Military Review

Analogue of "Mistral" can be easily developed in Russia

137
Director General of the Nevsky Design Bureau Sergey Vlasov said that the Russian shipbuilding industry could easily develop an analogue of the universal landing craft of the Mistral type.

Analogue of "Mistral" can be easily developed in Russia


“I believe we haven’t acquired any new technologies in connection with the purchase of Mistralia ... Russia can easily make such ships itself, there are no revelations here,” Vlasov quotes “Russia's Arms”.

The CEO also noted that Russian enterprises had demonstrated their competence in this matter in the course of working with French shipbuilders in creating Russian Mistrals. In particular, the Baltic plant built two fodder parts, which were delivered to France.

In addition, Vlasov criticized the project of the French ships.

“All landing ships that we designed, can carry out access to the unequipped coast. They are able to approach the shore with a certain bias, open the ramps, release the equipment and fight. And it is difficult to capture the coast from Mistral, ”he stressed.
Photos used:
http://www.arms-expo.ru/
137 comments
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. sscha
    sscha 15 October 2014 14: 11
    +13
    Who would doubt that!!!! hi
    1. ISKANDER25
      ISKANDER25 15 October 2014 14: 15
      +6
      Hello Alexander! And build with us in Severodvinsk !!! hi
      1. volot-voin
        volot-voin 15 October 2014 14: 22
        +16
        We have the necessary shipyards, including in Severodvinsk, the necessary designers and specialists. Moreover, there are promising projects. Yes, and aircraft carriers in the USSR were built (then sold, one "Kuzya" remained). It is not a question of possibilities, a matter of time. When they can really come in handy.
        The same Arctic with its natural resources does not wait, and there are more than enough predatory mouths. And without a powerful fist, the enemy is impudent.
        Severodvinsk of good state orders for modern ships so necessary for the country.
        1. jjj
          jjj 15 October 2014 14: 28
          +6
          What workshop will we entrust the business to?
          1. GDP
            GDP 15 October 2014 14: 46
            +9
            At first it seems to me to think about whether to build both a landing ship and a helicopter carrier in one bottle?

            The newest BDK - "Ivan Gren"
            Already designed and almost built, it is capable of carrying on board 2 combat helicopters, dozens of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles ...


            anti-submarine helicopter carrier


            attack helicopter carrier

            These Soviet helicopter carriers were built during the reign of peas. Are we really unable to build something like this or better?
            1. GDP
              GDP 15 October 2014 15: 07
              +10
              But helicopter carriers "Novorossiysk" "Minsk" and "Kiev" Designed it seems in 1971, But for me they look more formidable than "Mistral"
              These helicopter carriers were able to move without security and had the entire range of weapons from a whole complex of anti-submarine weapons to powerful anti-ship missiles "basalt" (the so-called killer aircraft carriers, a powerful air defense system and up to 36 helicopters or vertical takeoff aircraft ...


              "Novorossiysk"


              "Kiev"


              "Minsk"


              As far as I remember, in 91 they were sold to China and South Korea
              1. donavi49
                donavi49 15 October 2014 15: 38
                +17
                These ships have a different class, but omit this.

                These ships have a key flaw that makes them unviable today and generally very moody and expensive - the Kotloturbine installation. With such installations, for example, only 3 of the 16 destroyers of the 956 project (from the 80 of the year of delivery) survived and 2 pieces can still be revived - the reason is the installation, with the slightest non-compliance with complex procedures - there is a catastrophic failure of the tubes of the boiler turbine installation and that's all ... Simultaneously with 1155 gas turbines survived 8 from 12 and are not going to die, being the most popular warships of the Russian Navy.

                Change boilers to turbines - you have to redesign the entire ship once, two is the only manufacturer of turbines of such power Zorya-Mashproekt in Nikolaev and he did not ship 2 ready turbines paid for 100% for 11356, another 2 for the next 11356 was also stopped (only the 4 kit was received by the Russian side ), also stopped supplying its parts in cooperation for 22350 and stopped accepting parts for maintenance and repair. I think the idea is clear? Another manufacturer is Rolls-Royce, it’s also stupid to go to him ... Own such power will not be there soon.

                Ah and most importantly, that you have aircraft-carrying cruisers, with the task of PLO and support for large ship formations - and not raiding. At the same time, he does not carry a landing, in the general sense (light groups being flown by helicopters / boats). He has no means for landing with equipment, there is no docking chamber. There is no way to massively land an assault either. UDC - on the contrary, it is mainly a landing, and everything else will follow.

                Ah and the place of their construction Николаев.
                1. GDP
                  GDP 15 October 2014 15: 52
                  0
                  What I meant was that it might make sense instead of one large floating shipyard like the Mistral - to build two medium size BDK ships and a light helicopter carrier. This would make it possible to place full-fledged defense complexes on them and divide tasks, and, if necessary, use them in pairs ...
                  It would allow and to get rid of dependence on shipyards in Nikolaev.

                  And there can be no talk of modernization and repair of old helicopter carriers, firstly because they are obsolete, and secondly because they were sold a long time ago, and they drank money ...
                  1. donavi49
                    donavi49 15 October 2014 16: 18
                    +6
                    So, what's the point of doing BDK? The whole world has switched to DKVD and second-wave transports, which are unloaded into the port.

                    The DKVD has a certain minimum displacement, less than which, this same dock camera is simply unprofitable. Therefore, little will not work, it will be at least twice as large as Gren.

                    Then, punts are again a relic of the past - the key is that they are not seaworthy. There were complaints about the pitching somewhere, and a few years ago, the 2 BFK Black Sea Fleet with marines went to Indra’s exercises. In the Indian Ocean, they fell into a chatter - after this, upon arrival in India, I had to ask the Indian side to transfer the exercises for 8 days from the state of l / s. For a ship to land amphibious groups in shallow water / land, it must be flat-bottomed.

                    Similarly for the helicopter carrier. The most optimal is a ship with a solid deck, then you can make 4-6 platforms, and the accident rate on such decks is minimal. Further, in order not to write off the helicopters regularly, you need to have a hangar, otherwise long trips on the deck will kill them simply. Total helicopter carrier must have a hangar, a continuous deck - and again will be released as 3 / 5 Displacement Mistrals.

                    In the world do not live that combine helicopter carriers and DKVD. It's profitable.

                    There are two most advantageous schemes: a solid deck (with an individual hangar like Mistral / Wosp, for example, or with a common hangar like Dokdo - then there are helicopters and equipment in the hangar, which complicates their maintenance and carries out the main operations on the deck) and aft deck with a hangar (in in this case, 2-3 runway versus 5-6 for solid and a group of 4-6 cars against 12-18). It seems to me that it would be better suited for tasks, namely with aft deck, such as 071 or Rotterdam.
                    1. GDP
                      GDP 15 October 2014 19: 17
                      0
                      Detailed comment - no words!
                    2. The comment was deleted.
                    3. serezhasoldatow
                      serezhasoldatow 15 October 2014 21: 27
                      +1
                      I do not remember that the Marines suffered from pitching, and even more so complained.
                    4. Saburov
                      Saburov 16 October 2014 06: 17
                      +2
                      Well, in fact, the UDC and the BDK are completely different classes and if you look at the analogies, the application (without taking into account the enemy’s weaknesses), the BDK is much more tenacious in this regard than the UDC and is more suited for such tasks. Firstly, before landing, air defense, firing points, radar, guidance systems, equipment and manpower of the enemy on the coast are completely suppressed, after which guard ships approach and process the coast once more and only then the BDK begin landing and what survived on the coast, already can’t hurt the ships in any way, I think you won’t think that they will shoot at RPGs from RPGs? Secondly, the BDK is much simpler and more reliable in operation than the UDC, they have less displacement, they are faster and easier to build, they are not the primary goals, like large vessels, they are more difficult to track in the squadron, so instead of one UDC, it’s better to transfer troops. to have an 6-8 BDK, all the more so since one UDC cannot be in two places at the same time, you won’t say that who developed the Soviet doctrine for the combat use of amphibious assault ships was ... And do not forget about the experience of the Second World War. I advise you to read about the landing operations of the Soviet troops. In all respects, we don’t need Mistral-type UDCs, but Kiev-type TAKRs are quite suitable for the fulfillment of the naval combat missions.
                2. Dreamwriter
                  Dreamwriter 15 October 2014 15: 58
                  +10
                  Conclusion: we must take Nikolaev))
                  1. uge.garik
                    uge.garik 15 October 2014 21: 31
                    0
                    just about here! ... and from this place and in more detail.?! ... and in a few without losing options! Class!
                3. jjj
                  jjj 15 October 2014 18: 42
                  +1
                  Quote: donavi49
                  These ships have a key flaw that makes them unviable today and generally very moody and expensive - the Kotloturbine installation. With such installations, for example, only 3 of the 16 destroyers of the 956 project (from the 80 of the year of delivery) survived and 2 pieces can still be revived - the reason is the installation, with the slightest non-compliance with complex procedures - there is a catastrophic failure of the tubes of the boiler turbine installation and that's it ..

