Letun
        Letun 25 September 2014 15: 05
        +22
        Quote: jjj
        I read these notes yesterday, but I didn’t get to the essence of the meaning.

        Well, the point here is simple. It is proposed to step on the same rake, but now with a US colony called South Korea.
        Fools do not even learn from their mistakes.
        1. X Y Z
          X Y Z 25 September 2014 15: 27
          +5
          That's it! Bending Koreans is much easier than the French. Moreover, the author himself described above a large percentage of the participation of components from the United States. Conclusion - an option that does not pass in principle!
      3. avt
        avt 25 September 2014 15: 49
        +3
        Quote: jjj
        I read these notes yesterday, but I didn’t get to the essence of the meaning.

        The point is that the Korean is equipped with USs, so you don’t have to put pressure on the French and we won’t get the ship with guaranteed money either.
        1. sandrmur76
          sandrmur76 25 September 2014 17: 40
          +1
          Even if they got, would these Mistrals be ready and the infrastructure is ready? There is nothing! Where were they hanging out at the raid, would they be? There are a lot of questions and no answers. Serdyukov made an order for a small share and everyone was puzzled wassatFIRST DAY FOR SERDYUKOV, THEN FOR UDC! hi
        2. Lelek
          Lelek 25 September 2014 18: 12
          +1
          Quote: avt
          and money too.


          Well, that’s how to say it. Let the min. Just. pull himself up. fool
      4. gor530
        gor530 26 September 2014 05: 04
        0
        But why do they need Russia in general? just to play war games? or are we going to attack someone? and if needed, how urgent?
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra 26 September 2014 06: 25
          +1
          for maneuver by forces on the expanses of the World Ocean, and in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk
    2. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 25 September 2014 14: 22
      +3
      Quote: RESEARCHER
      These are all forced options.

      I haven’t read the article yet, I just looked, and you’ve had enough minutes to read the article and post comments. And what options do you say if you haven’t read anything except the headline?
      1. RESEARCHER
        RESEARCHER 25 September 2014 14: 40
        +19
        And you do not think for me. There are people who only know how to do what to sell or buy. From military equipment to tinted red fish. For them, any Mistral is good, since they have something from this. And there are people - creators and creators, for whom it’s sad that someone does better than them. It is on such people that the state should rely, and not on the discoverers of new financial flows and credit lines. By the way, the notorious Unified State Examination kills creativity in a person, therefore it is so intensely imposed on Russia.
        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 25 September 2014 14: 47
          -5
          Quote: RESEARCHER
          And you do not think for me

          And why should I think something over for you. And it’s clear that after reading the headline, comments are sent. Such as you are constantly writing comments and not a little. It’s clear how and what.
          Quote: RESEARCHER
          And there are people - creators and creators, for whom it’s sad that someone does better than them. It is on such people that the state should rely, and not on the discoverers of new financial flows and credit lines.

          Many letters!
          1. RESEARCHER
            RESEARCHER 25 September 2014 14: 50
            +7
            And even more so do not judge and you will not be judged. And it’s not worth it to summarize people. You don’t know me, but I’m used to keep quiet about my achievements.
            1. Alexander Romanov
              Alexander Romanov 25 September 2014 15: 14
              +5
              Quote: RESEARCHER
              And it’s not worth it to summarize people.

              And why generalize when ........
              Quote: RESEARCHER
              There should be domestic options for UDC,

              And in the article .......
              Obviously, neither Russian nor Soviet shipbuilders had experience of such construction, especially at such a technological level. Those large landing ships that were part of the Soviet Navy and were inherited by the modern fleet, conceptually and technologically represent a completely different direction. Given the fact that, according to well-known data, in the post-Soviet period, the design of UDK was not ordered by Russian design bureaus, we can assume that in the best case there are only conceptual studies made on the initiative. That is, with the possible issuance of an order by the Ministry of Defense, it will take several years only to prepare the draft.
              The article has it all, you just need to SOMETIMES read it!
              1. ADK57
                ADK57 26 September 2014 00: 31
                +2
                There is such an interesting device - a hydro thruster. Live and working. E / d is in sea water and is cooled by it. And we say that it is difficult to create propeller-driven assemblies for Mistral. We must trust our engineers, not traders. I apologize. Effective managers.
          2. Ptah
            Ptah 26 September 2014 01: 48
            0
            Quote: Alexander Romanov
            And so it is clear that after reading the headline zoofigachili comments.

            Sash. An article on VO is not unique in its kind. I read about Dokdo half a year ago. All the more about Mistral ...
            Itself went over only on those paragraphs where it is spoken about PROSPECTS of acquisition, but not about comparison of TTX. yes
        2. Oleg Sobol
          Oleg Sobol 25 September 2014 15: 01
          +3
          Quote: RESEARCHER
          By the way, the notorious Unified State Exam kills creativity in a person

          Creativity in a person does not kill the Unified State Examination, but, in fact, the man himself, by his simple laziness.
          Not a desire to learn, work, think, and even read.
        3. lelikas
          lelikas 25 September 2014 16: 10
          +1
          Quote: RESEARCHER
          And there are people - creators and creators, for whom it’s sad that someone does better than them.

          Sorry, but Gren's "creators" don't give a shit.
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 27 September 2014 14: 53
            0
            Quote: lelikas
            Sorry, but Gren's "creators" don't give a shit.

            It is necessary for some objects in uniform to turn on their heads who change the TTX of the ship ten times and do not really know what they need, but they don’t transfer money on time.
        4. Igor Polovodov
          Igor Polovodov 25 September 2014 16: 47
          +2
          I start to kill creativity through copybooks, in elementary grades ...
          1. lelikas
            lelikas 25 September 2014 17: 15
            0
            Quote: Igor Polovodov
            I start to kill creativity through copybooks, in elementary grades ...

            I always hated them, I write like a hen with his paw.
          2. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 27 September 2014 14: 56
            0
            Quote: Igor Polovodov
            I start to kill creativity through copybooks, in elementary grades ...

            If not for the recipe, then what we wrote would be understood only by ourselves.
        5. Konsmo
          Konsmo 25 September 2014 17: 41
          0
          I agree.!!!
      2. shasherin.pavel
        shasherin.pavel 25 September 2014 14: 55
        +14
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        I haven’t read the article yet, I just looked

        But he managed to first be noted in the comments. Is it because the first comments receive more "+"? So read it first, dig in, research past projects, and then object. What is new for us in the project is the rotary thrusters (which give a huge advantage in maneuverability) and the control system and something that we have not had anywhere else: the transformation of bulkheads, which can be done by a ship from an amphibious assault to a hospital for 720 seats and with 12 operating rooms. surgical complexes. And do not forget to write an anonymous letter to the administrator for me, allegedly hurt your pride.
        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 25 September 2014 15: 19
          0
          Quote: shasherin.pavel
          But he managed to check in the comments first.

          Go through the articles and see where my comments go first. So take a look for yourself.
          He wrote, only because a person who is not reading nichrome, puts a bunch of comments with the opinion of a professional in the article. One slogan is to collect the pluses and at the same time they do not carry, in general, no information, but they do the aspect on others who also did not read anything except the headline.
          Quote: shasherin.pavel
          So read first, delve into, research past projects, and then mind.

          I wrote that I was thinking about him and went to read, do not worry about the guy with a hidden aipi for me. Has it been banned the last time on the site?
          Quote: shasherin.pavel
          And do not forget to write an anonymous letter on me to the administrator, supposedly hurt your vanity.

          I have a Skype connection with the admin, so I do not write anonymous letters.
      3. VAF
        VAF 25 September 2014 16: 59
        +8
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        I haven’t read the article yet, I just looked, but you have enough minutes and read the article and put the comments


        Sasha, and I will support the RESEARCHER, +! drinks
        He first commented clearly and competently ... even one title of an article that could no longer be read (and so the meaning of what it was about) was enough for his comment !!! drinks

        And what is the tragedy and what? in "s" 1.2 lard ??? I beg you .. for the "last six months" Vova so many .. "gifts" squandered that to waste time on trifles about some 1.2 lard .. right is not serious wassat

        Or are we not a Great Power, with an immense "national property"? well, if not enough ... "we will borrow from the same people" lol
        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 25 September 2014 17: 16
          +3
          Quote: vaf
          Koment, he was the first to state clearly and competently.

          Serega, that koment that you see now is greatly changed by him. Initially, he was ....These are all forced options.and there was nothing more. this is done in order to stake out places later on in the article and to throw a few words in essence.
          Quote: vaf
          And what is the tragedy and what? in "s" 1.2 lard?

          And where did I see the tragedy? I initially had these Mistrals to one place. I didn’t understand why the heck we needed them, and now nothing has changed laughing
          1. RESEARCHER
            RESEARCHER 25 September 2014 20: 49
            +2
            Sasha, if you teach me how to change comments at any time, I will be grateful to you for the rest of my life. But I have enough time to just add and correct grammatical errors a little, otherwise I’m ashamed to be dismissive of my native language.
    3. volot-voin
      volot-voin 25 September 2014 14: 27
      +4
      Quote: RESEARCHER
      These are all forced options. There should be domestic versions of the UDC, unless of course there is a need for them and they organically fit into the military doctrine of Russia.

      We also have landing ships and cruiser aircraft carriers. Moreover, domestic production, and it is necessary to continue to build them.
      1. Tirpitz
        Tirpitz 25 September 2014 14: 52
        +5
        Quote: volot-voin
        We also have landing ships and cruiser aircraft carriers

        Please list the aircraft carriers of the cruiser. I understand several of them. Or just to write. Plus, as your goal is + to dial.
        1. RESEARCHER
          RESEARCHER 25 September 2014 15: 06
          +4
          Friends! Do not swear because of the pluses. Just the first comments are always emotional, and the subsequent analytical ones. Many people (not all of course) simply emit emotions on them, and not chase the pluses.
        2. volot-voin
          volot-voin 25 September 2014 15: 09
          +6
          Quote: Tirpitz
          Please list the aircraft carriers of the cruiser. I understand several of them. Or just to write. Plus, as your goal is + to dial.

          Heavy aircraft carriers of the Kiev type cruiser - 3 units.
          Heavy aircraft cruiser Admiral Gorshkov - 1 unit.
          Heavy aircraft carriers of the Admiral Kuznetsov type cruiser - 1 + 1 units.
          Heavy aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk - 0 + 1 units
          Heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers of the USSR / Russia. Excerpt from the book by Sergei Balakin "Aircraft Carriers of the World 1945-2001".

          Unfortunately, they do not pay salaries for the pluses, and the titles are not real give. I give you an answer smilethat would not be offensive.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 25 September 2014 15: 29
            +8
            And now - attention, the question: where were all these ships built?
            The correct answer: now already abroad. Moreover, at present, the construction of such ships on that shipyard is no longer possible. And from your list in the ranks only 2 ships remained: one with us, and one with the Indians.

            Moreover, more than 20 years have passed since the last "big pot" was built. I can recall a similar experience of the USSR - the construction of battleships of project 23. Initially, it was planned to deliver them to the fleet in 3-4 years. A year after the start of construction, the planned terms increased by almost one and a half times. And it is generally difficult to talk about the actual dates, since part of the "filling" of the LC was not produced in the USSR at all (moreover, for some items, our factories refused to manufacture at all). And this despite the fact that the factories were previously "trained on cats" - project cruisers 26 and 68.
        3. volot-voin
          volot-voin 25 September 2014 15: 36
          +4
          Quote: Tirpitz
          Quote: volot-voin
          We also have landing ships and cruiser aircraft carriers

          Please list the aircraft carriers of the cruiser. I understand several of them. Or just to write. Plus, as your goal is + to dial.

          The last - and at this stage, the only one for the Russian fleet - the aircraft-carrying cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov left the stocks in 1985, unfortunately the rest were sold out in the hard times of the 90s. Probably this was the reason for ordering mistrals in France. Although I believe that domestic developments are not nearly inferior to Western ones. Under the USSR, the defense industry was at the level.
    4. Giant thought
      Giant thought 25 September 2014 14: 36
      +6
      The best option is the own construction of such ships, and foreign companies can be involved in small things.
      1. Wlad
        Wlad 25 September 2014 18: 01
        +7
        The option is certainly the best, but we will build our Mistral-class ships in 10-12 years.
        You can say anything. Need-not need, where to put them ...
        There is a fact: we were moved in terms of these 10-12 years! Our landing ships will survive this period? .. Or we will clap our hands - cool, we will also pay a forfeit!
        Yes, we are ready to pay dough many times more. if only we would not build anything, do not rearm, do not modernize anything !!! And lousy few lards ...
        Not for a money account, but for a while!
    5. sergey261180
      sergey261180 25 September 2014 17: 48
      0
      Quote: RESEARCHER
      There should be domestic versions of the UDC, unless of course there is a need for them and they organically fit into the military doctrine of Russia.

      That is the big question. Why goat button accordion? The presence of such ships implies active military operations, the seizure of territories and states. Judging by the current sluggish actions with dill, these ships do not fit into the comprador doctrine.
      1. Ptah
        Ptah 26 September 2014 01: 57
        +1
        Quote: sergey261180
        Why goat bayan?

