Military Review

DVKD type "Mistral": news, disputes and the upcoming transfer of the ship "Vladivostok"

164
Last Monday, new reports appeared on the future of the Russian-French contract for the construction of two amphibious helicopter-carrying dock ships (MKDD) of the Mistral type. In recent months, this contract has been the subject of controversy and various statements by the leadership of some foreign countries. According to existing plans, in the near future the first of the ordered ships should be transferred to Russia, which has a serious impact on the current situation and the opinions of the parties.




October 27 news agency RIA News with reference to an unnamed representative of the trade union of the shipbuilding company STX, published the news about the future of the first "Mistral" for Russia. According to the source agency, the ceremony of transferring the first ship, named Vladivostok, is tentatively scheduled for November 14. This date has not yet been officially approved, but union officials are preparing to hold all the necessary events on this very day. Thus, the transfer of the first ordered ship can be considered a matter of the next few weeks.

On Monday, the Euronaval 2014 exhibition opened in Le Bourget, France, as part of which delegations from many countries can familiarize themselves with the latest achievements of the world's leading defense enterprises. On the opening day of the exhibition, the head of the Russian delegation, the deputy head of the Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation (FSMTC), Anatoly Punchuk, made several statements about the current contract for the supply of amphibious ships.

According to A. Punchuk, all contractual obligations are fulfilled by the parties in full and in accordance with the established schedule. According to RIA Novosti, the FSVTS deputy director said that the Vladivostok ship should be part of the naval fleet Russia until the end of 2014. After that, the Severnaya Verf shipyard (St. Petersburg) will begin to install various weapons and equipment of Russian manufacture on the ship. All necessary work is planned to be completed by mid-2015.

In recent months, amid the aggravation of the situation in the international arena, it has been repeatedly suggested that France would refuse to transfer the ordered landing craft to Russia. It has been suggested that two Mistral-type ships could be transferred to some third country. A. Punchuk believes that the issue of the transfer of ships to a third country seems premature.

The new French-made MKDDD type is supposed to be equipped with various types of equipment. In particular, two ships will be able to carry attack helicopters Ka-52K. A. Punchuk said that now Russian aircraft manufacturers are assembling four experienced helicopters of this type. Tests of these machines are scheduled for next year. All work on the ship modification of the attack helicopter is planned to be completed before the end of 2015. In the future, the Ka-52K helicopter will go into series and will be used as a means of assault fire support.

On Monday evening, RIA Novosti published the words of an unnamed representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia. The diplomat noted the legal simplicity of the situation around the amphibious ships that has developed in recent months. In addition, he believes that the information fuss about the existing contract directly speaks about the interests of official Paris: the French leadership is interested in the successful completion of the contract more than Russia.

Information published last Monday is cause for optimism. The STX trade union is preparing for the first ship delivery ceremony for the Russian Navy, and the leadership of the Russian Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation notes the timely fulfillment of all contractual obligations. Thus, there is every reason to believe that the Vladivostok DVKD will indeed be handed over to the Russian fleet in the very near future.

A bilateral agreement between Russia and France, involving the construction of two amphibious ships, before the start of this year was a matter of only two parties - the customer and the contractor. A few months ago, this agreement was the occasion for events in the international arena in which the leaders of the United States took part.

Against the background of the Ukrainian crisis, official Washington turned to France with a demand to stop the fulfillment of the Russian order. Similar requests from the American leadership put Paris in a difficult position. The French leadership wants to maintain good relations both with the United States and with Russia, however, the continuation of work and the transfer of ships or the termination of the contract threatens him with serious political and economic consequences.

Ignoring Washington’s demands threatens France with serious consequences. This can be either a general deterioration in relations with one of the main partners, or a reduction in cooperation in the military-technical or economic sphere. It is unlikely that President Francois Hollande and his team are ready to take such risks and quarrel with American partners.