                  If my memory serves me, then "Zvezdochka" on "Fearless", which now "Ushakov" has improved something to reduce the problems you described. Although initially the destroyer smokes when loading the shafts like battleships at the beginning of the last century
                4. serezhasoldatow
                  serezhasoldatow 15 October 2014 21: 25
                  +1
                  There are Kaluga and Kolomna.
              2. typhoon7
                typhoon7 15 October 2014 15: 40
                +4
                As a matter of fact, it was recorded that we could always build such ships, we were the first to build them, and in the west, and on our website, we laughed at our pocket aircraft carriers. And we ourselves just dopped that these are very successful projects, and we all crumbled safely. Now we need to remember everything. What fleet was, my heart bleeds.
              3. ittr
                ittr 15 October 2014 19: 32
                +1
                as far as I remember, "Yak" and vertical take-off were based on "Kiev" and "Minsk", and "Moscow" and "Leningrad" were helicopter carriers
            2. Dreamwriter
              Dreamwriter 15 October 2014 15: 20
              +6
              Well, in fact, a helicopter carrier and UDC in one bottle are quite convenient - because helicopters can provide air support for a landing, and besides, with the help of transport helicopters, several sabotage groups can be landed from the sea at the farther reaches simultaneously - for example, to quickly capture key heights, strategic points, or an aimed strike at some enemy rear formations. But we really have good developments - the same Ivan Gren
              1. GDP
                GDP 15 October 2014 15: 27
                +3
                I agree - it’s convenient. Only this business is expensive.
                You can’t squeeze everything into one ship at once. Once it was possible to put into one corps both the BDK and the full-fledged helicopter carrier, then there will be really no place for strike and defensive systems, so you still have to carry security vessels.
                In addition, the BDK and helicopter carriers can perform different tasks - for example, the delivery of goods, and so, the whole carcass will have to be driven ...
                This is just my opinion ...
                1. Dreamwriter
                  Dreamwriter 15 October 2014 15: 57
                  +1
                  Well, maybe - here I don’t know for sure.
                2. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 15 October 2014 19: 26
                  +1
                  Quote: GDP
                  it means that you still have to carry security vessels.

                  Any landing or aircraft carrier needs an escort - in no other way.
                  Quote: GDP
                  for example, cargo delivery, and so, the whole carcass will have to be driven ...

                  One Mistral at a time will bring as much as the BDK for 4-5 times.
            3. donavi49
              donavi49 15 October 2014 15: 26
              +3
              The newest BDK - "Ivan Gren"
              Already designed and almost built, it is capable of carrying on board 2 combat helicopters, dozens of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles ...


              Throw out the picture - there are used AK-176 weapons (taken from the RCA), 2 AK_630M, 2 Grad.

              It is not built, but it has been built for 10 years. Only in May the second DRRA3700 propulsion system was loaded - which is assembled manually in Kolomna, because this is a unique order and does not go anywhere else, only to Grena.

              Exit in 2015 year is the first, if all goes well until the end of 2015 transmission.
              1. GDP
                GDP 15 October 2014 15: 34
                +2
                Yes, I agree, a year ago, it looked something like this:





                Now it has already been launched and should be completed next year, another one of the same type is being built ...
                1. donavi49
                  donavi49 15 October 2014 15: 44
                  +6
                  Yes, here's his last photo. The plant is tearing 11356 - for the failure of which it will hurt to beat you with a ruble too, and Gren is not particularly needed, so it is possible that it will be moved further. They moved out for 1,5 years justifying this - "Kolomna did not cope with the supply of propulsion systems." and really only in May 2014 the second was loaded.

                  The second is not under construction, but metal was cut semi-underground and now exists in the form of 5 bottom assemblies (not even sections), and this was done by inertia as soon as the Navy canceled interest under the contract for the second building. Now the contract has just been signed. Therefore, they will collect the mortgage section.
                  1. GDP
                    GDP 15 October 2014 16: 00
                    +4
                    Propulsion systems - this is a sore point for our ships - and it has always been so even in the days of the USSR and with different classes of ships, including submarines ... :(

                    But on the account of the fact that it is not particularly needed - here you can argue. During the conflict in Syria, the BDK and the combat transporters were very useful, but nothing has ended there and it seems to me that everything is just beginning.
                    It seems that someone is intensely rocking the world order and kindling hot spots with increasing force ...
        2. ISKANDER25
          ISKANDER25 15 October 2014 14: 30
          0
          Hello Rodoslav! THANKS! hi +
    2. Stanislav 1978
      Stanislav 1978 15 October 2014 14: 19
      +8
      No one doubts. But the question is how long these ships will be built. From development to construction, a sufficiently long period. At the moment, it is necessary to begin to develop not something like Mistral, but something more perfect.
      1. Velikoruss
        Velikoruss 15 October 2014 15: 35
        -1
        How long will be built depends on funding. And financing depends on the appetites of those in power. If military shipbuilding is state-owned, they will allocate funds according to the residual principle, if private owners build, they will maximize the cost. If the cost of some objects increased by 8 (!!!!!!!) times by the Sochi breakup, then at the most urgent they will come off. In short, where not poke - bourgeois erysipelas crawls out.
    3. mazhnikof.Niko
      mazhnikof.Niko 15 October 2014 14: 20
      +4
      Quote: sscha
      Who would doubt that!!!!


      Tolik Serdyukov! with your Zhenya Vasilyeva!

      Very much - doubted !!!
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. Juborg
      Juborg 15 October 2014 14: 31
      +10
      Statements, statements, but where is the result asked? For 23 years, not a single helicopter carrier was built, and of those that were 8 aircraft carriers, only one remained, the rest were sold and one was cut to pieces, the entire small garment industry was enough. When we stop chatting, and deed to prove their words. If they could build ships like the Mistrals, why didn't they? IF YOU HAVE NOT PURCHASED TECHNOLOGIES FROM THE FRENCH, WHERE DO WE HAVE THESE TECHNOLOGIES? Some strange statement, probably for dusting, we ourselves with a mustache. Where are those mustaches, where are the helicopter carriers, where are the landing ships? Poor "Ivan Grnna!" They have not been able to harass since 2004, only this year they launched it, and we have not even heard of mooring tests. So much for technology and opportunities.
      1. typhoon7
        typhoon7 15 October 2014 15: 59
        -2
        Such ships are built only at the behest of the political leadership, and the go-ahead was given to the Mistral, and France helped us in solving problems with joining the WTO. We almost bought Leopards on this topic, but God had mercy. The worst thing is that only now we are starting to raise our industry and shipbuilding and aircraft building and machine tool building, but many areas have collapsed up to the present day (for example, machine tool building), although it was possible to simply copy a lot for a long time if they managed to lose technology. By the way, people, what have we got there with China? Truth-tv.ru. It seemed to me that I was sleeping, or I was in the past, but since September they have been hammering our border guards from the artillery, they have brought up 35 thousand paratroopers, a cloud of armored vehicles, our troops have been raised, is this a joke? Hour after hour is not easier, everyone took up arms against Mother Russia, God will stand with us.
        1. Eggor
          Eggor 15 October 2014 16: 30
          +2
          Quote: typhoon7
          By the way people, what do we have there with China? True-tv.ru. It seemed to me that I was sleeping, or fell into the past, but they have been hammering from the artillery of our border guards since September, pulled up 35 of thousands of paratroopers, a cloud of armored vehicles, our troops are raised, is this a rally? Hour by hour is not easier, everyone is up against the mother of Russia, God will stand with us.
          Rave. Source - Censor.
          What is the purpose of the appearance of this publication in the Ukrainian segment of the Internet at the moment is not exactly known. We can only say with confidence that Ukraine is trying its hand in the direction of the information war.

      2. Bayonet
        Bayonet 15 October 2014 21: 34
        0
        Quote: juborg
        IF YOU DONT PURCHASE TECHNOLOGIES FROM FRENCH, WHERE DOES THESE TECHNOLOGIES HAVE US?