        This is not a "button accordion" ... And Russia is not a "goat", therefore, it simply must have a STATUS WEIGHT that influences (positively) the prestige of the SEA POWER.
        Whatever they say "we can not, we can not", "expensive and cheap" ...
        4 - a lot, and 2 - pull ...
        Quote: sergey261180
        The presence of such ships implies active military operations, the seizure of territories and states.

        You yourself know that you are wrong. If you are not sure about this, then carefully re-read the articles that mention the UNIVERSAL mission ...
    6. Dart2027
      Dart2027 25 September 2014 19: 29
      +1
      We must, but we need so many things that we don’t know what to grab.
  2. fzr1000
    fzr1000 25 September 2014 14: 19
    0
    We shouldn’t have a khaliszuskago, nor a Korean one. And we have already manufactured the stern module, so we have trained the staff.
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 25 September 2014 14: 29
      +3
      Quote: fzr1000
      We shouldn’t have a khaliszuskago, nor a Korean one.

      And one more same fool If you read what is written in the article, then the point is to build your BDK, since Korean ones are built from a significant number of American parts and cannot be transferred to the other side without US permission.
      1. fzr1000
        fzr1000 25 September 2014 14: 31
        +3
        Did I write something else? Do you need to put emoticons everywhere?
        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 25 September 2014 15: 29
          +3
          Quote: fzr1000
          Do you need to put emoticons everywhere?

          Yes, at times it’s worth, but the contingent is different, one jokes, the second seriously carries nonsense request
      2. DRA-88
        DRA-88 25 September 2014 15: 06
        +2
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        because the Korean are built from a significant number of American parts and cannot be transferred to the other side without US permission.

        Totally agree with you! And since South Korea is the patrimony of the United States, they will not even sell dual-use products, not to mention warships!
        1. fzr1000
          fzr1000 25 September 2014 15: 21
          +3
          Yes, I also agree, but with the Russian language and humor on the site are big troubles.

          "But they could have shot" wink
          1. DRA-88
            DRA-88 25 September 2014 15: 46
            +3
            Quote: fzr1000
            "But they could have shot


            This is easy for us! and then regret and cry laughing
            1. Ptah
              Ptah 26 September 2014 02: 01
              0
              Quote: DRA-88
              This is easy for us!

              Like this, Vladlen? Greetings!
              1. DRA-88
                DRA-88 26 September 2014 02: 10
                +1
                laughing Greetings, Vadim! Glad to see you in good health!
                You again managed to make me laugh ..., in connection with my "penalty" twists and turns ..)))) good
                1. DRA-88
                  DRA-88 26 September 2014 02: 36
                  0
                  Quote: DRA-88
                  Ptah


                  By the way, "Normal" prophesied me marshal's shoulder straps back in my 3rd run! fellow laughing laughing laughing
    2. fzr1000
      fzr1000 25 September 2014 14: 30
      0
      Shaw, did French-Korean hirelings dig in at the site?
    3. 4elovek
      4elovek 25 September 2014 14: 52
      +4
      Quote: fzr1000
      We’ve already made a feed module,

      By the way, but the stern, in case of termination of the contract, the French will have to "unscrew" from the hull and return to Russia ... laughing
  3. Dezinto
    Dezinto 25 September 2014 14: 20
    +14
    This image is not a mistral ...

    this is the spanish helicopter carrier Juan Carlos ...

    1. Ayujak
      Ayujak 25 September 2014 15: 28
      +2
      Why does he need a ramp? For harriers?
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. goose
      goose 25 September 2014 16: 49
      +2
      The Spanish premature bearer is an American project that only Spain bought for its poverty. They are completely non-existent to provide group flights. Can launch a group of a maximum of two aircraft with full parameters. In addition, it is quite dangerous for flights, even as a training one it can not be used.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. Kassandra
      Kassandra 25 September 2014 21: 17
      +2
      this is not a helicopter carrier, but a "UDC", and, in contrast to the mistral with a ramp, the harriers also fly from it. now considered the best ship in its class
      a helicopter carrier generally does not need to have a flooded aft section (well dock); helicopter carriers do not carry landing boats - only helicopters.

      their aircraft carrier STOVL "Principe de Asturias" with the advent of the UDC, they brought to the reserve and put up for sale at a low price.
  4. Magic archer
    Magic archer 25 September 2014 14: 20
    +8
    To be honest, it's nonsense !!! The author himself believes in this?! America has long controlled this region. South Korea and Japan are two main allies and vassals! Therefore, Koreans will not build an analogue of Mistral to us. Mattress covers will not be allowed.
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 25 September 2014 14: 31
      +2
      Quote: Magic Archer
      To be honest, it's nonsense !!! The author himself believes in this ?!

      The author, just does not believe in it. Read first, and then write.
      1. Magic archer
        Magic archer 25 September 2014 14: 40
        +4
        then what is the point of the article ?! You can write with the same success that America can build an analogue of Mistral to us!))) But after all, everyone understands that this will not happen. Regards hi
        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 25 September 2014 15: 10
          +3
          Quote: Magic Archer
          then what is the point of the article ?!

          In cooperation, not a blunt order, as with the Mistrals.
          1. Magic archer
            Magic archer 25 September 2014 15: 23
            +2
            There was cooperation with Mistral, no matter how they built the stern in St. Petersburg. But what kind of cooperation did we see. It is a pity that the shipyards in Ukraine are idle. There are still personnel and opportunities for building such ships ...
            1. Alexander Romanov
              Alexander Romanov 25 September 2014 15: 27
              +1
              Quote: Magic Archer
              Cooperation with Mistral was also

              Which one? We needed their ships, their technology, and they loot from us is your cooperation laughing
              1. Magic archer
                Magic archer 25 September 2014 16: 02
                +4
                Well, firstly. Of all the technologies that we really needed, it was the Zenit-9 BIUS. And the Vampir NG optical search and targeting systems. These are the systems that we don’t have an analogue at the moment. And secondly, we don’t have a shipyard where we are we can build a ship of this class. In the USSR, this was done only in Nikolaev.
  5. Roman 1977
    Roman 1977 25 September 2014 14: 20
    +24
    The issue with the purchase of warships abroad, in order to strengthen the Navy, has long been ripe, no matter how the shipbuilding bosses from the USC oppose this. It's just that when choosing a construction company, Mr. Serdyukov made the mistake of choosing the French (I don't know why maybe he was promised a barrel of jam and a basket of cookies or Mrs. Vasilyeva was tempted by lace French linen, this is a great secret), but again no one did not know in 2010 when the contract on the construction of ships was concluded, what would happen in 2014. In the end, we could place an order in South Korea, but we have what we have ... Therefore, the Mistral must be defended with all our might, since we have nothing to replace it with and unfortunately our own industry will not raise such a ship ...
    Now, with regard to the construction of ships abroad, do not forget that 1/3 of the fleet of Tsarist Russia was built abroad. Comrade Stalin, whom no one will reproach for lack of patriotism, bought the Luttsov heavy cruiser from the Germans, and the Tashkent leader from the Italians.


    And after the war he did not hesitate to take the battleship Väinemäinen from the Finns and include it in our Navy, calling it Vyborg and the entire Romanian fleet, not counting the ships received under the division of the German and Italian fleets.

    In Soviet times, all BDK pr. 775 and not only were built at Polish shipyards.
    And now they do not hesitate to send our ships for repairs to a NATO member country - Bulgaria (BDK pr. 775 "Caesar Kunnikov" and UK pr. 887 "Perekop")

    arrival of the large landing craft "Caesar Kunnikov" for repairs in Varna.
    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.
    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 ...
    1. Landwarrior
      Landwarrior 25 September 2014 14: 33
      +3
      Quote: Novel 1977
      It’s just that when choosing a construction company, Mr. Serdyukov made the mistake that he chose the French (I don’t know why maybe they promised him a barrel of jam and a basket of cookies, or Mrs. Vasilyeva was tempted by lace French linen, this secret is great),


      Yes, there is no secret, it was, so to speak, a curtsy to the Party of Sarkazi for his policy regarding the war 080808 hi
    2. Good_Taxist
      Good_Taxist 25 September 2014 14: 36
      -7
      ... and why the hell to us these frogs! Are we going to conquer Australia? Or a helicopter fleet in Antartis (the Arctic) to place a boom ???
      We have a purely defensive doctrine - Russian We !!!
      We already have polar bears, and penguins, if they want, will fly by themselves !!!
      1. Aljavad
        Aljavad 25 September 2014 21: 10
        +4
        We have a purely defensive doctrine

        Do you like to get around Moscow, but on the Volga?
        And I like to defend on enemy territory more ...
        Strange?
    3. DRA-88
      DRA-88 25 September 2014 15: 00
      +3
      Quote: Novel 1977
      Roman 1977


      Roman, thank you very much for the constant and detailed information on the Naval issues! hi

      With you I completely agree that the fleets must be replenished with NK at any cost!
    4. shasherin.pavel
      shasherin.pavel 25 September 2014 15: 07
      0
      "Luttsov" was purchased in an unfinished version, but the body of the leader "Tashkent" was built for the USSR in Italy, but it was delivered without weapons, our guns were originally installed on it. But the rest is "+".
      1. Roman 1977
        Roman 1977 25 September 2014 15: 29
        +10
        "Mistral" must be defended with all our might, since we have nothing to replace it with and our own industry, unfortunately, until such a ship picks up ... Give me a Russian large landing ship (in the fleet), capable of landing amphibious assault "from over the horizon" with the help 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 ship similar to the 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 at the "Mistral") I indicated above and now for the "Syrian Express" we are forced to repair the ancient large landing craft of the project 1171: the Saratov large landing craft was transferred fleet in 1966, large landing craft "Orsk" in 1968.
        1. AndreyS
          AndreyS 26 September 2014 10: 09
          +1
          All of this, of course, you wrote wonderful
          Quote: Novel 1977
          Tell me a Russian large landing craft (as part of the fleet), is it capable of landing amphibious assault forces "from over the horizon" with the aid of submarines and helicopters, as well as providing air support to the landing?

          But fig, do you need this ?! Sorry of course for the questions. But:
          And what about when landing from over the horizon, landing becomes safer for the landing?
          Landing boats are not sunk and not killed ?!
          There are an infinite number of landing boats on ships like Mistral ?!
          And can those landing means immediately deliver all the equipment ashore ?!
          Are landing assault boats protected against air attacks?
          And if all these questions are answered in the negative, then the worse the landing from the BDK directly to the shore ???????? For example, I see much more advantages in a direct landing on land than from the horizon !!!!
          Here is a description of the landing operation from the Soviet BDK "Ivan Rogov":
          "... but the Pacific Fleet marines had to land on the so-called "unequipped" coast - with boulders, sand dunes and reefs in the coastal zone, which is why they stormed the island simultaneously from the sea and from the air. In addition, the amphibious assault needed to go through the enemy’s positions, reach the specified lines and gain a foothold there.
          Initially, “Squids” - hovercraft - came out from the BDK, 5 km to the shore, with groups of barrage and cover. They were followed by amphibious tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, which remained near the coastal strip, while sappers laid down and detonated heavy bombs - made safe passages on land. At the same time, airborne assault landed from seven helicopters to the dominant heights ...
          "(here is the link - http://www.morpeh.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=556:vysadka-d
          esanta-na-o-sokotra-v-1980-godu & catid = 173: jemen & Itemid = 145)
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra 30 September 2014 12: 40
            0
            there is an engagement on the mistral, so the emphasis is on the "forced" landing on the shore
            in fact, the possibility of direct landing on the water edge (due to the fact that it can be done very quickly) is the biggest plus.
          2. Kassandra
            Kassandra 30 September 2014 13: 29
            +1
            The biggest threat to UDC is now military aviation and not rocket artillery combat, so UDC must be able to do its job quickly.
            Direct landing from the hold to the coast is possible at 45% of the world's oceans, and military operations are possible mainly in these areas.
            BO they are covered only in 1/10 cases
            barges give another 50% of the landing capability, and only 5% of the coast is so bad that only the helicopter remains of the landing options.
            the British wept at the Falklands because the Fearless / Intrepid class could not be thrown onto the beach
            after their Hurricane, the custodians blinded Mistral because they had never fought against a country with strong supersonic combat aircraft. and they blindly crooked because a solid flight deck is needed only if there is a STOVL (yak, f35, or harrier). The Spaniards, Americans and Italians have a full deck on their UDC - they have a Harrier, and the French don't allow pride ..
            It is needed mainly because the combat-damaged AV-8 has the ability to land on it in the emergency barrier.

            therefore, who is not able to land on the beach and has no STOVL Mistral, this is the most sucks. crying
    5. VAF
      VAF 25 September 2014 16: 53
      +5
      Quote: Novel 1977
      Just when choosing a construction company, Mr. Serdyukov


      Roman, that’s all ready to blame on the stool, if only ... the whole sun .. do not mess up? wink
      And it is precisely here that his ears stick out, however, as elsewhere! There would be no Bparzh, there would be no "friend" of Sarkozy, and the whole world would still think that it was we who attacked "the poor tie-cook!" soldier
      1. Hairy Siberian
        Hairy Siberian 25 September 2014 18: 22
        +3
        Quote: Novel 1977
        Just when choosing a construction company, Mr. Serdyukov made the mistake that he chose the French

        France is one of the few countries with an almost complete range of production of modern weapons and military equipment - from small arms to attack nuclear aircraft carriers (which, except France, only the United States has).
        Quote: Novel 1977
        In the end, they could place an order in South Korea

        If the Yankees were able to crush the Franks, then the conversation with the Koreans and Spaniards would be even shorter, even if there were no sanctions against Russia.
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra 30 September 2014 13: 39
          0
          yes, that's just France, unlike the Americans, Spaniards and Italians, there is no STOVL therefore on their UDC a continuous flight deck and such dimensions of corbal are not needed at all ...
  6. DRA-88
    DRA-88 25 September 2014 14: 20
    +4
    Well, if cooperation with Korea is beneficial to us, then of course the project will be! We have a huge shortage of ships at the Pacific Fleet and we need to replenish the fleet by any means!
  7. BARKAS
    BARKAS 25 September 2014 14: 23
    +2
    Koreans today are some of the best, if not the best shipbuilders in the world, but why don’t I understand the next adventure in this area!
    1. DRA-88
      DRA-88 25 September 2014 14: 42
      +1
      Quote: BARKAS
      why do not we understand another adventure in this area!