Complying with American requirements will also have serious consequences. Over the past months in numerous discussions formed a list of consequences for France. The most painful of them will be financial in nature. The construction of two amphibious ships costs about 1,2 a billion euros, and most of this amount has already been paid by the customer. In the event of a breach of contract, French shipbuilders will have to return the money paid to Russia.

According to some reports, the contract for the construction of ships provides for penalties for failure to fulfill obligations. Thus, France will have to not only return the money already transferred for the construction of ships, but also pay a penalty. Its size, according to various estimates, can reach several billion euros.

A contract break will have serious social consequences. The Russian order allowed STX to create several hundred new jobs. If the construction of ships is stopped, the company will have to lay off a large number of workers, which may be the reason for protests and other public reaction.

Another risk for France is associated with reputation. If the country's leadership is ready to terminate contracts for the supply of weapons and military equipment at the request of a third party, then this state can hardly be considered a reliable supplier. Thus, in the event of termination of the contract for the supply of Mistral, STX risks losing future orders from some foreign countries. Similar problems may begin with other French manufacturers of weapons and equipment.

Finally, there is a specific technological issue. In accordance with the terms of the contract, the aft sections of the hulls of two Mistral-type ships should be built in Russia, at the St. Petersburg Baltic Plant. In the event of a breach of contract, Russia may demand the return of these structures, which, in particular, will not allow French shipbuilders to sell "incomplete" ships to a third party. It will be necessary to complete the missing units or dispose of the remaining parts of the ships.

Official Paris is well aware of the complexity of the current situation, which is why from time to time there are corresponding statements. For example, not so long ago, in early September, French President F. Hollande said that the current international situation does not allow the transfer of ships to the customer. A little later, the press service of the French president clarified the statement of Hollande. It was noted that the contract will not be broken, but the French side will have to take into account the current political situation.

All previous and subsequent statements by the French leaders about the fate of the landing ships ordered by Russia directly indicate that F. Hollande and his colleagues are trying to maintain good relations with both Washington and Moscow, and therefore are not in a hurry with making and announcing the final decision. In other words, not wanting to quarrel with foreign partners, Paris is forced to waste time by all available means.

Earlier it was reported that the first Mistral type DVKD should be transferred to Russia in early November. The planned deadlines for the transfer of the Vladivostok ship are inexorably approaching, which is why, in particular, the STX trade union is preparing for the solemn ceremony planned for mid-November. At the same time, the French leadership is in a difficult position. In the shortest possible time, he needs to make a decision that will have the least serious and painful consequences. What will be this decision - will be known in the very near future.


On the materials of the sites:
http://ria.ru/
http://itar-tass.com/
http://svpressa.ru/
http://vz.ru/
Author:
164 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Llirik
    Llirik 29 October 2014 08: 19
    +2
    And eat the fish and ride on the ... Christmas tree. Eh french! .. Decide already.
    PS: The greatest benefit of the field assistant is the Mistral agreement. Russia, whatever one may say, is in the black!
    1. Hairy Siberian
      Hairy Siberian 29 October 2014 08: 39
      +4
      Under the terms of the contract, the deadline for the first ship is November 1, 2014, however, by agreement of the parties, it can be moved another 30 days without penalties.
      Let's wait for "Mistral" and see what France will get from the Western world.
      1. Serg 122
        Serg 122 29 October 2014 10: 29
        +9
        Question: With what smiling joy does the President of the country steer commercial transactions? And even those that he himself did not conclude? Did the French themselves (to make the Americans itch less) said that the Mistrals were not military ships? Let the sub-state structures decide everything themselves. I have never heard of the President of Russia canceling any deals. Correct me if I am wrong hi
        1. Hairy Siberian
          Hairy Siberian 29 October 2014 10: 52
          10
          Quote: Serg 122
          I have never heard the President of Russia cancel any transactions. Correct me if I am wrong