        And you need to ask Mr. Vlasov, he was going to build ships "with ease".
    6. The comment was deleted.
    7. siberalt
      siberalt 15 October 2014 15: 12
      +6
      The contract must first be fulfilled. Ordered - take away. To give, not to give up the Mistral is politicking. There was no official refusal to fulfill the contract from the French. And what to build and how best is to be decided during the operation of the Mistrals. Everything will fit in the farm.
      1. Viktor Kudinov
        Viktor Kudinov 15 October 2014 15: 30
        +4
        fool We can say that we picked them up in the trash, gave them a job, and they paint us with figs! repeat
    8. Denis fj
      Denis fj 15 October 2014 22: 56
      0
      Okay, okay))) Now you can shout that, they say, “but we knew and knew how without them”))) Maybe they did, only all the knowledge and skills in the “perestroika” shocked. And if GDP and invested money are beaten back, then they will earn a gold monument)
  2. Roman1970
    Roman1970 15 October 2014 14: 11
    +7
    No one doubts the talent of our designers and shipbuilders!
    1. Panikovsky
      Panikovsky 15 October 2014 14: 19
      +5
      and this analogue will be better.
      1. Bayonet
        Bayonet 15 October 2014 21: 38
        0
        Quote: Panikovsky
        and this analogue will be better.

        As it is with Panikovsky - "Saw Shura, saw - they are golden!"
    2. zeleznijdorojnik
      zeleznijdorojnik 15 October 2014 15: 26
      +1
      Why did this comrade keep silent before? If specifically - this is an article, if unintentionally - stupidity bordering on betrayal ...
  3. MIV999
    MIV999 15 October 2014 14: 11
    +3
    To be honest - even the outwardly pretty ugly ship, if you consider it as a combat unit negative ... The trough is the trough, it looks more like a tanker request ... Only the "genius" Serdyukov wassat not only could he subscribe to the delivery of these two essentially useless ships to Russia for crazy money, but also manage to pass off this idiocy as a kind of "breakthrough in technology", "victory of Russia" crying
    1. volot-voin
      volot-voin 15 October 2014 14: 28
      +2
      Quote: MIV999
      Only the "genius" Serdyukov wassat could not only subscribe to the delivery of these two essentially useless ships to Russia for crazy money,

      Serdyukov is also that genius of theft and a symbol of embezzlement. And aircraft carriers, of course, from the very beginning it was necessary to build with us and only with us, just by that time we would build and our industry would receive the money and the workers would be loaded with our work ..
      At the expense of futility and beauty, you can argue until you turn blue, only we need them and need them yesterday.
      1. MIV999
        MIV999 15 October 2014 14: 34
        +1
        And aircraft carriers, of course, from the very beginning it was necessary to build with us and only with us,

        I don’t argue about aircraft carriers drinks ... But in this case, the speech about helicopter carriers, the needs of which our army never experienced simply for the reason that they did not rest against us anywhere request ...
        What, incidentally, has already been repeatedly stated by representatives of the Russian Armed Forces yes ...
        Sorry, but I tend to trust professionals more than Serdyukov and the company
    2. Drednout
      Drednout 15 October 2014 14: 30
      +1
      Quote: MIV999
      ... The trough is the trough, it looks more like a tanker

      In what place, dear, does the Mistral look like a tanker? There is no doubt that the "barn" is still the same, but TANKER ???
      And about the usefulness-uselessness, not only the keyboard in disputes on this score has already been erased by all sorts of "experts". It's just that once we take it, we take it, but if it doesn't, then it doesn't. What to swing fists now? We did not have helicopter carriers in their pure form, but, apparently, they are necessary in the concept. The landing is not only a large landing craft, but also air support. One "Kuzyu" is clearly not enough for this. Armament and equipment are needed yesterday, but shipbuilders, since they are so all-skillful, why didn’t they create a domestic analogue earlier? Is Serdyukov to blame? Did you interfere with designing? And before that? There was no team?
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. mazhnikof.Niko
        mazhnikof.Niko 15 October 2014 14: 48
        -2
        Quote: Drednout
        Well did not pile domestic counterpart before? Serdyukov is to blame? Did you interfere with the design? And before that? There was no team?


        Serdyukov is to blame! Prior to this, there was no ORDER, and, consequently, FINANCE! Not to be confused with investments ...
  4. lelikas
    lelikas 15 October 2014 14: 12
    +6
    We can do everything with ease - and repair roads and fly to Mars and the Moon, a matter of time, but it just doesn’t.
    1. shasherin.pavel
      shasherin.pavel 15 October 2014 14: 30
      +2
      Quote: lelikas
      a matter of time, but it just doesn’t.

      - Girl, is there time for sale?
      - No, not yet!
      - Where did it go?
      - Maybe the sanctions affected, or maybe inflation ... you know the time such a product is unstable, then it exists and then it does not exist.
      - Can you postpone a couple of years for me?
      - Yes, not a question ... to you from a century or a millennium?
  5. Hairy Siberian
    Hairy Siberian 15 October 2014 14: 14
    +6
    In addition, Vlasov criticized the very design of the French ships.

    “All landing ships that we designed, can carry out access to the unequipped coast. They are able to approach the shore with a certain bias, open the ramps, release the equipment and fight. And it is difficult to capture the coast from Mistral, ”he stressed.

    And the fact that Mistral is also a helicopter carrier, he did not notice?
    We will wait, looking tomorrow, but not every. smile
    1. avt
      avt 15 October 2014 14: 30
      +11
      Quote: Hairy Siberian
      And the fact that he also did not notice the helicopter carrier?

      request So he deliberately muddies up on the principle - ,, people, horses are mixed in a heap .. "But Vlasov is weak to answer two other questions. In what time frame the design bureau led by him," with ease "will develop a project to the stage of technical documentation for production ??? And in what time frame will the industry, "easily" make at least the first sample ??? You can sing about yourself with a mustache, but in the realities of the MODERN state of the USC - at best, with advanced financing and the most severe control personally ... oh what a person! will last at least 10 years. You can bubble as you like and swear "Mistral" with all the words, he himself put his hand to the keyboard on the site during the discussion of the signing of the contract. BUT! As of today, the Navy can receive ONLY "Mistrals", I will say once again a seditious and heretical thought for many here - you need to build two more in St. Petersburg as planned by the contract, since there is experience and production has been mastered, to get, as again provided by the contract , from francs, Zenith "and while they are being built, they go, make their own project taking into account the exploitation of Vladivostok." So in 6-7 years the project will be done, and then a new one will be built in the same period. time ships. In short, repeat what happened to the battleships "Tsesarevich" - "Borodino" and how the completion of this line "Pavel №1" - "Andrew the First-Called". Only to design, by analogy with the battleships, immediately the version of "Andrew ", bypassing Borodino".
    2. shasherin.pavel
      shasherin.pavel 15 October 2014 14: 38
      +5
      Quote: Hairy Siberian
      can access the unequipped coast.

      Something "good fellow" confused it, Baba-Yaga has a flying mortar for landing in the forest, and Ivan ... goes to the Tsar in a "Russian stove". A stove with a stupa hybrid is not acceptable ...
      1. avt
        avt 15 October 2014 14: 43
        +1
        Quote: shasherin.pavel
        . A stove with a mortar hybrid is not acceptable ...

        So he is "Rhino" raving. It was on him that they tried to combine the incompatible, and meanwhile, the UDC "Tarava" were loaded, ours then "Ivan Tarava" in, they made a sketch, but then the USSR collapsed ... request
  6. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 15 October 2014 14: 15
    +8
    Project "Mistrals" - Serdyukovskaya adventure. He was well criticized even at the stage of signing the contract.
    IMHO, for Russia it is most advantageous to get a contractual penalty and build on this money what our fleet needs, and not Serdyukov’s fantasies.
    1. ma_shlomha
      ma_shlomha 15 October 2014 14: 33
      -1
      Poor-poor at that time supreme (DAM). He succumbed to the entreaties of him known as a silver-free adventurer, Serdyukov. And I ordered, I suppose, DAM - I will give you money for what our fleet needs. And .... gave.
    2. Bayonet
      Bayonet 15 October 2014 21: 41
      0
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Project "Mistrals" - Serdyukovskaya adventure

      He was not the only one who made this deal, this is not buying potatoes in the market!
  7. Fire
    Fire 15 October 2014 14: 15
    0
    Yes RUSSIA can do anything !!! I don’t understand what kind of Makar we turned to them for? request When we do something at home, after all, no one knows or sees about it, and when they shout to see in chorus OH WAN AND I SUCH THE SAME I WANT !!! yes
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. mazhnikof.Niko
      mazhnikof.Niko 15 October 2014 14: 39
      0
      Quote: Fire
      I don’t understand what kind of Makar we turned to them for?