      I can only agree that our "effective managers" can turn any good into an "adventure"!
      I am also sure that the Russian Federation needs exactly domestic ships, but now the construction of "series" is problematic (the reasons are known to everyone and lie on the surface). And it is necessary to replenish the fleet with combat units !!!!
  8. father nikon
    father nikon 25 September 2014 14: 24
    +2
    Feed was being built in Russia, haven't we got design documents for the construction? Finalize, make the necessary adjustments and build yourself!
    1. igorkuzik
      igorkuzik 25 September 2014 14: 42
      +2
      It’s not a case technology, but a mechanical and propulsion system, I believe
  9. Neighbor
    Neighbor 25 September 2014 14: 25
    0
    Some kind of swindle. There were publications, in my opinion, that the Koreans have a controlling stake in the shipyard in St. Nazaire.
  10. Tirpitz
    Tirpitz 25 September 2014 14: 27
    +2
    You can also consider re-equipping civilian vessels for military needs. How to do it in the USA. UDC will not replace, but will significantly facilitate maritime transport.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 25 September 2014 15: 19
      +1
      We have already tried it - in the USSR. There was such a project "Khalzan" - an attempt to unify as much as possible the UDC and the serial ro-ro ship.

      The result turned out to be discouraging: it was cheaper and easier to build a UDC in the hull of an aircraft-carrying cruiser than to bring a civilian ship to at least fulfill the minimum requirements of the Navy for survivability and deployment of weapons / amphibious assault equipment / landing / crew.
  11. 89067359490
    89067359490 25 September 2014 14: 28
    +5
    We need to beat off the Mistral. These ships are bad or good. They have already been bought by us. And now we can’t order new ones anywhere.
    1. Wlad
      Wlad 25 September 2014 19: 02
      +4
      Of course! Nah these lard! Two ships in service, a trained crew, an air wing !!!, infrastructure, plus soon an extreme shortage of landing ships, but there have never been such
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 30 September 2014 13: 43
        0
        what kind of air wing? no need to wind up - this term only matters if there is a fixed wing aircraft (or at worst tiltrotor) to which the helicopters are in the appendage.
        if there are only helicopters, then they say "helicopter group" and not the wing.
  12. Mestny
    Mestny 25 September 2014 14: 30
    0
    Quote from the article
    It has already been said that the Mistral UDCs are equipped with an electric power plant and propeller-driven propulsion devices, the development of which in Russia in the light of the embargo on the transfer of dual-use technologies seems almost unrealistic.

    But from the previous news: "USC is building patrol ships intended for use in the Arctic"
    “This is a new generation ship with electric propulsion, propeller-driven columns, a large volume of internal premises,” Rakhmanov said.
    1. shasherin.pavel
      shasherin.pavel 25 September 2014 15: 15
      0
      Quote: Mestny
      intended for use in the Arctic "
      “This is a new generation ship, with electric propulsion, thruster, large volume of internal

      One has to imagine what will happen to such an electro-propulsion group when meeting ice in the Arctic? And I’m not talking about the propellers ... Even icebreakers carry spare propellers with them (we recall the case with American ships in Antarctica, when the Somov changed propeller blades), because it takes into account, first of all, the protection of the blades with ice.
  13. Styx
    Styx 25 September 2014 14: 34
    +1
    Frog-eaters, you are more likely to decide: either ship the ships or denyushka with compensation. And then some kind of scraps, fiii
    1. stalkerwalker
      stalkerwalker 25 September 2014 14: 42
      +4
      Quote: Styx
      Frog-eaters, you are more likely to decide: either ship the ships or denyushka with compensation. And then some kind of scraps, fiii

      Uhhh ... bro ....
      Keepers are the most greedy Europeans ...
      And now they have a problem "As they thought not to give, not to pay the penalty ...".
      They will give it back ... They will not go anywhere ... They will only spoil the nerves. And some equipment on ships - like "we ourselves are against drunkenness, but drunkenness is against us ..."
      But Tuta ischo Zhopland signed for Babamka - they say we’ll be bombed by ISIS for a couple. wassat Those. frog lovers need money, and very much. How to pay compensation to burnt farmers?
      1. Russian soldier
        Russian soldier 25 September 2014 15: 49
        +2
        Quote: stalkerwalker

        Uhhh ... bro ....


        Uh-uh ... bro .... Sorry, dear, here you messed up.
        "Styx" is a girl named Natasha.
        1. Styx
          Styx 25 September 2014 21: 58
          +1
          yes she is the most repeat (here's the trouble with this short grip book laughing )
          1. Ptah
            Ptah 26 September 2014 02: 10
            0
            Quote: Styx
            wow

            Sasha. Roma-a-a-new ...
            You are a well-known unmarried man and a noble womanizer ... Like the others involved in this.
            Well help the girl fix hairstyle, pah, sorry - Old in profile ... repeat love
  14. Basarev
    Basarev 25 September 2014 14: 36
    -5
    I am a supporter of purely Russian ships. I will not allow a rivet of foreign!
    Well, as for the more serious ships than the DKVD, I am a supporter of battleships.
    1. Ptah
      Ptah 26 September 2014 02: 13
      0
      Attack the Hawaiian plantation in "line formation" ...
      Or to build a "battle order" amersky 2 fleet near Gangut, and populate from deck guns ...
  15. Alexander
    Alexander 25 September 2014 14: 36
    0
    How the hell is a Korean ?! Let’s immediately ask the LHA6, why do we choose some half-measures ?!
  16. bbss
    bbss 25 September 2014 14: 39
    0
    Why do we "rested" on colonial French toys? I will refer the author to the memoirs of the great Russian shipbuilder Krylov: "Goliath was fed, and he took it ...". Why do we need this UDC? What aborigines are we going to pacify? He is in no way suitable for fighting a serious adversary because the target ...
    1. Aljavad
      Aljavad 25 September 2014 21: 31
      0

      What Aboriginal are we going to pacify?

      Or are there few of them around ?! Look around! Baltic "boys" strive to write in our direction. The Pans got themselves almost the largest army in Europe. Well, we have already passed Georgia. And the Kuriles ?! As our self-awareness grows, more are formed. Why? From impunity! Well, do not immediately extinguish them with a rocket. First you need to show them the FIST. And closer to the nose.
      And stop being shy like "We are not an empire!" We were, are and will be (I am sure!) THE GREAT EURASIAN EMPIRE.
      Therefore, we will always be disliked by all sorts of minor flaws.
  17. Roman 1977
    Roman 1977 25 September 2014 14: 43
    +12
    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 built 2 Makassar UDCs to the Indonesians, with a total displacement of 11 tons, landing capacity: 400 people, 500 tanks, 13 submarines, gave them a license for their construction, and now the Indonesians are building them for 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 ...
    1. Bombardier
      Bombardier 25 September 2014 14: 51
      +3
      Roman, you presented the information very reasonably, both times from me pluses.
      But in fact I’ll say - the French will give the Mistrals on time and without delay (no data - these are my conclusions).
  18. Vlad67
    Vlad67 25 September 2014 14: 45
    0
    If the French refuse to give up the ship entirely, we take a penalty, as is known, significantly exceeding the cost of the Mistral, plus our part of the ship (stern)!
    Everything is according to the law.
    Well, are the French really so bad that they will allow such a scenario?
    So with all their ernishness, the contract will be fulfilled.
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 25 September 2014 15: 22
      +4
      Quote: Vlad67
      Well, are the French really so bad that they will allow such a scenario?

      No, I think the French will say that they do not refuse deliveries, but they postpone the deadlines in connection with the situation in Ukraine.
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 27 September 2014 16: 00
        0
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        No, I think the French will say that they do not refuse deliveries, but they postpone the deadlines in connection with the situation in Ukraine.

        And nothing is written in the contract on the dates?
  19. Eggor
    Eggor 25 September 2014 14: 47
    +4
    Meanwhile, Vladivostok continues its test drive ...
  20. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 25 September 2014 14: 48
    +6
    And they calculated everything for the operation and use of the Mistral! And do we really need them?
    1. Bombardier
      Bombardier 25 September 2014 14: 56
      +6
      Now we need Syria (as an example) to transfer some "goods", and at this time, all the large landing ships are already for repairs - they drove them back and forth like racing cars. Do you think we need a couple of such "troughs"?
      1. Uncle lee
        Uncle lee 25 September 2014 17: 07
        +6
        That's it - trough! This topic has been discussed on the website more than once
        1. Aljavad
          Aljavad 25 September 2014 21: 49
          +2
          That's it - trough! This topic has been discussed on the website more than once

          A little to offer an alternative? At the same time and for the same (already invested) money?
  21. Seva
    Seva 25 September 2014 14: 56
    -5
    We can really build everything ourselves, even without copying. Although if real time was running out, we could copy!
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 25 September 2014 22: 56
      0
      6 negatives are already clearly sitting on the French pullback ...
  22. Stinger
    Stinger 25 September 2014 14: 56
    +2
    Quote: jjj
    I read these notes yesterday, but I didn’t get to the essence of the meaning.

    The point is their meaninglessness. Since the Americans have crushed France, then Korea has nothing to do. Everything should be yours!
  23. Romass
    Romass 25 September 2014 15: 26
    0
    The author didn’t, but he froze stupidity, softly saying, that Yu. Korea will build. Can Japan also build?
    1. Aljavad
      Aljavad 25 September 2014 21: 51
      +2
      Korea will build. Can Japan also build?

      Japan - definitely - can. But, (unequivocally) does not want.
      And Korea, most likely (99,99%), too.
      For all my antipathy for stools - France was the only chance to quickly buy something big, amphibious and modern.
  24. oreh72
    oreh72 25 September 2014 15: 27
    +1
    Traditionally, answers of official and unnamed Russian persons followed that threatened France with lawsuits and forfeits, but as far as can be judged, the real red line will be crossed on November 1 of the current year, when under the terms of the contract Vladivostok should be transferred to the customer (Sevastopol - November 1 2015).
    Quote: 89067359490
    We need to beat off the Mistral. These ships are bad or good. They have already been bought by us. And now we can’t order new ones anywhere.

    Will they not give it back on time, will they change course during a test drive on November 2 (following the example of Kuznetsov in the 90s)?
    1. Wlad
      Wlad 25 September 2014 19: 35
      +1
      Have you seen enough bad movies?
  25. Saburo
    Saburo 25 September 2014 15: 30
    +1
    I note that Kazakhstan, unlike France, is in no hurry to impose any sanctions against Russia. But it's too late to drink Borjomi. Now let the French puzzle over where to attach the Mistral and at the same time not go broke.
  26. IAlex
    IAlex 25 September 2014 15: 35
    -1
    The most appropriate option, quick and cheap, is to order a shipment from the Chinese, the quality will certainly not be very good, but we’ll take a whole bunch of them, all the more they will steal everything and quickly bungle it ... All other options are not passable, including if you design the Aircraft Carrier / UDC with our current capabilities is at least 10 years old, and narrow-eyed Yankees will attack much earlier ...
  27. Mefodi5124
    Mefodi5124 25 September 2014 15: 36
    0
    Quote: RESEARCHER
    These are all forced options. There should be domestic versions of the UDC, unless of course there is a need for them and they organically fit into the military doctrine of Russia.

    What are we worse than paddling? Just lazy ... Or someone that has something from this.
  28. 3vs
    3vs 25 September 2014 15: 41
    0
    Well, so we wait until November 1, and then let the "French" president figure it out already
    with their citizens who lose their job through his fault.
  29. qwert
    qwert 25 September 2014 15: 44
    +4
    In general, they have sunk. Koreans. Chinese, Spaniards ... build themselves. I am we, who could build nuclear aircraft carriers (I know that we didn’t finish it. We just didn’t have time), missile cruisers, the largest icebreakers and the R / V Gagarin and many other things, we are now thinking who to order. And what to order? UDC! This is not the crown of naval thought. Not in terms of construction, not in terms of filling.
    Now, honestly, resentment and shame takes. It's a shame for the power ...
  30. ARES623
    ARES623 25 September 2014 15: 47
    +1
    Of course, I’m not a shipbuilder, can anyone tell if the atomic icebreaker or the submarine missile carrier is much simpler than a French ferry? The type of vessel, of course, is not the same, but the systematic approach to solving technical problems does not particularly depend on the type of means being created. Rogozin says that he gained competence with the Indian aircraft carrier, which means it needs to be increased. Everything from the commander in chief is coming. In general, something interesting is happening in our state. We live, it can be said, from oil and gas, but we do not have the technology for manufacturing field equipment, everything is enemy !!! Not enough money, so Miller (almost a civil servant) has annual income of over 25 million USD exceeded. With such salaries, the heads of state enterprises will not have enough gas. So we will dress up with whom to buy something instead of learning ourselves and being truly independent
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 25 September 2014 16: 45
      +2
      You will be surprised, but yes - easier. Because our nuclear submarines were built almost continuously (moreover, nuclear submarine projects replaced one another for the most part evolutionarily, without drastic changes ... well, except perhaps 941 and 949) - there are personnel, there are technologies, and there is a well-developed chain of allies.
      We need to do DVDKD from scratch. Look, poor fellow "Gren" has been tortured for many years.