          Supply of S-300 to Iran.
          1. Sergei1982
            Sergei1982 29 October 2014 12: 58
            +4
            Supply of S-300 to Iran
            This is the work of Medvedev and as president he doesn’t want to remember anything.
        2. igordok
          igordok 29 October 2014 12: 57
          +5
          Another picture.
          1. Hairy Siberian
            Hairy Siberian 29 October 2014 13: 12
            +7
            The most offensive of this cartoon is that France presented the Statue of Liberty to the Americans. crying
            Actually, I don’t understand so much negativity and anger towards the French on our side, all the same the only country that was not afraid to extend a hand to Russia military cooperation. We would support them the other way around.
            1. Eggor
              Eggor 29 October 2014 14: 33
              +9
              Quote: Hairy Siberian
              France presented the Statue of Liberty to the Americans.

              Moreover, the lining of the statue is made of 90 tons of red Ural copper, more precisely - Nizhny Tagil.
          2. igordok
            igordok 29 October 2014 17: 40
            +1
            The first helicopter carrier Mistral Russia will receive 14 on November, said Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin. According to him, the delegation of Rosoboronexport received an invitation on November 14 to arrive in Saint-Nazaire, where there are already 360 Russian crew sailors and 60 instructors for training new crews, for transferring the first Vladivostok ship and for launching the second ship.
            1. Serg 122
              Serg 122 29 October 2014 21: 57
              0
              Baby Jen already commented on this:
              "A few weeks ago, President Hollande said that the ceasefire and the Minsk agreements must be fully respected in Ukraine in order for France to continue the process of handing over the first Mistral-class helicopter carrier to Russia," she said.
              “We continue to believe that his words and this decision were wise. So we, of course, support this (Hollande’s position),” said Psaki in response to a request from journalists to comment on the statement by Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin that the Russian side received an invitation to arrive in France on November 14 to hand over the first Mistral-class ship to Russia.
    2. Denis fj
      Denis fj 29 October 2014 18: 18
      +2
      The situation in Ukraine returned to normal, as requested by the French. And now we will have a ship for even more normalization ...
    3. Sling
      Sling 31 October 2014 15: 51
      +1
      It seems to me that they will put the first Mistralik, and the second banned. And eat, and sit.
  2. Igor Pushkino
    Igor Pushkino 29 October 2014 08: 30
    +3
    RUSSIA is nearby and the USA is behind a puddle. Hollande (prezik) will not ignore the opinion of her voters. So we are waiting for Mistral on the 14th drinks
  3. Gardamir
    Gardamir 29 October 2014 08: 35
    -5
    And no one thinks that a warship created by partners. self-aware, and specifically the enemies of Russia, one day in full calm will go under water. taking with them the lives of Russian sailors. Those who are glad that Russia will not be delivered the Mistral, but will return the money. So the money will not be returned either, for sanctions.
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 29 October 2014 09: 44
      10
      a, obscene pessimism leads to suicide
      b, do not consider Russians very stupid
      in, even in the worst times of the Cold War, the USSR was not afraid to work and buy from "partners of its own accord" and nothing, everyone remained alive, and not one case in the whole history ...
      1. Gardamir
        Gardamir 29 October 2014 11: 12
        +1
        As in one children's book: "Uncle, you"? When did the USSR buy military equipment from the bourgeoisie? The exception is the Great Patriotic War. And the USSR had no partners, either allies or enemies.
        1. Bayonet
          Bayonet 29 October 2014 11: 40
          +4
          Quote: Gardamir
          And the USSR had no partners,

          There was no sex in the USSR either. Before issuing such pearls, you would be interested in the meaning of the words ...
          1. Gardamir
            Gardamir 29 October 2014 11: 46
            -2
            It seems there are only liberal trolls here. The word "partners" is used by the head of the Kremlin, he does not recognize other words in principle. For example, now his most important partners are Obama and Poroshenko.
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 29 October 2014 19: 20
              +5
              There is such a thing as a diplomatic protocol. He calls them as they should be called by status. And what he thinks and what he does is another matter.
        2. Stas57
          Stas57 29 October 2014 11: 44
          +1
          As in one children's book: "Uncle, you"? When did the USSR buy military equipment from the bourgeoisie? The exception is the Great Patriotic War. And the USSR had no partners, either allies or enemies.