      Yes, not for the pasta, Serdyukov turned to his wife. And behind the rollback!

      Interestingly, managed to get?

      Now we don’t know ...
  8. donavi49
    donavi49 15 October 2014 14: 16
    +4
    He has been saying this for a long time, it's just that not everything is voiced here. Here the General spoke in February 2014 of the year more.

    MOSCOW, February 3 - RIA Novosti. The promising large landing ship (BDK) of the new generation will cost about 20 billion rubles and will differ significantly in its appearance from the ships of the current generation, Sergei Vlasov, general director of OJSC Nevskoye PKB, said in an interview with RIA Novosti.
    "The creation of such a ship will take 7-8 years, it all depends on the size, financing and the availability of cooperation. Such a ship will cost about 20 billion rubles", - said Vlasov.
    He noted that the new BDK will be a more versatile vehicle for equipment based on it and in terms of landing methods. At the same time, the general configuration of the promising "paratrooper" will be about the same, just outwardly it may look more like the "Mistral", or its superstructure will be shifted towards the bow, and the stern section will be open.
    "The options may be different, depending on what characteristics are set by the fleet. <...> We have achievements, we reported them to the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy at a conference at the Kuznetsov Naval Academy, but so far there has been no further progress", - added the general director of Nevsky PKB.

    РИА Новости http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20140203/992718839.html#ixzz3EJI5VjB4


    Total:
    7-8 years
    20 lard rubles in prices on February 3 2014
    The Navy was not interested in the developments of the Nevsky Design Bureau in February.
    1. yehat
      yehat 15 October 2014 14: 25
      +4
      The problem of the purchase was not primarily due to the fact that the box could be built or made by a slightly modernized Soviet project. The problem was that we lagged behind in a number of issues, and the lag is not always obvious. As for the construction of an analogue of the mistral, this ship needs a new, much more advanced control system. That is the most difficult and long part. Americans killed such a system for about 15 years
  9. Vyacheslav 64
    Vyacheslav 64 15 October 2014 14: 16
    +4
    Taburetkin was more visible, he is an old sailor :)
  10. Cat man null
    Cat man null 15 October 2014 14: 17
    +4
    Bought - finished iron, which works TODAY.

    "Can develop" - nothing. How much money, how long, WHEN THE IRON WILL BE ..

    Brad, IMHO
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 15 October 2014 14: 20
      +2
      7-8 years and 20 lards per ship. Sergey Vlasov also evaluated, simply in an extended interview with the Nevsky Design Bureau, and not in the market - we can all do it, give money and an order.
    2. typhoon7
      typhoon7 15 October 2014 16: 39
      +1
      We must understand that we are buying all this from a very probable adversary who draws strength to our borders and this is a decisive factor, we crushed not only industry capable of creating miracles of engineering, but litter it with time and money, and as we know, they prepare for war during of peace, but we engaged in democracy and the distribution of scientists and engineers, and the war was moving inexorably towards our borders, and as they say, we are confronted with the fact that the war is breaking in on us, and everything that has been cut off is new on our site so far as guesses ( for example, Armata, or the same MiG-35, a light, medium fighter, we’ve been killed for fifteen years and the managers still do not give a solution to this problem, all of this can come back to us.) We need industrialization, otherwise everything will fall apart.
  11. RusDV
    RusDV 15 October 2014 14: 17
    +4
    Analogue of "Mistral" can be easily developed in Russia

    so it’s easy to give such expensive orders abroad .... Themselves - so yourself ... Build .... Will it be in two years? Figures .... And in five? - a big question ..... After six - he didn’t give up anymore ....
    1. Hairy Siberian
      Hairy Siberian 15 October 2014 14: 39
      0
      Quote: RusDV
      so it’s easy to give such expensive orders abroad .... Themselves - so yourself ... Build .... Will it be in two years? Figures .... And in five? - a big question ..... After six - he didn’t give up anymore ....

      Even if they build something similar in 5 years, using at least some of the already transferred technologies (construction of the stern). Then abroad, through offshores, the loss of a bobble is no less than the cost of the contract for the Mistrals.
  12. Same lech
    Same lech 15 October 2014 14: 17
    0
    And it is difficult to capture the coast from Mistral, ”he stressed.


    Yeah, with SERDYUKOV in particular ... tear off the stern for him for such an order, all contracts with the WEST should be concluded taking into account the possibility of introducing various sanctions on their part .....
    it is imperative that the contract should contain FINE SANCTIONS hehe for imposing sanctions for political reasons and this should be a serious amount of the cost of the contract.
  13. pavel_SPB
    pavel_SPB 15 October 2014 14: 19
    0
    Analogue of "Mistral" can be easily developed in Russia
    of course it can .... I don’t understand at all why they initially trampled upon these paddles
    1. Verden
      Verden 15 October 2014 14: 24
      +2
      There are no suitable shipyards for such large projects. Of course, earlier even aircraft carriers built in Nikolaev, but since then a lot of water has flowed.
      1. typhoon7
        typhoon7 15 October 2014 16: 47
        0
        If not, why haven’t they been dealing with this issue for fifteen years? They cut everything down, didn’t build anything, and there is still talk about saving money and patriotism, about an innovative economy, and the money goes one hundred billion green rubles a year for a hill. That's the problem. All the money is over the hill, and does not work for the economy and industry. First of all, it was necessary to resolve these issues, and shipyards and everything else would appear in the country very quickly and very quickly, but only combed out now, when the roasted cockerel begins to peck.
        1. donavi49
          donavi49 15 October 2014 17: 48
          +2
          You can’t slam your fingers and times - the shipyards are built. Here is the first new, domestic shipyard capable of building such and large ships under construction. But the entire first phase has already been purchased by a commercial order.

          And historically, the shipyards capable of building such ships went to another country, where they mostly fell into disrepair, were dismantled (like the same 61 plant, thoroughly commissioned in metal), and the same Gulf for example - there is an 320 ton crane ( in Russia only Sevmash has the best crane), but it has not been repaired since the USSR, and the Gulf, one of the most successful large shipyards of Ukraine, was (ChSZ and Gulf) under the Oligarch Zhevago (in a level like Kolomoisky, it has the second richest mega-group Finance and Credit) - he’s there even upgrading prov The factory has built boxes for filling in the EU / Turkey regularly.
          1. stalkerwalker
            stalkerwalker 15 October 2014 17: 59
            +2
            Quote: donavi49
            And historically, the shipyards capable of building such ships departed to another country, where for the most part they became unusable, dismantled

            Poor "Sevmorput" was built in Kerch. Is this "The Bay"?
            1. donavi49
              donavi49 15 October 2014 18: 05
              +3
              On the picture - Star http://dcss.ru/fotoreportazh/2014/sudostroitelnyy-kompleks-zvezda-hod-stroitelst
              va.-oktyabr-2014.html

              Lighter carrier and the largest tanker Crimea - built the Gulf. But he will not master now, without modernization and perestroika. Again, if the crane only 80 ton workers + 320 emergency, for example Mistral assemble from 690 ton blocks.
              1. stalkerwalker
                stalkerwalker 15 October 2014 19: 19
                +2
                Quote: donavi49
                Lighter carrier and the largest tanker Crimea - built the Gulf. But he will not master now, without modernization and perestroika. Again, if the crane only 80 ton workers + 320 emergency, for example Mistral assemble from 690 ton blocks.

                Thank you.
                The problem of LARGE docks, with the appropriate equipment, is long overdue. Neither "Kuzya" nor "Petrukha" saw the "dock" almost from the very construction.
            2. avt
              avt 15 October 2014 18: 14
              +1
              Quote: stalkerwalker
              Poor man "Sevmorput"

              Poor thing! ??? Yes, it is under repair! Not allowed to write off on needles.
              Quote: stalkerwalker
              built in Kerch. Is this "The Bay"?

              Lighter carriers, like the Khersoskiy PO, also built Arctic supply vessels - "Vitya Beringa" and "Papanina" Although it can be atomic in Kerch. Yes. Exactly in Kerch.
              1. stalkerwalker
                stalkerwalker 15 October 2014 19: 16
                +2
                Quote: avt
                Poor thing! ??? Yes, it is under repair! Not allowed to write off on needles.