      In addition, in our time at any time there may be problems even with already developed nodes - for example, due to well-known events, the delivery of Ukrainian ship gas-turbine engines was covered with a copper basin, and domestic ones will be only in 2017.
    2. goose
      goose 25 September 2014 17: 01
      0
      Miller’s salary should not exceed the salary of a cleaning lady in the same Gazprom more than 10 times, otherwise this is an occasion for revolutions.
      1. Aljavad
        Aljavad 25 September 2014 22: 04
        0
        Miller’s salary should not exceed the salary of a cleaning lady in the same Gazprom more than 10 times, otherwise this is an occasion for revolutions.

        And responsibility is no more than 10 times, otherwise ....
        1. goose
          goose 26 September 2014 09: 39
          0
          Do not forget that Miller - not the king, but just the same mercenary as the cleaning lady - is unhappy - behind the fence of a thousand, ready to take his place. Salaries should be measured by competition, not by the status of the boss of the richest company.
        2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Dart2027
      Dart2027 25 September 2014 19: 48
      +2
      Quote: ARES623
      Is the atomic icebreaker or submarine missile carrier much simpler than a French ferry?

      No, it’s not easier. The point is different - any major construction requires the investment of a huge amount of resources, not money, but resources. Money is just cut paper. Yes, maybe they will pay us a forfeit. But where will we build our own? Rails, machines, trained people - all this will not appear from the air. In which ... the fleet everyone knows, and literally everything is needed.
    5. Aljavad
      Aljavad 25 September 2014 22: 02
      0
      Of course, I’m not a shipbuilder, can anyone tell if the atomic icebreaker or the submarine missile carrier is much simpler than a French ferry?

      Is there a shipyard of this size? (In the USSR it was in Ukraine)
      Is there a project? (Neither the USSR nor the Russian Federation designed this)
      About experience - I do not ask.
      It will be like with an audio player: "The Soviet player is the largest, heaviest and most inconvenient in the world." Despite the fact that it was released in small series when the world was moving to CD /
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 25 September 2014 23: 01
        0
        Dig a pit a little more authenticly - there will be a shipyard, business then.
        there were many projects, experience too: "Ivan Rogov", "Admiral Kuznetsov"
        the player is not a large ship, but the CD technology, by the way, is Soviet.
  31. kirqiz ssr
    kirqiz ssr 25 September 2014 16: 20
    0
    Russia, too, once refused Iran a c300 is not pleasant, but Iran didn’t feel bad either, they created their own air defense system.
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 25 September 2014 19: 48
      +2
      Quote: kirqiz SSR
      created your zrk

      They say that they created ... People generally say a lot of things ...
  32. sv68
    sv68 25 September 2014 16: 23
    +1
    may the French give the Mistral to us - because, by breaking through their reputation, they will build more than a dozen major contracts
  33. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 25 September 2014 16: 24
    +1
    Quote: Novel 1977
    The same "Mistral", in addition to being able to make a landing "over the horizon" with the help of a DKA, is capable of providing air support for the landing (8 KA-52K, 8 KA-29)

    As uv. Exeter, about 16 boards there are nuances ...
    The official maximum helicopter capacity of 16 cars is achieved only by placing 6 more cars on regular runways on the take-off deck. That is, if a ship carries 16 helicopters, then it can only fly by preliminarily releasing helicopters from the runway. Thus, 16 helicopters are more capable of transporting aircraft than operational. At the same time, helicopter parking on the upper deck outside six regular runways is practically not practiced, with the exception of a small space behind the side lift for the island for 1-2 helicopters.

    There is no supply of ammunition in the hangar or on the flight deck. The ammunition for Tiger, apparently, is stored in small quantities in adjacent rooms, where workshops, etc. Fire shutters in the hangar were also not seen.
    1. Roman 1977
      Roman 1977 25 September 2014 17: 29
      +3
      Quote: Alexey RA
      As uv. Exeter, about 16 boards there are nuances ...

      Well, let it be not 16, but at least 10. Give me at least one landing ship of the USSR or Russian Navy ("hermaphrodites" aircraft carrier pr. 1143 and project 1123 helicopter carriers do not remember), carrying 10 combat and transport helicopters, the maximum maximum is 4 Ka- 29 on the BDK pr. 1174 "Rhino" -4 transport-combat Ka-29, I described their sad fate above, and that's it ...

      The next "push-push" "Ivan Gren" pr. 11, which has been under construction for 11771 (eleven) years, carries only one Ka-29, and of course, for the landing of the landing party, it must be "thrown" ashore like a killer whale after a seal ...
      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. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 25 September 2014 18: 07
        0
        Oh, here comes the big Halzan crawled out. :)
        This "Ivan Tarava" has been developed since the mid-70s and was mainly a "paper tiger" - an instrument of undercover struggle between SMEs, Defense Ministry and the Navy as part of the program for building Soviet aircraft carriers.
        In "Gangut", I remember, there was a good article with the history of the "Khalzan". In the original "underdeveloped civilian" corps, it could theoretically be built in parallel with the AB, but the survivability of this mutant did not suit the fleet. The UDC on the basis of the highly modified project 1609 hull approached the fleet at a great stretch (the fleet generally required the UDC on the basis of Project 1143), but the plant stated that for such ships only "slipway 0" was needed. And the naval forces could not cancel the construction of "Tbilisi" under any circumstances - they just managed to persuade Ustinov to agree to the construction of a series of normal AVs, and not freaks 1143.1-1143.4.
  34. raid14
    raid14 25 September 2014 16: 37
    +3
    The main line for the Russian Navy is, first of all, the access of our engineers to new military technologies, such as the new generation CIUS SENIT-9, the Thales MRR-3D-NG radar operating in the G-band, the integrated mast I-MAST, the infrared search and tracking system Vampir NG super long range and others. The main thing in this ship is its ultra-modern filling, and the hulls and our shipbuilders would have been assembled without problems, alas, we are lagging behind modern naval technologies in the field of electronics.
  35. Bugor
    Bugor 25 September 2014 16: 59
    0
    Honestly, I don’t understand anything about these helicopter carriers.
    Therefore, the proposal: maybe, after all, we need a new shipyard, I mean - if we want to have such ships, would it be smarter to build a shipyard? Well, or restore, for example, Kerch (upgrading with the latest technology).
    Not me said: if you want to do something well - do it yourself.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 25 September 2014 17: 37
      +1
      There is one problem with Kerch - Straits. The Montreux Convention is still in force, but who knows how much longer this will continue with the current state of international law. Plus, after the passage of the Straits, you then need to get out of Middle-earth.

      It is necessary to build "big pots" where there is free access to the ocean. At the same time, it will be easier with repairs if the shipyard is "in the same fleet" with the ship.
  36. goose
    goose 25 September 2014 17: 11
    +3
    In Kerch will not do. The Baltic is too small, the infrastructure is expensive in the North, although the same option, because logistically, the Kola Peninsula is relatively close to the bulk of the suppliers. The Black Sea is initially a big problem of the straits. Too risky place.

    But objectively, it is most profitable to make a super-shipyard in the Far East, and there are a lot of specific places. There you can produce ships of the greatest displacement. Strategically, this is a more reliable place, and there are geopolitical prerequisites for growing regional industry. But one shipyard is not enough there, it is necessary to create a whole cluster of shipbuilding, engineering and other heavy industries.
  37. Signaller
    Signaller 25 September 2014 17: 18
    0
    I do not understand anything???? What does France have to do with it ???. There, both Swedes and Poles are tied up with Russia. Yes and just do it
    In 2006, the Chantier de l'Atlantic shipyard became the property of Aker Yards, a Norwegian industrial group. Soon, however, in 2009, the shipyard, like the entire Aker Yards group, was taken over by the South Korean corporation STX. The third ship of the Mistral type - Dixmude (L9015) - was completed by the Koreans.
    There on these links and all other info. He is Korean now. The French only puff out their cheeks.
    1. Aljavad
      Aljavad 25 September 2014 22: 11
      +1
      I do not understand anything???? What does France have to do with it ???.

      Duc, "McDonald's" in Maskwa, they, it seems, do not belong to us. But obey - to us.
  38. tehnoluks
    tehnoluks 25 September 2014 17: 26
    +2
    What are the sanctions !? Do not tell our Iskandars!
    1. Landwarrior
      Landwarrior 25 September 2014 17: 54
      +7
      Anya also considers laughing
    2. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 27 September 2014 16: 55
      0
      Quote: tehnoluks
      What are the sanctions !? Do not tell our Iskandars!

      And how many rubles now in Russia give money for the enemy? Iskander is very funny
      when the political blunders of the leadership are paid by the common people from their modest incomes.
  39. Wlad
    Wlad 25 September 2014 17: 42
    -1
    Quote: vaf
    Quote: Alexander Romanov
    I haven’t read the article yet, I just looked, but you have enough minutes and read the article and put the comments


    Sasha, and I will support the RESEARCHER, +! drinks
    He first commented clearly and competently ... even one title of an article that could no longer be read (and so the meaning of what it was about) was enough for his comment !!! drinks

    And what is the tragedy and what? in "s" 1.2 lard ??? I beg you .. for the "last six months" Vova so many .. "gifts" squandered that to waste time on trifles about some 1.2 lard .. right is not serious wassat

    Or are we not a Great Power, with an immense "national property"? well, if not enough ... "we will borrow from the same people" lol

    I want to put you baaalshoy +. And put
  40. Goblin 28
    Goblin 28 25 September 2014 19: 15
    +1
    Quote: shasherin.pavel
    Quote: Mestny
    intended for use in the Arctic "
    “This is a new generation ship, with electric propulsion, thruster, large volume of internal

    One has to imagine what will happen to such an electro-propulsion group when meeting ice in the Arctic? And I’m not talking about the propellers ... Even icebreakers carry spare propellers with them (we recall the case with American ships in Antarctica, when the Somov changed propeller blades), because it takes into account, first of all, the protection of the blades with ice.

    Nothing will happen, on the contrary! I had a chance to work on a Finnish ice-class tanker with a rudder-propeller - the so-called "azipod"! In the ice on Varandey, it is very good at full speed astern or at full speed, without serious restrictions!
  41. 1goose3
    1goose3 25 September 2014 19: 48
    0
    "Korean" instead of "French"

    Cognitive, very detailed and very believable. It is believable, and not true. The bottom line is, everything is lost, everything is hopeless, Russia is not capable, etc.
    The author is clearly paid. A way to mix 80 percent of the truth with twenty untruths, so that it looks believable, as old as the world, but often works.
  42. 1-ST Engineer
    1-ST Engineer 25 September 2014 20: 18
    +2
    We ourselves can build such barges, the problem is that all the shipyards are occupied and no vacancies are expected, in the next decade there is only one thing left to do, to build or raise factories that were destroyed. Take, for example, the city of Vladivostok, about 100 thousand worked at five ship repair and construction plants, Dalzavod alone was worth what the power was, and where is all this now - boats for the bourgeoisie now produce "pleasure yachts." Experts say there is no bullshit - there is no salary, the engineer is 25 thousand as a handout, and the laborer 15 will not die of hunger, whoever wants to work hard to raise shipbuilding, it is better to tax - these are the realities.
  43. kryuger.mark
    kryuger.mark 25 September 2014 21: 52
    0
    Taburetkin made porridge.
  44. and why
    and why 25 September 2014 22: 37
    0
    Can someone explain why we need the Mistral, even French, even Korean? For what purpose?
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 25 September 2014 23: 05
      +1
      Well, for what? Can you imagine how many marines and everything else can be drowned immediately while this trough is unloaded for 2 days off the coast ?!

      but slightly smaller UDCs of the "Ivan Rogov" class could land everything at the water's edge in 15 minutes

      Such was the requirement for all Soviet landing ships.
      but they don’t even paint the last remaining one, they say it’s morally obsolete - it’s impossible to make such a gorgeous mass grave from it on occasion, and it’s out of date - you understand that these are not the same trends in the country.
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 26 September 2014 05: 28
        0
        Can a source say that it is unloaded for two days?
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra 26 September 2014 06: 27
          0
          You can count it yourself.
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 26 September 2014 16: 29
            0
            Then please bring the calculations, and I think that not one is very interesting.
            1. Kassandra
              Kassandra 28 September 2014 04: 42
              +1
              please count yourself, based on:
              - UDC cargo hold tanks with a landing,
              - the number of landing barges (lighters)
              - the number of barges loaded at once in the well dock of the UDC,
              - time while barges are moored and loaded many times
              - time until they travel many times (scurrying back and forth between UDC and the shore)
              when unloading the UDC / BDK from the hold to the water edge, this is - the ship came up, lowered the ramp (as an option, it rolled the pontoon bridge) and everything immediately went ashore.
              Mistral cannot do this. No.
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 28 September 2014 19: 29
                0
                You probably don't know, but the Mistrals also have ramps for loading and unloading troops and equipment.
                1. saturn.mmm
                  saturn.mmm 28 September 2014 22: 17
                  0
                  Quote: Kassandra
                  as an option, the pontoon bridge was also rolled out) and everything immediately went ashore.