          Ie on all other points of objection no?
          Do you think the Russians are dumb?


          ps.
          probably you refer to the same stupid and B. Barants?
          - And what did military imports look like during the Soviet era? What exactly and from whom was bought for our army abroad?
          - In general, the USSR strove for the highest possible level of military-industrial self-sufficiency. The Soviet Union was a big economy and could afford it. In addition, in conditions of sharp confrontation with the West, the USSR, of course, could not allow the emergence of dependence on the capitalist countries in equipping the Soviet army.
          However, even in Soviet times, for political and technological reasons, purchases of weapons, equipment and individual components abroad were allowed, including even in capitalist countries. It was for political reasons - to stimulate the Czechoslovak economy - it was decided to give the production of training aircraft to this country. And some non-critical technologies were cheaper and faster to buy abroad than to establish their own production.

          - And what was the situation with military imports during the Cold War?
          - In the early sixties, a political decision was made to produce training aircraft for the Warsaw Pact countries in Czechoslovakia, although the Soviet aircraft industry, of course, could produce such simple aircraft itself. Until now, the basis of the training aircraft fleet of Russia and the CIS countries is the Czech L-39 training center. In Poland, the Soviet Navy bought large landing ships. Cases of more exotic purchases can also be cited. For example, at the beginning of the 80-s, three-meter diameter Bridgestone tires were purchased in Japan for the MAZ-7904 transport and launcher of the Tselina mobile missile system, since the Soviet industry did not produce such a tire size. Moreover, it was just a purchase for direct use, and not for copying. And in the chemical fire extinguishing system of the Komsomolets nuclear submarine, Japanese freon was used. So even such a closed country as the USSR was forced to import certain elements for its Armed Forces.
          Why Russia is forced to buy imported weapons.


          How can overseas military equipment affect the state of our army?

          Komsomolskaya Pravda No.48 (24469), 07.04.2010 (http://www.kp.ru/daily/24469/628453/


          boorish ignorance coupled with general ignorance and pessimism, you probably still have "putinslil"?
          1. Gardamir
            Gardamir 29 October 2014 11: 55
            +4
            Well, I'm Russian, but you think I'm dumb. I bring to your attention, Czechoslovakia during the years of the existence of the USSR was a friendly country. Give an example about purchases in Germany or the UK.
            Although I am not going to argue or prove anything. These are some kind of "Overton windows". A year ago, everyone cursed the "Serdyukovsky project", as the production of the Mistrals was called then. And even six months ago, everyone argued that we don't even have ports for the Mistrals. And suddenly everyone quickly reorganized.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 29 October 2014 12: 16
              +2
              Quote: Gardamir
              Czechoslovakia during the years of the existence of the USSR was a friendly country. Give an example about purchases in Germany or the UK.

              Will Finland go? The only Soviet dock ship "Anadyr" was of Finnish production.
              1. Demetry
                Demetry 29 October 2014 15: 15
                +5
                Quote: Spade
                Will Finland go? The only Soviet dock ship "Anadyr" was of Finnish production.

                I will add that 4 border ships pr 850285 "Commander" in the Far East were built by Denmark.

            2. Stas57
              Stas57 29 October 2014 12: 41
              +2
              . And even six months ago, everyone argued that we do not even have ports for the Mistral. And suddenly everyone quickly rebuilt.

              all this is the same as you dunno, who have not even read the retelling of the contract, which refers to the construction of not only Mistral but also port infrastructure

              Well, I'm Russian, but you think I'm dumb.

              you yourself can count anything, but why generalize?