                If the vessel is at the berth without movement for more than a year, many mechanisms "sour", electrical contacts are oxidized (humidity is high). I have seen the "Sevmorput" near the wall every time for the last 15 years ...
                I had a chance to get out of the "sludge" a vessel of much smaller size and weaker equipment after an 8-month forced joke. It was something. At 7:00, they began to "fight" with representatives of the Register and Portnadzor. "Pants changed" late at night. And so three days in a row.
                The ship lives only "on the move", when all systems and mechanisms are working.
  14. Vend
    Vend 15 October 2014 14: 19
    -1
    Such purchases are truly a real time saver. And also the ability to determine the need for this technique and the feasibility of its creation. There was no aircraft carrier, how many screams there was, such ships are tender to us. Well, "Peter Veliki" appeared. As it turned out, Russia and one aircraft carrier is more than enough. This type of ship has long outlived its usefulness. Just American PR. It will also be "Mistrals". Let's check it out, let's create our own cooler. But no, this is how these will swim, but if they don’t give it back, we’ll return the money, and even with a profit. laughing
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 15 October 2014 14: 55
      +5
      Quote: Wend
      There was no aircraft carrier, how many screams there was, such ships are tender to us. Well, "Peter Veliki" appeared.

      In fact, "Petya" is not AB, but TARKR. AB we have - "Kuzya".
      And, by the way, sailors spoke of the need for aircraft carriers from the late 20s. About every 10 years, sailors presented another project - and cut it. Already in the 70s, a normal atomic AB was designed with AWACS and catapults (moreover, the catapult was made and it worked normally) - but Ustinov stood up as a wall and the project went into metal only in the late 80s (they didn’t have time to complete it, they dismantled it on a slipway) .
      Quote: Wend
      As it turned out, Russia and one aircraft carrier is more than enough. This type of ship has long been obsolete.

      Uh-huh .. apparently that is why the terms of putting "Kuzi" into major repairs are constantly postponed. Because even without that parody of the aircraft carrier, which is "Kuznetsov", the fleet really cannot perform most of its tasks. Coastal aviation is a poor replacement for AB (arrival time, reaction time, efficiency of building up forces, etc.).
      1. Vend
        Vend 15 October 2014 16: 19
        0
        Confused with the name, I admit. But there is no need for aircraft carriers. Carriers were needed to deliver aircraft to anywhere in the world, they then flew close. Now the speed is different and the distance is greater. For the bombing you do not need to carry aircraft, they will easily reach the desired point and return back. There is a refueling in the air. This scrap metal the USA do not know where to go. It’s a lot that the military works there, it works, but does not serve wink
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 15 October 2014 17: 43
          +2
          Quote: Wend
          But there is no need for aircraft carriers. Carriers were needed to deliver aircraft to anywhere in the world, they then flew close. Now the speed is different and the distance is greater. For the bombing you do not need to carry aircraft, they will easily reach the desired point and return back. There is a refueling in the air.

          Yes, yes, yes, before WWII they also thought that basic aviation is stronger than aircraft carriers.

          Well, here's the situation for you: in the area of ​​Naval Forces Ensk we have a maximum of 5 airfields. Each can accommodate a regiment. With these forces, it is necessary to provide air defense of 3-4 bases of surface ships and SSBNs / SSBNs in the area, as well as an attack on the enemy.
          And the enemy promptly drives 4-50 strikers each into the area of ​​60 AUG. Plus has 2-3 land airfields "around the corner".

          AUG is not only the delivery of aircraft, but also the operational build-up of the Air Force and the aircraft capacity of air bases in the DB area. ICHH, along with the aircraft carrier, ammunition arrives, as well as a full set of airfield equipment and service personnel, the transfer and deployment of which for "land" aviation requires time and the availability of free space.

          The second option - we need to cover the security zone of our SSBNs. To ensure the operation of its PLO, the adversary puts forward a pair of AUGs. What we will provide air defense of our KUG? SAM? Not even funny. Coastal aviation? Let us recall the experience of Matapan: the sun is above the KUG, and the coastal airfields are in the SMU zone. In addition, there may simply not be a sufficient number of nearby aerodromes in the work area.
          Plus, the enemy begins to pull our air defense, simulating attacks. What to do onshore? If you strengthen the group in the air, then there is not enough strength for rotation. If you ignore it, then the take-off, collection and approach time will not be enough for a quick response to a strike - because the detection range in real conditions (enemy electronic warfare and your own measures to counter the enemy’s RTR) may be too small.
          The only way out is to reduce the reaction time of the fighters so that the reserve can arrive by alarm after 10 minutes regardless of the weather on the shore and the presence of airfields. And this is possible only with the extension of the airfield to the area of ​​the AUG. We get - AB.
          In addition, AB allows you to halve the outfit of forces on air defense connections by eliminating the need for flight from the coastal airfield to the patrol zone (and a corresponding increase in the time spent in the zone). Well, in the presence of a full-fledged AV, KUG always has its AWACS and ZGTsU.
  15. igor1981
    igor1981 15 October 2014 14: 20
    0
    Who signed the contract for the supply of "Mistrals" - a gang of Medvedev-Serdyukovs and these "Lynxes" what do you need? That their cars were not there? The same "Tigers" were. Why sponsor someone else's economy? Beasts!
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 15 October 2014 14: 46
      +1
      Quote: igor1981
      and these "Lynxes" are still needed? That their cars were not there? The same "Tigers" were. Why sponsor someone else's economy?

      And what, "Tigers" do not sponsor someone else's economy? Whose engine is on them?

      The Lynx was needed so that GAZ stopped feeling like a monopoly and began to move.
  16. ilya_oz
    ilya_oz 15 October 2014 14: 20
    +1
    It is one thing to develop, and another to build.
  17. Oznob
    Oznob 15 October 2014 14: 22
    +1
    Quote: ilya_oz
    It is one thing to develop, and another to build.

    Tea is not more complicated than an aircraft carrier.
    1. ISKANDER25
      ISKANDER25 15 October 2014 14: 47
      +2
      Great Stanislav! In any case, no harder! hi +
    2. ilya_oz
      ilya_oz 16 October 2014 16: 35
      0
      And when did the aircraft carriers build it with us? They were built during the USSR in Nikolaev. And since 2004 we cannot build the BDK.
  18. Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 15 October 2014 14: 22
    +1
    I would not like to swear on the Mistral, but still they did something for us. Our engineers familiarized themselves with modular construction. Perhaps not only with a part of the ship that was built in the Baltic. Now you can combine Gran and Mistral and get something pleasant and convenient for the operational tasks of the troops.
    One way or another, it is necessary to formulate specific tasks that the ships must perform, so that it doesn’t work out like the Yankees with their f35 - we want this or that now or that .... and that. As a result, the museum on a pedestal.
  19. raid14
    raid14 15 October 2014 14: 23
    +2
    Without imported "stuffing", the Russian "Mistral" can be built, the building is not a problem, where to get modern BIUS, 3D radars, optoelectronic sights and ultra-long-range surveillance equipment.
    1. Same lech
      Same lech 15 October 2014 14: 33
      +1
      where to get modern BIUS, 3D radars, optoelectronic sights and ultra-long-range surveillance equipment.



      The Chinese.
      1. raid14
        raid14 15 October 2014 14: 37
        0
        The Chinese themselves export and copy such things, it is better to take from manufacturers than through third parties.
  20. Federal
    Federal 15 October 2014 14: 23
    +1
    Such projects and facilities in Russia have always been and will be, the main thing is timely financing.
  21. KEX
    KEX 15 October 2014 14: 24
    +1
    Well, it may not be easy, but yes, it may be designed ...

    and also - do we really need an analogue? such a question arises ...
  22. bmv04636
    bmv04636 15 October 2014 14: 27
    -1
    the kosyachny ship turned out, the sailors complain about a big pitching even with little excitement (it may be that it is empty and with a full load it will be better).
    1. Eggor
      Eggor 15 October 2014 14: 38
      +1
      Quote: bmv04636
      sailors complain

      The Russian crew of the Vladivostok-type Mistral landing helicopter dock-ship built at STX France’s shipyards in Saint-Nazaire is ready to take control of the ship in the coming days, Interfax was told at the Navy’s Headquarters on Tuesday.