                  Mistral also has an option.
                  1. Kassandra
                    Kassandra 29 September 2014 03: 24
                    +1
                    guys this is not that ... bully
                    1. saturn.mmm
                      saturn.mmm 29 September 2014 11: 22
                      0
                      Quote: Kassandra
                      guys this is not that ...

                      I inserted a picture on your comment, in particular " when unloading from the hold UDC / BDK to the water edge, this is - the ship came up, lowered the ramp (as an option still rolled the pontoon bridge) and all immediately went ashore."
                      1. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 29 September 2014 12: 31
                        0
                        on the USMC website you can find out what a real marine pontoon is. despite its size, you still can’t crush it anywhere
                  2. Kassandra
                    Kassandra 29 September 2014 04: 31
                    0
                    http://www.sdelanounas.ru/blogs/8154
                    something like this, a little down the branch, starting from here:
                    "Ships of this type are much better suited to landings on unequipped coast. The Mistral cannot do that."
                    1. Dart2027
                      Dart2027 29 September 2014 06: 23
                      0
                      And what prevents the pontoon bridge from Mistral to the unequipped shore? UDC is therefore called UDC because it can land an airborne force by all means.
                      1. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 29 September 2014 12: 28
                        0
                        rather because he can drop him everywhere

                        surf, for example (excitement)
                        erix-06 personnel marine explained
                      2. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 29 September 2014 20: 08
                        0
                        erix-06 (downstream):
                        "And I will formulate MY thought - UDCs are needed by our fleet, but buying them in France in a fire-fighting order and in this design is an irrational transfer of money."

                        That is, he does not mind UDC themselves.
                        But about the rest I can say the following - we will be able to start building our own in a certain amount of time. Just because you need everything. Frigates, nuclear submarines, destroyers, aircraft carriers, diesel-electric submarines ... That's all. And you need it today. And construction requires a lot of time and effort. One of the reasons for the long-term construction of "Ivan Grenia" is precisely the fact that first of all they are working on frigates, and with it when hands reach.
                        The logic is simple - there is no time to build ourselves, let's buy.
                        Why in France? Because all others are based on US patents and they will not be sold to us.
                        Why, then? I doubt that we did not know about the impending putsch in Ukraine and did not anticipate the further development of events. Now such a contract would be impossible in principle.
                        I personally did not understand the performance - a very decent ship of its class, with its strengths and weaknesses.

                        Actually, the discussion itself on that forum is initially pointless, because different types of ships are compared. UDC and BDK (or a tank landing ship according to NATO classification) - they have different capabilities and tasks.
                      3. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 29 September 2014 21: 31
                        0
                        class "Ivan Rogov" is a UDC (there is a well dock, and a significant number of helicopters) and not a large landing craft - he does not mind such.

                        and in France because it is a "Mistral", and a mistral because it is the worst (the worse the better), the Spanish Juan-1 is much better than him + the Cote d'Azur where villas are being built for kickbacks is located in France, not in Spain (there too hot).
                        the best (especially without adjusting for harrier - they fly from the Spaniard) is still the "rhino" pr.1174
                      4. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 29 September 2014 22: 42
                        0
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        spanish juan

                        Spanish UDCs like "Carreas" are based on technologies owned by the United States, there was a project for a light aircraft carrier, or something like that, so it would be stupid to buy it.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        class "Ivan Rogov" is a UDC

                        Ships of project 1174 (Ivan Rogov class - according to the codification of NATO) is a project of Soviet large landing ships capable of carrying 4 helicopters. But this is not UDC.
                        In the USSR, the UDC project was really developed, but this is project 11780 - length 196 meters, draft 8 meters (the same as the Mistral), 12 landing helicopters and 4 landing boats. These ships never started to be built - at first they postponed due to the construction of an aircraft carrier, then the collapse began. It’s already pointless to revive this project - it’s easier to start from scratch ..
                      5. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 30 September 2014 03: 03
                        0
                        A light aircraft carrier is not UDC, there is nothing American in the Spaniards, unless there is a harrier who is English and this applies only to the air wing, and not to the ship itself.

                        Nothing can be blocked by a patent; when using patented solutions, a percentage is simply paid, a license is also not an absolute obstacle.

                        Rhino by all indications is UDC, now they are sometimes called the BDK to cover the purchase of the Mistrals.
                        see the wiki article about him: "During the design process, information appeared about the construction program in the United States of the UDC of the" Tarava "type. Therefore, at the direction of the Commander-in-Chief, changes were made to the project. A dock chamber appeared and the composition of the air group was increased. These changes led to the creation of the original universal landing ship with a relatively small displacement [1]. "

                        From Ivan-tarava 11780 then temporarily refused precisely because he could not directly land on a water edge. Its continuous flight deck is needed only if there is a STOVL, if there is no STOVL, then with pure helicopter armament, such a ship is simply not needed.
                        the fact that only 4 verotlets is on the rhino is not critical since A. it is smaller, B. helicopters of escort ships can be used, S. can be used TAVKR helicopters

                        Tarava against a weak enemy can work alone, without an aircraft carrier relying only on its AV-8 or F-35B

                        such a ship as Juan Kalos is now the optimum for those who have STOVL, it is better than Tarawa, with its introduction into service the Spaniards of the "Prince of Asturias" were taken into reserve.
                        A large UDC with a continuous flight deck allows saving on STOVL light aircraft carriers - it is essentially such an aircraft carrier, but with an added docking chamber.
                        Mistral of large displacement without STOVL but with a solid deck is just nonsense even for the French Navy itself - France, unlike Spain, Italy and the USA, has no harriers. Faith, a 100 year war and Agencourt does not allow. In the USSR - the politicians.
                      6. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 30 September 2014 19: 57
                        0
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        there is nothing American in the Spaniards

                        The technological solutions with which they were built were developed in the United States and are their property.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Nothing can be blocked by a patent; when using patented solutions, a percentage is simply paid,

                        Do you seriously believe that this will stop someone? The United States will simply say no, and the Spaniards will shrug their shoulders and shrug their hands.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        when it was put into operation, the Spaniards brought the Prince of Asturias into reserve.

                        Why do they need him at all? A displacement of 18000 tons is not a carrier, but a misunderstanding. By the way, it was also built using technologies obtained from the USA.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Rhinoceros in all respects - UDC, now they are sometimes called BDK

                        Who told you such nonsense? Look at least the same Wiki - this is BDK.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        From Ivan Tarava 11780 then temporarily refused

                        To build Ulyanovsk. This has been written about more than once.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        then with pure helicopter armament - you just don’t need such a ship

                        Such a deck allows you to immediately take off a group of helicopters, and not one by one.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        helicopters of escort ships can be used. TAVKR helicopters can be used

                        Actually, the meaning of UDC is that it itself carries landing helicopters. If not, then this is a docking ship, but not UDC.
                      7. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 30 September 2014 21: 41
                        0
                        "Navantia" has everything that is native, it is a Spanish ship.

                        if "they just say no," then there is no trial.

                        displacement of the Spanish-built aircraft carrier-STOVL for Thailand in general 11000 tons
                        from such "misunderstandings" the Argentine Air Force washed in blood in 1982
                        after which, similar "misunderstandings" in the west were acquired by everyone except Germany (which, like Russians, cannot be) and the French

                        above was just a quote from the wiki that rhino is a universal landing ship of small displacement. it is written in the text of an article about him.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        To build Ulyanovsk. This has been written about more than once.

                        not to, but just not to be. neither one nor the other ...

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Such a deck allows you to immediately take off a group of helicopters, and not one by one.

                        such a deck has already been written above is needed for what
                        landing in a helicopter jumps quickly.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Actually, the meaning of UDC is that it itself carries landing helicopters. If not, then this is a docking ship, but not UDC.

                        the meaning of UDC is that it is universal in the place of landing
                        the rhinoceros carried helicopters on itself.

                        if there are no helicopters, then this is not a docking ship, a docking ship carries only landing barges and almost nothing more - even the landing itself is transported on a separate floating ship (personnel ship, troop ship) with which, after crossing the sea, it is loaded onto the ship dock or landing barges
                        he carries them so that they do not drown in the open sea
                        English Intrepid / Fearless was not a clean docking ship, French Ouragan - yes, well dock in it occupies almost the entire length (except for bow 29m). in fact it is a catamaran with a common tank between the hulls.

                        if there are helicopters then it can be just a helicopter carrier, not UDC (without well dock).
                      8. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 30 September 2014 22: 45
                        0
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        that rhino is a versatile landing craft of small displacement

                        That's just the article begins with the words:
                        "Large landing ships of project 1174" Rhino "(English Ivan Rogov class - according to NATO codification) - a project of Soviet large landing ships".
                        And according to the classification of our Navy it was called the BDK.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        if "they just say no," then there is no trial.

                        One caveat. The French may bend under the United States, or they may sell - because they have no clear justification for refusing the deal. Spain will follow all directions without options - and the reason will be very simple and logical - the license holder is against.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        the helicopter landing jumps quickly

                        I agree, but the helicopter itself is unloaded onto the deck and is preparing for take-off a little longer.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        STOVL for Thailand in general 11000 tons

                        The nickname of this aircraft carrier is "The Royal Yacht".
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        the docking ship carries only landing barges and almost nothing else - even the landing itself is transported on a separate floating ship

                        Typo. Not a dock ship, but a landing helicopter dock ship. Analogs are the type "Albion" in England or "Rotterdam" in Spain. They carry both boats and landings and several helicopters.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        just to be gone. neither one nor the other

                        How's that?
                      9. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 30 September 2014 23: 18
                        0
                        it starts like this for those who confuse the cold with the hard
                        but inside it says bold bully
                        UDC may be small, like "Ivan Rogov" - by the way, there are no others.

                        Navantia does not use any American licenses, and does not depend on anyone.

                        rhino helicopter rolls out faster than on an aircraft carrier

                        "Royal yacht" is a nickname clearly for Ivanushki, because in Thailand and neighboring countries, it is regularly used for the needs of their Emergencies Ministry (fighting typhoons, etc.)

                        landing helicopter docking ship this is UDC
                        Rhinoceros is the most versatile UDC due to the fact that it can also land directly on the beach.
                        they stand, rustle or cut into metal - as always, the best is sacrificed ... well, and someone else is building a summer house on the Cote d'Azur
                      10. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 30 September 2014 22: 06
                        0
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Such a deck allows you to immediately take off a group of helicopters, and not one by one.

                        such a deck, for example, was not on helicopter carriers Moscow and Leningrad, so that the Yak-36/38 could not work with them safely.
                        although a group of helicopters took off normally from them

                        and in French Joan d'Ark was not (because they have nothing like yaks and harriers and never had)
                        helicopters or even three in pairs left the rhinoceros. the interval between the next group is very small

                        PS. the comment above (for 03:03) the fact that "Ivan Rogov" is the UDC was highlighted bold. where it came from is in the footnote in the wiki article.
                      11. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 30 September 2014 22: 47
                        0
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        helicopter carriers Moscow and Leningrad

                        These were PLO ships, not "paratroopers".
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        helicopters left the rhino in pairs

                        There were only four of them.
                      12. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 30 September 2014 23: 06
                        0
                        And then what did the yak-36 do on it? And what is the difference between a PLO helicopter and a landing helicopter?

                        UDC starts helicopters with 5, right?
                      13. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 1 October 2014 19: 50
                        0
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        And what is the difference between a PLO helicopter and a landing helicopter?

                        The PLO helicopter is designed to counter submarines, and the airborne landing helicopter. In the USSR there were various modifications for both the first and the second. In addition, the ships themselves did not carry a landing.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        UDC starts helicopters with 5, right?

                        I meant that there are only four of them, which is not enough.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        It is regularly used for the needs of their Ministry of Emergencies

                        And for this you need an aircraft carrier?
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        landing helicopter docking ship this is UDC

                        This is the DVKD San ​​Antonio



                        This is UDC


                        It's a rhino
                        What does he look more like?
                      14. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 1 October 2014 21: 45
                        0
                        rhinoceros is most similar to a rhinoceros, no one else has had such ships
                        precisely because he, having helicopters with landing barges, could still land himself directly on the edge of the water.
                        San Antonio can't do that

                        UDC incorrectly equals AAS - in the latter there is the word assault a not landing, this assault is provided using AV-8
                        does Russia have STOVL now? for whom a solid flight deck would be useful
                        earlier rhinos walked simply with TAVKR on which were Yak-38M and tested Yak-41
                        Yaks, in principle, can be placed on a rhino, like the AV-8 on San Antonio (and then it will also become Assault), but they will reduce the helicopter group from which the landing capabilities will suffer.

                        both Moscow and Leningrad carried troops and participated in landing operations.

                        Thai aircraft carrier - yes, really needed. Helicopter rescue helps a lot.
                        American UDC and aircraft carriers closer to themselves are often engaged in the same. in the same Haiti.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        I meant that there are only four of them, which is not enough.

                        on the Rhinoceros and the people it’s many times smaller than on Tarava it will be, and even much smaller than on San Antono - its upper landing threshold (250-500) is less than the San Antonio minimum (540-800).
                      15. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 1 October 2014 22: 25
                        0
                        if in pictures then AAS is not UDC, this is it:
                        at this particular moment he is not busy landing

                        Rhino is generally not AAS, but it is UDC. bully

                        and the mistral may also be UDC, but it is not AAS (LHD, there are no vertical bars)
                        and his degree of versatility is significantly worse than that of the Rhino
                      16. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 1 October 2014 23: 49
                        0
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        both Moscow and Leningrad carried troops and participated in landing operations.

                        Project 1123 cruisers - were intended only for the fight against nuclear submarines and for nothing else. They did not carry a landing and were not equipped with landing helicopters.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Thai aircraft carrier - yes, really needed. Helicopter rescue helps a lot.

                        Aircraft carrier is a warship designed to base aircraft, including AWACS aircraft. It can also be used as a rescue vessel, but this is not its main purpose. The Thai kid is only capable of this, and his combat capabilities are almost zero.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        on the Rhino and the people are many times smaller than on Tarawa

                        If one ship at a time sends ashore a company and a half landing, and the other platoon - who is better?
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        for whom a solid flight deck would be useful

                        It is useful for increasing the number of helicopters produced at a time.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        UDC incorrectly equals AAS - in the latter there is the word assault a not landing, this assault is provided using AV-8

                        UDC is a landing ship, and not an aircraft carrier and aircraft are not obligatory for him, although some provide for the possibility of their use. Vertical take-off aircraft can be shoved on the Mistral, just the point?
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        the degree of versatility is significantly worse than that of the Rhino

                        It’s just bigger, and in some cases it imposes its limitations. A boat may be something that a destroyer cannot, but this is no reason to switch to one boat alone.
                      17. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 2 October 2014 04: 09
                        0
                        Su-27 was also recorded at one time only in "air defense interceptors" bully ... Any large ship of the Navy of the USSR carried marines, especially such as 1123. An anti-submarine helicopter is converted into an amphibious assault according to the standard in 10-15 minutes. This is also to the question of why the Ka-25 was changed to Ka-27 and usually one helicopter was looking for a submarine, but the second one was not looking for but only drowned (so that in half the cases you don’t even spend these 10-15 minutes).
                        These ships participated in a projection of force, for example, in Indo-Pakistani affairs against the East Pakistani coast (Bangladesh) and the US Navy, in Syrian affairs, and in the clearance of the Suez Canal.

                        Conversely, from the English "kids" with a displacement of a little more than the Thai (but with a smaller wing), the Argentine Air Force washed in blood. After that, such "small and remote" appeared at once in Spain, Italy and Thailand (by the way, India too).
                        Aircraft AWACS of a classic aircraft carrier are subsonic; in this capacity, a tiltrotor is suitable. Or even a helicopter. They are on aircraft carriers-STOVL and AAS as AWACS and are used.

                        If a "kamikaze" arrives and burns or sends to the bottom a whole battalion of marines at a time, then it is better to have the ship into which the entire regiment will intermeddle. And it will be all the more better when at that moment it will already be empty, if the coast will allow you to have time to land everything directly on the coast (and 45% of the world's coasts, and those in the most delicious places, are just such).
                        About what, that is, about supersonic jet kamikazah, and speech.

                        An inconsistent flight deck is useful because there is no elevator and helicopters simply roll out of the hangar.
                        Solid is useful because the (damaged) AV-8 can land on an airplane in the emergency barrier, or take off shortened without lift-up boosters.

                        If you equate UDC with AAS (which most of you here actually do), then it should be read as an SHOCK landing ship, not a universal landing ship, because the same LHD San ​​Antonio is a universal landing ship (it can even land but there are no harriers for shock functions), but because of the big draft, the weak bottom and the lack of a nose ramp, with a degree of versatility in the landing options, this broiler is much worse than the Rhino.

                        And now, in the end, about the main thing - the meaning of the presence of vertical landing aircraft on the Taraws, Wospach, Juan Carlos, Cavour, and the like? laughing laughing laughing

                        by the way about the birds - aviation fuel burns much better than marine diesel
                        no fleet except the British has yet encountered this problem (amphibious operations against the enemy with strong aircraft). including american
                        The United States, since the advent of their AAS, fought for the most part only with Iraq, whose coastline is almost like that of Switzerland.

                        aircraft carriers should also be like landing ships, the smaller the better, so as not to be a grohnist all at once
                        STOVL solves the size problem. there seaworthiness is already becoming a limit in measurements and not the required length of a continuous flight deck.
                      18. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 2 October 2014 05: 33
                        0
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        UDC is a landing ship, and not an aircraft carrier and aircraft are not obligatory for him,

                        UDC (AAS) appeared when the Harriers and their aircraft carriers, STOVL, proved themselves well. they appeared (AAS) entirely for the sake of economy, when the STOVL aircraft carrier decided to build another landing floor and a docking chamber from LPD.
                        that makes sense wink
                      19. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 2 October 2014 19: 25
                        0
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Any large ship of the USSR Navy carried marines, especially such as 1123.

                        Then be so kind as to find, please, how many paratroopers, tanks and combat vehicles he carried according to the staffing table.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Conversely, from the English "kids" with a displacement of a little more than the Thai (but with a smaller wing), the Argentine Air Force washed in blood.

                        At the same time, half of the bombs that they dropped on the British fleet simply did not explode when hit, and the British were armed with the latest air-to-air missiles. And the total number of the belligerents was small.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Aircraft AWACS of a classic aircraft carrier are subsonic; in this capacity, a tiltrotor is suitable.

                        Truth? Then why no one does this can be curious.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Or even a helicopter. They are on aircraft carriers-STOVL and AAS as AWACS and are used.

                        AWACS helicopters do not replace airplanes. Something they can, but a plane is better.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        If a "kamikaze" arrives and burns it at once or sends it to the bottom.

                        If ten cruise missiles arrive and are burned or sent to the bottom of ten ships ...
                        UDC was just created to be at minimal risk, being offshore under the guise of an escort and missile defense.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        it’s better that boat in which the entire regiment intervenes. And it will be even better when at that moment it will already be empty, if the coast allows you to have time to land everything directly on shore.

                        For this, the BDK, as well as hovercraft (Bison), are built.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        If you equate UDC with AAS (which most of you are here in fact doing),.

                        I do not do. An aircraft carrier is an aircraft carrier, a landing ship is a landing ship.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        then it should be read as an SHOCK landing ship, not a universal landing ship,

                        Do you know that there are standard names for different types of ships? You can read as you like, but UDC is a universal landing ship.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        with a degree of versatility in the landing options, this broiler is much worse than the Rhino.

                        The nasal ramp is needed for landing in combat conditions, when the count goes for minutes. San Antonio is not intended for this.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        The meaning of the presence of vertical landing aircraft in Tarawa, Wasospah, Juan Carlos, Cavour, and the like? .

                        For fire support of the landing, since they cannot support it with anything else.
                      20. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 3 October 2014 05: 09
                        0
                        why tanks at 1123? it's LHA / AAS and not LHD, but
                        with cruising gadgets to the detriment of the main weapon (flying), as is usually the case in the Soviet / Russian Navy.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        At the same time, half of the bombs that they dropped on the British fleet simply did not explode when hit, and the British were armed with the latest air-to-air missiles. And the total number of the belligerents was small.

                        At the same time, Argentinean aviation was many times superior to the British, and the British did not have air-to-air missiles with a radar seeker, the British own air defense systems were weak since they were all anti-aircraft and during the Cold War in the North Atlantic on anti-submarine borders there was nothing more dangerous for them than Tu-142 it did not shine, and most British ships died in the South while anchoring in a narrow strait near the bridgehead, covering it with their fragile air defense systems and even infantry machine guns along the hogs, and the Argentine fleet, after the first loss, hid in bases outside the conflict zone.
                        Thanks to the harriers, not a single landing ship, floating ship or aircraft carrier received a single hit. And the Argentine Air Force, alas, washed their face with blood (23: 0).
                        also wash others.


                        The Americans do the tillers — they can, although Canada was the first to do them in the 1960s, but they cannot.
                        A helicopter built in a coaxial pattern with a thrust propeller is only 15km / h behind it
                        Tiltrotor turbo turbine AWACS aircraft - not inferior.

                        "ten kamikazes" is ten times more difficult than just one.
                        therefore, there is such a concept in military affairs as dispersal.

                        UDCs (AAS) were not created for over-horizon landing, already higher (and lower) for what ... For kamikazey the horizon is not a problem.
                        and BDK in the Western classification is what?

                        AAS is an aircraft carrier-STOVL and LHD in one bottle

                        Quote: Dart2027

                        Do you know that there are standard names for different types of ships? You can read as you like, but UDC is a universal landing ship.

                        you know, standard names are often invented so as to unscrew the brain from the beginning.
                        Americans call their UDC not universal, but shock (in translation).

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        The nasal ramp is needed for landing in combat conditions, when the count goes for minutes. San Antonio is not intended for this.

                        warships are generally needed for combat conditions, if San Antonio does not have a bow ramp, then what kind of warship is it?

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        For fire support of the landing

                        Harrier landing can not only support but also cover him from the bombing and attack by the enemy. As soon as the infantry seizes the bridgehead invulnerable to small arms and light mortars of the enemy, an advanced coastal base is immediately equipped there, to which they immediately fly with AAS. Because kamikazes can fight as many as you like - you won’t believe it, but it won’t burn, and even more so it won’t drown even from 100 or 10 million thousand (non-nuclear).
                      21. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 3 October 2014 18: 45
                        0
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        why tanks at 1123? it's LHA / AAS and not LHD

                        You claim that these are landing ships. Any landing ship, according to the specifications laid down in it, carries a certain amount of landing and military equipment. I asked a very simple question, please - how many paratroopers did he carry on a staffing table?
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Argentine aviation was many times superior to the British,

                        Many times?
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Tiltrotor turbo turbine AWACS aircraft - not inferior.

                        American long-range radar detection aircraft (Boeing E-3 "Sentry") - curb weight 147420 kg, practical ceiling 11844 m, flight duration without refueling in the air: more than 11 hours
                        American convertiplane combining the individual capabilities of an airplane and a helicopter (Bell V-22 Osprey) - maximum take-off weight - 27 kg, practical ceiling - 443 m
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        "ten kamikazes" is ten times more difficult than just one. therefore there is such a concept in military affairs as dispersal.

                        To begin with, they do not use kamikaze in military affairs, there is such a thing as RCC, I was just ironic. Secondly, any dispersal should be justified, because whatever one may say, first-class ships cannot be replaced with boats.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        and BDK in the Western classification is what?

                        Tank landing ships (LST).
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        then what kind of warship is it

                        Not intended for landing unloading, having come across to the shore under enemy fire.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        equipped with an advanced coastal base on which

                        horizontal take-off planes are being flown. Well, conventional aircraft do not replace VTOL aircraft - neither in terms of carrying capacity, nor in range.
                      22. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 3 October 2014 22: 54
                        0
                        This is a helicopter carrier. Any helicopter carrier can be either ASW or LPH
                        1-2 combat companies intermediated.

                        Yes, Argentinean aviation was 5-10 times superior to English.

                        E-3 is not a deck aircraft, it flies from the shore. E-2 HawkEye flies from the decks of CATOBAR aircraft carriers.

                        Argentine pilots were still those kamikazs ...
                        I didn’t have a boat, measurements 1174 is the optimum.

                        Western and Russian classification of landing ships do not correspond in principle.
                        In Russia, the classification is the largest, in the West according to the method of solving problems.
                        Translation of AAS into Russian as UDC is, in principle, not true.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Not intended for landing unloading, having come across to the shore under enemy fire.

                        Auxillary Fleet transports are not designed for this either. San Antonio at sea on a barge will still have to land for a long time under enemy fire. More precisely - not for long.
                        Now even "no" Air Force is many times more dangerous than BO.
                        Therefore, it turns out that he is not even a ship but a ship ...

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Well, conventional aircraft do not replace VTOL aircraft - neither in terms of carrying capacity, nor in range.


                        They will not replace them, they will bring them down - this has already happened once. And without options. 23: 0 is not 23: 2, or at least 23: 1? it's 23: 0.
                        This is despite the fact that Harrier is subsonic.
                        In the Iraq war, they accounted for 3/4 sorties. In the Balkans, they also almost constantly kept MiGs on the ground.
                      23. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 2 October 2014 19: 25
                        0
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        aircraft carriers should also be like landing ships, the smaller the better, so that it is not a grohnlister who immediately solves STOVL's size problem. there seaworthiness is already becoming a limit in measurements and not the required length of a continuous flight deck.