      “The reception of Vladivostok has passed to the final stage. Until the end of October, our sailors will be ready to operate the ship completely independently. Now it remains to wait for the French side’s firm decision to transfer this ship to Russia, ”the agency’s source said.

      According to him, for almost four months, the Russian crew has sufficiently studied the helicopter carrier, has developed its command and control skills onshore and at sea, summarized all the identified observations that have been transmitted to the shipyard.

      The representative of the General Staff noted that after completing two training exits of the DVKD-1 Vladivostok to the Bay of Biscay as part of two crews of the ship, Russian sailors disconnected the AIS (automatic identification system) identification system used by the French Navy. Further exits to the sea are not planned yet.

      In turn, the Minister of Industry and Trade of Russia Denis Manturov said that there were no official refusals to supply Mistral from France. According to him, the terms stipulated by the contract have not changed either. Http://www.vedomosti.ru/
    2. gispanec
      gispanec 15 October 2014 14: 40
      +6
      Quote: bmv04636
      sailors complain

      sailors never complain! It is a fact! so it seems not the sailors complained and the journalists are not literate
  23. ma_shlomha
    ma_shlomha 15 October 2014 14: 34
    +1
    And what type of theater will this type of ship be designed for? In what areas will it be used, in accordance with what military doctrine?
    1. RDS-1
      RDS-1 15 October 2014 15: 26
      +1
      It is planned that the Mistrals will become part of the Pacific Fleet. And the doctrine, of course, is anti-Pope. smile
      1. ma_shlomha
        ma_shlomha 15 October 2014 17: 07
        0
        And what about the territories and fleets of potential enemies in the waters of the Pacific and Indian Oceans that there are not enough modern weapons in order to adequately respond to the presence of such a huge ship during a database? Or do GS operators believe that in the XNUMXst century such vessels will be able to secretly and imperceptibly sneak up to the shores for landing? Today, even the Papuans have excellent ships and complexes (USN).
        1. RDS-1
          RDS-1 16 October 2014 00: 05
          0
          This floating, I'm not afraid of this word, the cabinet should be used exclusively as part of the operational unit, so no one will give it to the Papuans. And on occasion, he himself can snap back anti-ship "Calibers", some artillery and air defense systems.

          There is no need for the ship to "secretly and unnoticed" sneak up to the shore, it has rather "long arms" in the form of four boats for over-the-horizon airborne assault and thirty helicopters for air strikes and / or air support.

          The General Staff of the Navy, of course, knows better, but I would send the Mistral not to the Pacific Fleet, but to the Black Sea. There, near our shores, another Papuan is blooming with a violent color, and it would be very useful for cooling the ardor of the horses there.
  24. Alexander
    Alexander 15 October 2014 14: 38
    +2
    Quote: bmv04636
    the kosyachny ship turned out, the sailors complain about a big pitching even with little excitement (it may be that it is empty and with a full load it will be better).


    Due to the fact that it was modified under our technology - high Kamov helicopters demanded more high ceiling hangars = above the side = raising the center of the mass of the ship. In short, the French do not care, sculpted anyhow how, if only to fuse.
  25. gispanec
    gispanec 15 October 2014 14: 38
    0
    To say doesn’t mean to do it ...... if the project had already been done and the shipyard was allocated for it, and besides, hard workers and literate engineers were found ..... then yes, then cheers!
  26. Strashila
    Strashila 15 October 2014 14: 40
    +1
    No wonder ... The Mistral is essentially not intended for military operations, it is more suitable for police functions in the overseas territories of France ... against Aborigines and Papuans.
  27. RDS-1
    RDS-1 15 October 2014 14: 41
    +4
    I am embarrassed to ask if this statement really surprised anyone:

    “I believe that we have not acquired any new technologies in connection with the purchase of Mistral ... Russia can easily make such ships itself, there are no revelations here,” Vlasov’s “Arms of Russia” quotes Vlasov.

    But the head of Rosoboronexport Anatoly Isaikin, back in 2011, said that: "" The French side transferred all technologies, including the Zenith-9 system, and two others. ”And further from the quoted article, if anyone is interested:

    The transfer of two NATO-standard control systems to Russia was the most controversial moment of the protracted negotiations. We are talking about the Zenith-9 combat information and control system and the SIC-21 command control system for the formation (fleet). At the same time, the hottest controversy was caused by Zenith-9, the French military in every possible way resisted its transfer to Russia. "The French side has fulfilled all the conditions in full ... These are the very technologies that were stipulated in the intergovernmental agreement concluded in January this year," Isaikin said. He stressed that these "technologies will be used in the construction of two Mistral-class ships in the Russian Federation."

    Really the general director of the Nevsky Design Bureau Sergey Vlasov is not in the know?
    1. raid14
      raid14 15 October 2014 15: 03
      +4
      It was for the sake of access to the latest Western naval technologies that the Mistral was bought, in Russia there are no such technologies and never existed. The original tender was attended by South Koreans, Spaniards, and French. It was the French ship that had the most advanced naval technology. Hurray, the patriots scold Taburetkin for buying a Western "pelvis" and do not see beyond their nose. If Russia had its own ready-made UDC project, they would have built it themselves.
      1. typhoon7
        typhoon7 15 October 2014 16: 58
        0
        You are not telling the truth, we have always had similar projects, their projects are similar to our seventies and that you are minus people here. We bought this suitcase, so we bought it, don't just tell a lie, we had an excellent ship school, only the "patriots" came and crumbled it, and now you are trying to hammer us into it as if we had nothing.
        1. raid14
          raid14 15 October 2014 17: 16
          +2
          It’s not true, I don’t put minuses out of principle, everyone has their own point of view. We have a BIUS "(Zenith-9)" optronic search and sighting systems Vampir NG, a Thales MRR-3D-NG radar operating in the G-band, Vampir NG ultra-long-range infrared search and tracking system provides surface warships with a passive circular panoramic surveillance of the surface situation, automatic detection, tracking and reporting of various types of threats, from anti-ship missiles with a flat flight path over water to attacking fast ships, DRBN-38A Decca Bridgemaster E250 navigation radar, MRR3D-NG target detection radar. Now compare their performance characteristics with their Russian counterparts and the question will be settled. There is no desire to argue about the punitive school, the question is in technology.
          1. typhoon7
            typhoon7 15 October 2014 18: 44
            +1
            So buy electronic systems, why destroy your shipbuilding? Because of the purchase of an electronic system, a whole class of shipbuilding was destroyed and we are forced to buy them from those with whom we even have to fight tomorrow. Do you even give a report to what you wrote? Where is the logic? In aviation, the same thing. Due to some types of electronics that we still did not get, the aircraft industry was destroyed. Another ten years of reform and we will completely destroy our industry. A million high-class scientists and engineers have been dispersed to different countries, and we are fighting. You need to be able to store what was inherited, otherwise no purchases over the hill will help. Say I'm wrong? Do you think that the country that was the first in space to overcome the consequences of a severe war and the destruction of thousands of cities and towns and which raised industry from the ruins and managed to create decent weapons and broke amers a couple of times, could not create what you wrote there, without problems, we need a political the will not to be scattered by their scientists and developments.
            1. raid14
              raid14 15 October 2014 19: 23
              +2
              Think of a good life buying military news? No, in order to disassemble and organize your production already in Russia. Thanks to Gorbachev with his conversion and perestroika, our military-industrial complex stopped in the late 80s and early 90s. You are partly right, but only systems are not sold separately. Where, Russian news of the defense industry? There is none of them. Most Soviet developments of the late 80s and early 90s. There is no proprietary microelectronics in Russia, we purchase microchips in China and Malaysia, launch rockets into space with imported electronic stuffing, we bought T90 tanks’ thermal imagers and SLAs in France. Armored ceramics, German, Israeli, our Russian only, only went into its own production. It is vitally necessary to restore its defense industry, microelectronics, nanotechnology, transfer production to high-precision machine tools in order to produce modern high-precision weapons and introduce modern promising developments.
  28. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 15 October 2014 14: 42
    +4
    “All landing ships that we designed, can carry out access to the unequipped coast. They are able to approach the shore with a certain bias, open the ramps, release the equipment and fight. And it is difficult to capture the coast from Mistral, ”he stressed.

    Someone tell the general designer that the Second World War is over. In the yard - 2014.
    And everyone is trying to land the landing in such a way as not to expose the large landing ships to the fire of coastal defense and mines.