                        And didn’t it occur to you to compare the characteristics of vertical takeoff and conventional aircraft? No? Then ask why everyone who can try to have normal aircraft carriers.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        UDC (AAS) appeared when the Harriers and their aircraft carriers, STOVL, proved themselves well. they appeared (AAS) entirely in order to save

                        Can I have a source?
                      24. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 3 October 2014 03: 30
                        0
                        vertical landing ... no vertical AAS flight deck required for vertical take-off
                        And when did you finally pay attention to the dry score 23: 0 in the Falkland War, where both of them met? And with an amazing imbalance of forces?
                        In the USA, harriers and AAS with them are many times more than in all other countries of the world combined. And so it was long before that war.

                        source about saving - wikipedia, compare the dates of the appearance of harriers and AAS in the Navy by country
                        Even "Computerra" wrote about this, on the plus side it was about the fact that in a single corps it is possible to change the ratio of amphibious, anti-submarine and air strike forces, depending on the nature of the mission.
                      25. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 3 October 2014 18: 11
                        0
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        And when did you finally pay attention to the dry score 23: 0 in the Falkland War, where both of them met? And with an amazing imbalance of forces?

                        Stalin's famous phrase about personnel refers to technology and the people who control it. Somehow I had never heard of the high training of the Argentinean armed forces. But the fact that they got involved in a war with expired ammunition in service is well known.
                        In addition, some of their aircraft were designed in the early 50s (Douglas A-4 Skyhawk, Dasso Mirage III) and were simply outdated.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        source about saving - wikipedia

                        I'm not talking about saving, but about the fact that UDCs appeared precisely because of the creation of harriers, and not because the Americans needed a ship of this type.
                      26. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 3 October 2014 22: 13
                        0
                        The Argentine pilots were trained by the Israelis, the air-to-air missiles were Israeli or French. The French at that time were the best in the world, the Israeli pilots were considered the best in the world, all the same, it did not help from the high maneuverability of the harriers and their greater thrust-weight ratio, they constantly stepped into the tail and shot down the Argentines.
                        The bombs were not expired; the fuses were incorrectly displayed in them. Discarded from a shaving flight, before falling into the ship, they did not have time to cock.
                        Mirage, Dagger and Harrier aircraft of the same era
                        Harrier appeared later than Mirage, but before Dagger. Nevertheless, the dagger is worse than a mirage, although he is "younger". Before the war, the harrier was not considered a serious opponent for both of these aircraft. And also for Super-Etandar.
                        Skyhawk's LTX is about the same as Harrier’s, with the exception of the vectored thrust that decided the case.

                        If harriers had not appeared, then AAS would not have appeared, as before, there would have been only LPDs with an incomplete flight deck.
                      27. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 4 October 2014 15: 56
                        0
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        The Argentine pilots were trained by the Israelis, the air-to-air missiles were Israeli or French. French at that time were the best in the world, Israeli pilots were considered the best in the world

                        Going through training and becoming an ace is not the same thing. Over the past few centuries, different countries have trained many people (for example, Turks and Arabs), but it turned out that the students still had to grow up to be teachers. On the example of the same wars with Israel.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Mirage, Dagger and Harrier aircraft of the same era

                        Harrier - start of operation - 1978.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        The bombs were not expired, the fuses were incorrectly displayed in them

                        Maybe so, but then we return to where we started - ignoramuses served in the Argentinean army, and the British outnumbered them in numbers.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        on the battle climbed 1-2 companies

                        One or two companies can be shoved onto any ship larger than a corvette. Either the ship is an amphibious assault, and it initially provides for the placement and means of landing of this assault, or not.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        I didn’t have a boat, measurements 1174 is the optimum.

                        For BDK optimum, but you wrote about the size of aircraft carriers (aircraft carriers should also be like landing ships, the smaller the better)
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        And when did you finally pay attention to the dry score 23: 0 in the Falkland War, where both of them met? And with an amazing imbalance of forces?

                        In fact, the British had a base on which their main air forces were located, so the total number of aircraft was approximately equal. In addition, most of the downed aircraft of the Argentinean Air Force did not fall on carrier-based aircraft (23 out of about a hundred), about half destroyed air defense systems.
                      28. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 4 October 2014 19: 11
                        0
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Going through training and becoming an ace is not the same thing.

                        The British (those who were on the Harriers) also had nowhere to become aces.
                        Israeli instructors, with their fresh combat experience, were not taught.
                        Pilots taking part in WWII Korea and Suez, the Falkland War was no longer found

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Harrier - start of operations - 1978

                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrier_Jump_Jet
                        Introduction 1969


                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Maybe so, but then we return to where we started - ignoramuses served in the Argentinean army, and the British outnumbered them in numbers.

                        In the British army, at the end of the war, the Welsh Guard regiment, upon arriving at Bluff Cove on 2 ships, did not unload ashore, sent his commander to hell, and began to play football right in the hold where the bomb of the Argentinean ignoramuses, which did explode. Who are the big ignoramuses?
                        Where exactly is it written that the British suddenly outnumbered the Argentines?

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        One or two companies can be shoved onto any ship larger than a corvette.

                        standing on deck can and can be crammed. But the means of landing, unlike pr1123 will be clearly not enough.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Optimum for the BDK, but you wrote about the size of the aircraft carriers (aircraft carriers should also be like landing ships, the smaller the better)

                        For an aircraft carrier, the optimum is the distance the aircraft lands in the emergency barrier.
                        Now the STOVL aircraft carrier can be only 130m long

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        In fact, the British had a base on which their main air forces were located, so the total number of aircraft was approximately equal

                        It is very interesting to know where this base was, and how many planes fought among the British and Argentines.
                        Harriers destroyed about half of those shot down in the air, there were still commando raids on airfields and attacks on them.
                        After a series of battles between daggers and mirages with harriers, the Skyhawks began to be sent, to death - if the plane crooked paths made its way to bomb on the advanced warning radar ships or on the peripheral troops, then it had a chance. If he was intercepted by the harrier, then there was no chance - from the battle of 6 daggers to 2 harriers, only one dagger could escape, all as a sieve. To tell and show how it was.
                      29. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 5 October 2014 14: 30
                        0
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        The British (those who were on the Harriers) also had nowhere to become aces. Israeli instructors, with their fresh combat experience, were not taught. Pilots taking part in WWII Korea and Suez, the Falkland War was no longer found

                        The British were not stupid, and had to carefully monitor events in the world, including Israel. This is a common practice when analyzing the hostilities of other states. And neither one nor the other had a personal experience of real battles.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Introduction 1969

                        The British Aerospace Sea Harrier, which was mainly used by the British, was created later, so it was 1979.
                        Hawker Siddeley Harrier was added later, and was mainly used as ground attack aircraft.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        In the British army, at the end of the war, the Welsh Guard regiment, upon arriving at Bluff Cove on 2 ships, did not unload ashore, sent his commander to hell, and began to play football right in the hold where the Argentinean ignoramus’s bomb had exploded. Who are the big ignoramuses?

                        Fools are everywhere, but English ammunition regularly exploded.
                        By the way, was there a story about football? I haven’t seen anything about it.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        did the British suddenly outnumber the Argentines?

                        A typo, it was about learning.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        standing on deck can and can be crammed. But the means of landing, unlike pr1123 will be clearly not enough.

                        And were there regular landing facilities on it?
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        For an aircraft carrier, the optimum is the distance the aircraft lands in the emergency barrier. Now the STOVL aircraft carrier can be only 130m long.

                        And will he be able to receive horizontal take-off aircraft? A STOVL aircraft carrier and a multi-purpose aircraft carrier are different types of ships.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        It is very interesting to know where this base was, and how many planes fought among the British and Argentines.

                        The base was on Ascension Island. In total, one and a half hundred aircraft and helicopters from both sides took part. The British lost thirty with something, and the Argentines lost about a hundred. In different publications, the numbers vary, but the order is the same everywhere.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Harriers destroyed about half of those shot down in the air, there were still commando raids on airfields and attacks on them.

                        One raid commandos destroyed about ten aircraft, I do not know the consequences of airstrikes.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        from the battle of 6 daggers to 2 harriers, only one dagger could escape, all as a sieve. To tell and show how it was.

                        Daggers were created in Israel and quickly sold to Argentina. In Israel, they were withdrawn from service in 1977, that is, five years after they were adopted (1972). A very eloquent fact.
                      30. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 6 October 2014 04: 01
                        0
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        The British are not fools ..

                        Argentines and, unlike the British, the Israelis who actually fought and taught them, are not fools.
                        However, something went wrong ... Even the Neptune AWACS did not help

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        so that is exactly 1979.

                        BAE Harrier-2 was created in 1985, so what exactly 1969г
                        Hawker Siddeley Harrier is BAE Harrier, just one company bought another.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Fools are everywhere, but English ammunition regularly exploded.
                        By the way, was there a story about football?

                        The English may have exploded, but there were no naval targets for them.
                        The story about football was definitely there. Stubborn Celtic Welsh people do not send Anglo-Saxon, when the Argentines are almost defeated?

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        it was about learning.

                        The training was Israeli. During the war, Israeli instructors and techies did not leave Argentina and regularly continued to perform their functions by modernizing and servicing aircraft, as well as participating in the briefing.
                        the Israelis and the British are not very friendly at all.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        And will he be able to receive horizontal take-off aircraft?

                        Of course he can.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        And were there regular landing facilities on it?

                        Yes, helicopters.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        The base was on Ascension Island ...

                        Ascension Island is located where? well besides this there was also a base in Gibraltar - should it also be considered?
                        Harrier British lost 4 pcs from a fire from the ground,
                        all but one of the officers burned down in the hold of the Atlantic Conveyor, before they could fly ashore.
                        All losses from the Argentine and British sides have long been painted.
                        the point is that fighting in the air - 23: 0

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        ... In Israel, they were removed from service in 1977, that is, five years after they were adopted (1972). A very eloquent fact.

                        Well, having sold the Nesher Daggers to Argentina, did the Israelis move to Harriers?
                        Harriers were not adopted at all in Israel - an even more eloquent fact
                        Neshers were not created, but copied from the French "with the removal of unnecessary parts and burrs with a file."
                        You can simply compare the performance characteristics of the harrier and the dagger / mirage and wonder why (and how) the subsonic VTOL aircraft without missiles with the radar seeker and the LTX somewhere at the MiG-15 level could deal with supersonic Argentines who had such missiles (Matra R530, the best in the world that moment) and even with such a pogrom score.
                      31. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 6 October 2014 20: 06
                        0
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        The Argentines and, unlike the British, the Israelis who actually fought and taught them are all the more not fools. However, something went wrong ... Even the Neptune AWACS did not help

                        Simplest explanation is learning
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        BAE Harrier-2 was created in 1985, so it was 1969
                        Hawker Siddeley Harrier is BAE Harrier, just one company bought another.

                        British Aerospace Sea Harrier is the first generation aircraft, and you are writing about the second.
                        The Hawker Siddle Harrier is a ground-based aircraft, and it was actually adopted in 1969.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        The English may have exploded, but there were no naval targets for them.

                        So they still bombarded objects on land.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        The training was Israeli. During the war, Israeli instructors and techies did not leave Argentina and regularly continued to perform their functions by modernizing and servicing aircraft, as well as participating in the briefing.

                        Then questions arise in the training of the Israelites themselves.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Of course he can.

                        At 130 meters? In addition to the runway, there should be a place on the deck to accommodate aircraft preparing for launch, as well as their landing. At 130 meters it does not fit.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Yes, helicopters

                        They were not regular means of landing and were intended to fulfill the direct duties of the ship - the fight against the enemy’s nuclear submarines. Well, he was not landing.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        why (and how) subsonic VTOL aircraft without missiles with a radar seeker radar, and with the LTX somewhere at the level of the MiG-15 managed with supersonic Argentines who had such missiles (Matra R530, the best in the world at that time) and even with such a pogrom score

                        Armament "Sea Harrier":
                        Cannon - 2 × 30 mm ADEN guns with 130 rounds per barrel (removable)
                        Guided Missiles:
                        air-to-air missiles - AIM-9, AIM-120 (FRS.2), R550 Magic (FRS.51)
                        air-to-surface missiles - ALARM, AS.37 Martel, Sea Eagle
                        Unguided rockets - 4 × 18 × 68 mm SNEB rockets
                        Bombs - free-falling caliber up to 454 kg
                        Suspension Points - 5
                      32. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 6 October 2014 21: 19
                        0
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Simplest explanation is learning

                        so learning on the argentinian side

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        British Aerospace Sea Harrier is the first generation aircraft, and you are writing about the second.
                        The Hawker Siddle Harrier is a ground-based aircraft, and it was actually adopted in 1969.

                        He wrote about the 1st and 2nd. Harrier doesn't care where to base. RN received them only in the late 70s, RAF had from the very beginning. The first Harrier fought in the Falklands.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        So they still bombarded objects on land.

                        since they didn’t bombard the sea, where the greatest damage could be. Belgrano alone was enough to understand that without anti-submarine aircraft against the nuclear submarines - nothing at all, and the harriers would not let her act. On occasion, the Argentine NKs will bomb themselves.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Then questions arise in the training of the Israelites themselves.

                        Isn’t it easier to think about VIFFing, and why now there is an OBT already on many planes and not only on the Harrier?

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        At 130 meters? In addition to the runway, there should be a place on the deck to accommodate aircraft preparing for launch, as well as their landing. At 130 meters it does not fit.

                        and this is another question, but in general - it will fit.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        They were not regular means of landing and were intended to fulfill the direct duties of the ship - the fight against the enemy’s nuclear submarines. Well, he was not landing.

                        It already was ... Something is wrong here - as it should be, ASW / LPH participated in landing operations bully
                        Conversely, the Yak-36, which were on its deck and frightened the 6th fleet, were not anti-submarine aircraft in any way. After that the Americans and "came" to the British for the harrier (and began to release it unlicensed). Then they did the same in 1992 with the Yak-41.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Armament "Sea Harrier":

                        Well, here you are writing about the 2nd Harrier - this is with him 1985-87g, and later such weapons, and until 1985 from the UR there were only AIM-9
                        the guns on the first harrier were integrated, the suspension units - 4 pieces, and when patrolling in the air defense barriers, two of them were occupied by the PTB - total, maximum 2 Sidewinders. When working on the ground, they preferred to take the nodes freed from the PTB under the sidewinders (in case the Argentines suddenly fly), and destroy ground targets from guns. Or they took two sidewinders and two blocks of NUR.
                        NURS was three times smaller in caliber.
                      33. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 7 October 2014 20: 00
                        0
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        He wrote about the 1st and 2nd. Harrier doesn't care where to base. RN received them only in the late 70s, RAF had from the very beginning. The first Harrier fought in the Falklands.

                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Well, here you are writing about the 2nd Harrier - he has it from 1985-87, and later such weapons, and until 1985 from the UR there were only AIM-9

                        Open, for example, Wikipedia, on the page about the Falkland War (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland War), and read about which planes the British used on their aircraft carriers. Then follow the link there (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_Sea_Harrier), and read about when they were put into operation and what their characteristics are.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        since they didn’t bombard the sea, where the greatest damage could be. Belgrano alone was enough to understand that without anti-submarine aircraft against the nuclear submarines - nothing at all, and the harriers would not let her act. On occasion, the Argentine NKs themselves will bomb

                        That is, unlike the Argentines, the British with weapons had order.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        and this is another question, but in general - it will fit

                        And why do you need an aircraft carrier, from which they will take off once every half an hour maximum? A full-fledged aircraft carrier cannot be shorter than 250 meters.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        It already was ... Something is wrong here - as it should be, ASW / LPH participated in landing operations

                        In landing operations involved not only landing ships. Any operation is a team work. Surely there were other ships that were not landing, but performing their functions - this is normal.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Conversely, the Yak-36s that were on its deck and frightened the 6th fleet were not anti-submarine aircraft

                        The Yak-36 is an aircraft on which the development of technical solutions that were used in the Yak-38, which was actually based on aircraft carrying project 1143 cruisers, was carried out.
                        Test flights were simply carried out on the "Moscow", for which it was necessary to equip a special section on the deck, increasing 300 mm.
                      34. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 7 October 2014 22: 45
                        0
                        I know this topic. Please read Wikipedia carefully. At the Falklands in 1982 was the first Harrier (the one that is not the second, and the one that is not Kestrel). Data on ur you gave for the second harrier.

                        The Argentines did not always have a mess with ammunition. The British also crashed, and most of all with ... critical air defense ships. One complex was then immediately removed from service (Sea Wolf, Sea Dart, Sea Cat or somewhere around that). At least two ships were lost precisely because of their failures.

                        With the correct organization of labor, everything from an aircraft carrier will take off much faster than now. In general, landing on it is much more problematic ... especially if it is CATOBAR or STOBAR and not a STOVL aircraft carrier.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        300 mm
                        Hehe ... Yak-36 served in 1123 - they liked to hover over American decks in the Mediterranean, their sailors at first scattered in horror, thought they would fall: the plane is not a helicopter - if it does not fly forward, it falls down! That is - on them ... Then they had a complex for several years that America didn’t have this, but the USSR did. Conversely, hot jets from the hovering Yak-36 nozzles rolled headgear (and not only) along the deck ... bully So not "Donald Cook" alone ...
                        Then the Americans squealed and drafted through the UN an agreement on behavior at sea where it appeared that this should not be done. Yak-36M (aka Yak-38) appeared later than those events. But he was also surprised, though already a little aloof.
                        Did you know about these egregious acts of the Cold War?

                        The Tu-95 flying over the deck also causes a serious feeling of discomfort, and not only by its size - it is the noisiest aircraft in the world, you will not confuse it with anything! wassat
                      35. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 8 October 2014 02: 00
                        0
                        PS. he (pr. 1123) was directly involved in the landings - helicopters with a landing flew from him.
                      36. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 8 October 2014 19: 29
                        0
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        At the Falklands in 1982 was the first Harrier (the one that is not the second, and the one that is not Kestrel

                        The aircraft carrier was Sea Harrier.
                        The first Harrier was a ground-based aircraft, on the basis of which the first Sea Harrier Sea-based was made, and it was he who was on the British aircraft carriers. Harrier was there too, but like a ground attack aircraft.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        With the correct organization of labor, everything from an aircraft carrier will take off much faster than now. In general, landing on it is much more problematic ... especially if it is CATOBAR or STOBAR and not a STOVL aircraft carrier.

                        Technically impossible. Preparing the catapult for a new launch and taking the aircraft to the starting position takes time.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        Hehe ... Yak-36 served in 1123 - they loved to hover over American decks in the Mediterranean
                        Did you know about these egregious acts of the Cold War?
                        The Tu-95 flying over the deck also causes a serious feeling of discomfort, and not only by its size - it is the noisiest aircraft in the world, you will not confuse it with anything!

                        Yak-36 was made in only four copies. Maybe this was the case, but the Yak-38 was launched into the series.
                        The Tu-95 once pretended to be about to board the deck of their aircraft carrier (it seems the security pilots, for the sake of laughter, gave him the appropriate signal and he decided to support the joke) and at the sight of it all who were on the deck jumped into the water.
                        Quote: Kassandra
                        PS. he (pr. 1123) was directly involved in the landings - helicopters with a landing flew from him.

                        Perhaps it was used as a floating airfield. If you can still replace some helicopters with others, then you can shove the landing force, if its placement is not laid down in the structure there is simply nowhere to go.
                      37. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 8 October 2014 22: 32
                        0
                        Both the Harrier FRS1 (RN) and the Harrier GR3 (RAF) were on the aircraft carriers. Both of them are the first harriers who were then only dragged from Sidereaders from the UR.
                        FRS1 differed from GR3 in the presence of a weak radar instead of booking a cabin. This radar was not allowed to use the AIM-120, and other URs that you wrote about, just like the MiG-21 radar did not allow. Moreover, AMRAAM appeared 10 years later, in the 90s. They flew in 1982 to cover their troops, usually together - in pair was one FRS-1 and one GR3.
                        GR3 then flew ashore at FOB San-Carlos. FRS-1 remained on aircraft carriers.
                        On the Sea Harrier Wikipedia, the weapon specification is given for Sea Harrier FA2 - this is the second Harrier. The 2nd Harrier appeared in 1985, and not in 1969.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Technically impossible

                        another start is used. Then you wrote whether he can accept and what.

                        The Yak-36 was produced in a significantly larger number of copies. At the sight when he "lost speed" on you about to fall, the mattress was much worse than from the Tu-95. It's one thing when a plane comes in for landing, another thing when it loses speed and is about to fall flat, and you are under it - there are no options.
                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imvbv5KdD44
                        If Yak suddenly emitted green rays and how a UFO began to abduct sailors, then the panic would be less.

                        At 1123 there is a lot of + squeezed in cockpits.
                        In the same South Atlantic, the LPD Fearless and Illustious did not go all the way, they switched to them from the ship’s ship (personel ship) upon arrival. The USSR had floating vessels.
                      38. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 9 October 2014 12: 30
                        0
                        The Yak-36 did not go into mass production because it has 2 lifting and marching engines (PMD). In the event of damage or even partial failure of one of them, it will then not sit down vertically - it will be turned over in the hover mode due to a mismatch in engine thrust.
                        There were two engines because the plane was urgently made of what it was, the Yak-38 was also made, but at least the PMD had a powerful one with a Y-shaped combustion chamber instead of two engines and it would be turned over only if the rotary nozzle was shot or jammed, and not just one of the engines will have an imbalance in traction.
                        There are two lifting engines (PD) in the Yak-38 behind the cockpit (there is no Yak-36 at all), but at landing it draws out if one of them fails or is damaged. Accident at Yak is not higher than that of the Harrier, but the serial Yak-38 VIFFing, unlike Harrier and the Yak-36, could not do it.
                        At the Yak-36, the nozzles did not turn fast enough for this, but this was a much more easily solved problem and the center of gravity of the aircraft fell on them.
                      39. Kassandra
                        Kassandra 30 September 2014 23: 23
                        0
                        PS. the security of the Marines on the Rhinoceros with helicopter seats is approximately the same as on Tarava (it is itself less).
                2. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 29 September 2014 03: 41
                  0
                  to the equipped shore.
  45. Ossetian
    Ossetian 25 September 2014 22: 57
    0
    I am not a specialist in Moreman affairs, but one question arose: and what for us a "high seas fleet"? there are no normal exits to the World Ocean. All maritime theaters are either closed water areas (World Cup, Caspian Sea), or are strongly limited by all kinds of La Perouse straits, North Cape capes, or depths (Baltic).
    The technologies used on the Mistral are definitely needed, we are terribly behind, here at least steal, so that it’s just a blunder. but the UDC itself, but FIG knows, is it needed? Papuans are better to be driven by heavy cruisers and destroyers, given that according to our concept they usually go with a predominance of missile and cannon weapons over torpedo weapons, firing and burning the coast 7-8 km deep (IMHA for Somali pirates). With an opponent of the level of Europe (we will not flatter ourselves), it is ineffective (again IMHA)

    PS I put on a helmet and a helmet, climbed into the trench, ready to receive hamsters and stools
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 25 September 2014 23: 12
      0
      well, the same pirate will depart by 9 ...
      what exactly are we supposedly lagging behind? no techologies are needed there - one continuous drank dough.
  46. Ossetian
    Ossetian 26 September 2014 00: 00
    0
    Quote: Kassandra
    well, the same pirate will depart by 9 ...

    moorings, docks, etc. 9 km from the coast? Well, let them cut them in boats in the middle of palm trees, and not in the Strait of Aden. The word is INFRASTRUCTURE. Destruction thereof leads to sad consequences.
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 26 September 2014 01: 24
      0
      up the river completely, or on foot hostages and loot dragged for these 9 km

      in response, they can also hit the ship from the shore with howitzer cannons - then you will sing differently
  47. Victor Wolz
    Victor Wolz 26 September 2014 00: 25
    +1
    Yes, with landing ships it’s just sadness, like with destroyers. sad
  48. Wolka
    Wolka 26 September 2014 07: 53
    +1
    Of course, I am a deletant in shipbuilding, but since we can build atomic icebreakers and submarines, we really can’t overcome the UDC, you just have to really want it, now is the time, time is money, it's time to start ...
  49. divangeneral
    divangeneral 26 September 2014 12: 58
    +1
    Quote: chunga-changa
    Have you read the article? We cannot build "even better and an order of magnitude steep" for the next five years. There is no project, no free shipyard, no propulsion system, in principle, no landing catamarans. What the damp dreams of the military and manufacturers about "the main thing is to start building and then we'll figure it out" can be observed in the example of Gren, Gorshkov and St. Petersburg. Fabulous timing and unrestrained rise in price. Incl. if we start right now, then we are fifteen years old before our UDC, during which time the Mistrals will have time to write off.


    It is necessary to bring the project of New Russia to the bottom. then there will be Nikolaev shipyards.
    and then everything will be right up to aircraft carriers
  50. kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 26 September 2014 16: 54
    +3
    Sorry for not reading all the comments, but the gentleman under the nickname "Lieutenant Colonel" You write from "plasticine and snot" apparently hinting at the fact that enough to dissolve snot. So what I’ll write about now has no direct relation to the shipbuilding industry, but nevertheless it quite characterizes the current situation in the country and especially in industry. I work in one very much emphasize a very serious company to call the situation jo *** sing to say nothing. At the moment, for the second day at work, we are preparing information on the investment program in Russian on capital investments for senior top managers for the report, apparently we are doing a complete stickiness, I emphasize the full, but this is not so scary by the decision of senior Moscow bosses, we close the facilities in the readiness to which they approached this at the moment, the operators are not shocked, they are on call, objects are being rented well, so that it would be clear, if only they were put into operation at home, for example, without a roof, among people I will tell you not in a whisper, but loudly say that this is not sabotage, but outright sabotage, and everything so that ITSELF heard what he wants to hear, the rest does not care at the same time the wear of funds is 60-90%. And this is what only a small fraction of that huge ass has written about. So the respected "lieutenant colonel" is not snot, it is real and a complete all-encompassing systemic crisis that will eventually lead to either Kalabs or Maidan, which is actually the same thing!
    1. Kassandra
      Kassandra 9 October 2014 11: 59
      0
      The desired__flicker of the P_promising A_rmiya - this is it.

      can you write about this not only here, but can still write a note (including paper) to his Administration for half a page?