    Why should the carrier Ka-29 and landing boats approach the shore? To pose as a target that is difficult to miss even from a mortar?
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 15 October 2014 14: 50
      +6
      Well, here is the newest Gren with 1 Ka-29, 2 semi-rigid boats and 1 speed boat for a special forces group - designed to land amphibious groups in the harbor, or land equipment by pontoon crossing (because the bullet could not be abandoned in any way so punt).

      It has been built for 10 years and it is better not to think about the cost. But, in fact, this is actually a Soviet project of an updated, cheap and massive BDK to replace Tapir (not even 775).
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 15 October 2014 14: 58
        +2
        Quote: donavi49
        Well, here is the newest Gren with 1 Ka-29, 2 semi-rigid boats and 1 speed boat for a special forces group - designed to land amphibious groups in the harbor, or land equipment by pontoon crossing (because the bullet could not be abandoned in any way so punt).

        Oh, don't remind about "Gren".
        Worse than the situation with the "Gren" was only the ever-memorable "Halzan". By the way, this is a good example of how the industry's bravura statements about a cheap and fast-growing multipurpose helicopter carrier turn out when faced with the harsh reality in the form of the Navy's TZ.
  29. Ascetic
    Ascetic 15 October 2014 14: 49
    0
    In short, summarize. Mistral from the French shake. Modify and resell to the Chinese at a double price ... Joke ...
    what now can we discuss we can’t ... We can see the fact ... and having removed their heads through their hair they don’t cry
  30. Tibaliti
    Tibaliti 15 October 2014 15: 01
    +2
    It took several years to realize this !?
    It would be better if our work got ...
    1. Steel loli
      Steel loli 15 October 2014 20: 59
      0
      They have already received it, but they have not fulfilled it. They have been trying to make the first of the 6 ordered "Grens" for 10 years, and they will finish the sixth by 2070.
      So the order for the Mistrals was just a gesture of despair - the paratroopers are needed right now, not 50 years later.

      And if the Mistrals are never handed over to us, then our business is bad. Then all hope will be on Yu. Koreytsev.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  31. Corsair0304
    Corsair0304 15 October 2014 15: 02
    +3
    Nobody argues that our shipbuilders can develop such and even better. The question is that the Mistrals have already been paid for and cannot be avoided, therefore their acquisition should be taken for granted. For better or worse, the teachings with their participation will show.
    Want to develop - go ahead and with the song! Imagine a worthy project that can be implemented in 3-4 years without spending 20 billion for this. In the meantime, you really can’t do this. There’s nothing to shake the air and swell your cheeks. Take care of the matter.
    1. typhoon7
      typhoon7 15 October 2014 17: 01
      +1
      I agree with you, have already bought, the money has been paid, you can’t return the time either, but you need to learn a lesson.
  32. NEXUS
    NEXUS 15 October 2014 15: 06
    +1
    Quote: jarome
    Develop more perfect having a ready-made helicopter carrier on the St. Andrew flag - better this way.

    Do you really need a helicopter carrier? These ships are ships of support ... that is, the same Mistral should be in relative proximity to the place of hostilities ... hence its vulnerability (say, any corvette, a frigate can destroy a given vessel with one or two volleys of missiles) ..Either combat escort ships should be attached to the Mistrals .. And now the question is, why do we need these expensive and not practical ships, which are of dubious use but require resources, money and additional ships? For me, instead of two Mistrals they would be built yazhely cruiser or aircraft carrier type Petka kreyser.Polzy would be many times more
    1. Eggor
      Eggor 15 October 2014 15: 46
      +4
      Quote: NEXUS
      These ships are ships byтhold

      In terms of arming the Russian version of Mistral, such a graph came across in comparison with the Frenchman. Compare with gren and 775:

    2. The comment was deleted.
  33. Neighbor
    Neighbor 15 October 2014 15: 08
    0
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Why should the carrier Ka-29 and landing boats approach the shore? To pose as a target that is difficult to miss even from a mortar?

    It’s hard to miss it anyway. And the agreement on the construction of the Mistrals in 2008 after the war with Georgia is the initiative of Mr. Putin. In the same year, the visit of the French "mistral" to St. Petersburg and Putin impressed, this is his decision. You can minus, but it doesn't matter. (not very important) It was just that Sarkozy at that moment did not "advocate" the conflict in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, a political solution, in short.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 15 October 2014 15: 43
      +4
      Quote: Neighbor
      Yes, it’s so difficult to miss.

      Removing the BDK from the coast by at least 20 miles sharply reduces the range of weapons systems operating on it - only "Bullev" divisional guns, long-range MLRS and anti-ship missiles remain.
      At the same time, even battalion systems and ATGMs work on the classic "creeping" BDK.

      In addition, when landing, the DVKD can maneuver. But the classic BDK either stands or goes the smallest in a straight line.
      Quote: Neighbor
      And the agreement on the construction of the Mistrals in 2008 after the war with Georgia is the initiative of Mr. Putin. The visit of the French mistral to St. Petersburg was in the same year and Putin was impressed, it was his decision.

      But with this I completely agree (I also wrote about this repeatedly).
      Also, with an order for "Mistral", ours paid for a solution on French thermal imagers for the T-90A and T-72B3.
  34. Kaetani
    Kaetani 15 October 2014 15: 11
    +6
    The question is not about money. Here you can solve easier))) Comrade Yevtushenko that under investigation now he could buy Russia a ship - for example, the same UDC or nuclear submarine - for his "honestly earned" and let him walk. And to all the other oligarchs it is easy to declare that the guys were using you to accumulate money.
    Cruiser "Miller" nuclear submarine "Yevtushenko" brigade of frigates "Chubaisyat" - although there is no better not to call that - there is nothing to insult the ships.

    As for expectations, it is better to wait with two UDK 6-7 YEARS AND MORE 5-6 TO BUILD.
    What is proud to wait 12 years without them.


    And it would be nice to Proudly give the name of the ship to the first-born "NOVOROSSIYA" and to a couple more the names of hero cities "LUGANSK" "DONETSK" and their guard "Debaltsevo" "Slavyansk" "Kramatorsk" "Illovaisk"
  35. avt
    avt 15 October 2014 15: 28
    +2
    Quote: Kaetani
    And it would be nice to Proudly give the name of the ship to the first-born "NOVOROSSIYA" and to a couple more the names of hero cities "LUGANSK" "DONETSK" and their guard "Debaltsevo" "Slavyansk" "Kramatorsk" "Illovaisk"

    Well, let's get closer to reality, I would be happy to assign these names and a few more cities to the "Buyan" RTO project. BUT! Let them be built under the supervision of Zelenodol residents at the shipyards of Kerch and Mariupol, that is, in the Crimea and Novorossia. Such a tit in hands really for ,, probable friends "will be a woodpecker in the ass. laughing
  36. bex_ivan
    bex_ivan 15 October 2014 15: 30
    0
    if we can, we must do it ourselves
  37. Kaetani
    Kaetani 15 October 2014 15: 32
    0
    And about the issuance of the ship according to the contract - there is an elegant way ....

    On the day the contract expires, the UDC goes on maneuvers and throws himself in the direction of Syria - and there you look and the ship with ammunition pulls up and the helicopters accidentally, due to bad weather conditions, land on the deck. Yes and how not to throw up a bat of marines. And France has nothing to do with Russia - circumstances
  38. Neighbor
    Neighbor 15 October 2014 15: 44
    0
    [quote = Neighbor] [quote = Alexey RA] Why should the carrier of the Ka-29 and landing craft approach the shore? To pretend to be a target on which it is difficult to miss even from a mortar? [/ Quote]
    It’s hard to miss it anyway. And the agreement on the construction of the Mistrals in 2008 after the war with Georgia is the initiative of Mr. Putin. In the same year, the visit of the French "mistral" to St. Petersburg and Putin impressed, this is his decision. You can minus, but it doesn't matter. (not very important) It was just that Sarkozy at that moment did not "advocate" the conflict in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, a political solution, in short. [/ q Thanks for the minus. In a country that knows how to build the world's best icebreakers and good nuclear but still submarine cruisers, only those who minus me can like the Mistral ... And if you pay your workers and not the oligarchs, they will build even faster than any paddling pool
    1. Prager
      Prager 15 October 2014 15: 49
      0
      here's a plus for you, you wrote everything right about these French scandals. it was a purely political project of Putin and Sarkozy. I wonder how many millions of euros stolen by Russian officials in the financing of this project?
      1. Bersaglieri
        Bersaglieri 15 October 2014 15: 52
        0
        This should be asked from Serdyukov and Vasilyeva.
      2. ma_shlomha
        ma_shlomha 15 October 2014 17: 12
        0
        Not Putin! At that time, agreed upon with the head - DAM.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 15 October 2014 17: 45
          0
          Quote: ma_shlomha
          Not Putin! At that time, agreed upon with the head - DAM.

          Pffff ... do you believe that iPhone himself Did you decide something? laughing
          1. ma_shlomha
            ma_shlomha 15 October 2014 18: 02
            0
            It was enough DECISION to fall apart, spreading his thighs with a smug face on the podium of Red Square during the Victory Parade (next to the Serdyukov sinecure sprawled on a chair). So usually some "users" DECIDE to lie back in their chairs at a concert, say, of the beloved Deep Purple.
  39. Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 15 October 2014 15: 52
    0
    "Khalzan", "Kherson" .... UDCs of this class were developed in the USSR in the 80s. But .... "Gorbo-building and new thinking" has come
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 15 October 2014 18: 01
      +4
      Halzan was a dream of reason. A political project used in the battles between the central apparatus of the Ministry of Defense, the Navy and the Ministry of Justice Industry.
      The task was to design a cheap helicopter carrier that could build a conventional shipyard in large-scale production. We decided to make it on the basis of a serial bulk carrier - a complete analogue of the Mistral. But after the development of the project for this "Khalzanomistral", it turned out that it did not satisfy the Navy in many respects, in particular, in terms of survivability.
      We decided to redo the project. We got 2 options: "civilians" issued a "superMistral", in which almost nothing remained of the progenitor bulk carrier. Building this ship theoretically could be conducted in parallel with the TAVKR, but the Ministry of Justice demanded for him the same "slipway 0". In general, the sailors issued a wonderful miracle - a helicopter carrier based on TAVKR pr. 1143. And for their construction, apart from "slipway 0", nothing was good.
      Both ships turned out to be prohibitively large and expensive and were not suitable for mass construction. But the "boots" from the Moscow Region, who had drowned the AV in every possible way, supported the decision on the "Big Halzans". And now the fleet was forced to sink the Khalzan project so as not to be left without aircraft carriers of the KR, which could only be built on slipway 0.
  40. Prager
    Prager 15 October 2014 15: 53
    0
    Our shipbuilding industry can build ships superior in quality to foreign analogues. Mistral could not be bought, but to build similar ships of a similar class, even with the best characteristics. It was a systematic political project of Putin and Sarkozy, which was not justified in any way.
  41. 3vs
    3vs 15 October 2014 16: 00
    +1
    In general, we ourselves must already demand money for the Mistals back!
  42. IAlex
    IAlex 15 October 2014 17: 24
    0
    Again the words "maybe", it is not possible to design project 11711 (Ivan Gren) by simply finishing off a strip for helicopters from the left side, and enlarging the hangar under it, and screwing on two lifts? Even if it will be worse than the Mistrals, and with Kolomna or Saturn engines, it is cheap and fast. Moreover, projects 1123 “Condor” and Project 1143 “Krechet”, like Gren, were developed at the Nevsky Design Bureau. There is work for two years, but it's a pity anyway no one will do anything. Now they will talk, the people's steam will be released and subside ...
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 15 October 2014 17: 57
      +3
      Well, if you weld a strip and a hangar to Gren, then it will turn over as soon as it is boiled from the pier. Vasa 2.

      If you redo it, it will essentially draw on a new project, which will draw 7-8 years of work and 20 lard for the ship, was announced by Sergey Vlasov in February of 2014.

      For the alignment offset, the new body contours need to be purged, recounted power plants, where do the elevators come from? A deck for a hangar or a superstructure - if the deck grows to a height, if the superstructure - then a new superstructure.

      In general, w / and will grow in 10-12к +, and this already makes it possible almost for free to add a dock camera. Which will ultimately lead to 1 of the 2 global designs of such solid-deck DKVD ships or DKVD with aft deck.

      If it’s completely blundering and ready, then SanGiorgio won Algeria and is satisfied, but again there is no sensible deployment of the air group - according to the project, it flies in and is based on platforms, that is, it is used only to a limited extent. But he is 9k VI.
      1. IAlex
        IAlex 15 October 2014 18: 46
        0
        Everything will roll, during WWII, the seats were quietly redone at 50% readiness in shipyards for aircraft carriers, and normally took part in the hostilities ...

        There’s nothing difficult there, increase the width by shifting the keel to a new center, and making a new counterbalance from the side of the runway, and add lifts to the place of the current hangar for 2 helicopters. I agree that speed will fall, cruising range, and the air group will be less than a ship redesigned from scratch who would argue with that.

        But then the solution will be typical for two types of ships, quickly implemented and cheap ... Moreover, ships are already needed now, and not in 20 years, and there you can add something new ...
  43. Ze Kot
    Ze Kot 15 October 2014 18: 07
    0
    Received means the necessary technical information. wink


    "All the landing ships that we have designed can access an unequipped coast. They are able to approach the coast with a certain slope, open ramps, release equipment and fight. But it is difficult to capture the coast from the Mistral," he stressed.

    Why would a helicopter carrier go to an unequipped coast? He has other tasks.
  44. NEXUS
    NEXUS 15 October 2014 18: 16
    +1
    Quote: EgGor
    Quote: NEXUS
    These ships are ships byтhold

    In terms of arming the Russian version of Mistral, such a graph came across in comparison with the Frenchman. Compare with gren and 775:

    I was not talking about comparisons and not about what would be delivered to the Russian Mistral ... I was talking about the fact that ships of this type are not really needed ... with the money that swelled into these very large targets, it was possible to build a full-fledged aircraft carrier that the Russian fleet really needs
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 15 October 2014 18: 21
      +2
      Aircraft carrier for the money ??? What's wrong? Where??? No one will take it. You need at least 6-7 lard greens.

      At the price of Mistral without equipment (helicopters, armored vehicles, etc.) somewhere 1,25 frigate Gorshkov.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  45. NEXUS
    NEXUS 15 October 2014 18: 24
    +1
    Quote: donavi49
    Aircraft carrier for the money ??? What's wrong? Where??? No one will take it. You need at least 6-7 lard greens.

    At the price of Mistral without equipment (helicopters, armored vehicles, etc.) somewhere 1,25 frigate Gorshkov.
    so Mistral then 2 ordered and even Gren, which 10 years of construction ... I think in a compartment for a good aircraft carrier will quite pull for the money
    1. Eggor
      Eggor 15 October 2014 18: 45
      +1
      Quote: NEXUS
      so Mistral then 2 ordered and even Gren, which 10 years of construction ... I think in a compartment for a good aircraft carrier will quite pull for the money

      Two Mistral = 1,12 yards of euro = approximately 1,4 yards of dead presidents.

      Accordingly, for the sake of the aircraft carrier, you need to abandon the 10 Mistral. Where else can I get eight?
  46. Aandrewsir
    Aandrewsir 15 October 2014 18: 31
    0
    And what did you expect from an incompetent thieving creature, who was the Minister of Defense of Russia? In addition to stealing and making incompetent decisions, he was not famous for anything. And it was not that they did not bring him to trial, and they did not even publicly condemn him, He. you see. didn't know anything! He is honest. White and fluffy! He is a WITNESS! WITNESS WHEREOF?
  47. NEXUS
    NEXUS 15 October 2014 18: 38
    +1
    Quote: Aandrewsir
    And what did you expect from an incompetent thieving creature, who was the Minister of Defense of Russia? In addition to stealing and making incompetent decisions, he was not famous for anything. And it was not that they did not bring him to trial, and they did not even publicly condemn him, He. you see. didn't know anything! He is honest. White and fluffy! He is a WITNESS! WITNESS WHEREOF?
    Then I agree with you, Serdyukov is a rare s..ka
  48. Chauffeur
    Chauffeur 15 October 2014 18: 41
    0
    it's time to build the BDKK, a large landing spaceship
  49. Vadim237
    Vadim237 15 October 2014 19: 03
    0
    Our guys that they want to build only here is the problem with time.
  50. Evilcat
    Evilcat 15 October 2014 19: 57
    0
    Director General of the Nevsky Design Bureau Sergey Vlasov said that the Russian shipbuilding industry could easily develop an analogue of the universal landing craft of the Mistral type.

    Jumper. It’s one thing to develop. To build another completely. Two big differences. And the time factor cannot be completely ruled out. Development from scratch and construction is at least 10 years. Not bad Serge plans to cash in.