              I bring to your attention, Czechoslovakia during the years of the existence of the USSR was a friendly country. Give an example about purchases in Germany or the UK.

              about Japan we somehow missed, Nuno

              Lopatov right below said
              And here is still quite a capstrana- Finland-
              Small cable vessel project 1122 'DONETS'

              The main purpose of cable vessels is the laying, lifting and repair of submarine communication cables. These vessels serve cables not only for military purposes. The construction of ships of this class for the USSR Navy was carried out in Finland.


              The main purpose of cable vessels is the laying, lifting and repair of submarine communication cables. These vessels serve cables not only for military purposes. The construction of ships of this class for the USSR Navy was carried out in Finland.

              The development of the country required the creation of a large cable vessel (BKBS) for the development of a system of long submarine communication lines. This ship, project 1112, was designed at the end of the 50-s at the Vyartsilya shipyard in accordance with the technical specifications of the USSR Navy and under the supervision of its specialists. The lead ship was built in 1962 year.

              In total, until 1978, 8 large cable vessels were built at this shipyard. Moreover, the last three had an increased load capacity already in 2800 tons of cable and a slightly larger displacement


              Well, arranging tantrums is much cooler, right?
            3. Stas57
              Stas57 29 October 2014 12: 49
              0
              and here you are

              And here is a series of towing ships built for the USSR in Finland.

              All of them were built, as I understand it, in 1959. Apparently, a total of 14 ships were built, some of them were part of the USSR Navy. They were built at the Valmet O / Y shipyard in Turku. Their tonnage was 1069 BRT each, length - 61,5 meters, width - 11,9 m, draft - 4,9 m, tugboats could reach speeds of up to 13,8 knots.

              Here is their list:

              "Gnashing"
              "Vigilant"
              "Decembrist"
              "Patrol"
              "Executive"
              "Crimea"
              "Eagle"
              "Rambinas"
              "Glorious"
              "Bold"
              "Satellite"
              "Persistent"
              "Swift"
              "Strict"
              1. Dikson
                Dikson 29 October 2014 21: 14
                +1
                Almost the entire icebreaker fleet of the USSR (except for 5 nuclear powered vessels) was built at the Finnish shipyard of Värtsilä .... this is not counting bulk carriers, tankers and other container ships with dry cargo ships ... The Germans built riverboats, Poles, fishermen, and the Finns built serious steamboats ..
            4. Demetry
              Demetry 29 October 2014 15: 31
              +3
              Quote: Gardamir
              Czechoslovakia during the years of the existence of the USSR was a friendly country. Give an example about purchases in Germany or the UK.

              Here in the same Italy bought 2 border guard patrol Kirov and Dzerzhinsky.


              In Italy, the destroyer leader, Tashkent, bought it.

              In Germany, before the war, bought an unfinished cruiser
            5. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 29 October 2014 21: 02
              +5
              Quote: Gardamir
              A year ago, everyone cursed the "Serdyukovsky project", as the production of the Mistrals was called then. And even six months ago, everyone argued that we don't even have ports for the Mistrals. And suddenly everyone quickly reorganized.
              Well, you really persist in your ignorance! For the sake of interest, type the Mistral theme in a search engine, but look at the motivated disputes of professionals, and not at today's uryakalka amateurs. And then draw conclusions and throw accusations against site visitors. You will find a "shape-shifter" and ask him directly: in March you said this and that, and now the exact opposite. Let me ask you, my dear fellow, why did I turn over in my views on the subject of the dispute? - This will be essentially. And so, apart from irritation, your maxims about the contract and delivery of the Mistrals cause nothing positive.
              On our site, everyone has the right to have an opinion with which others may agree or not - and this is the legal right of each visitor. Here are just unfounded accusations, indiscriminately and immediately to all - are not welcome.
              Sincerely, KAA. hi
        3. Kaetani
          Kaetani 29 October 2014 14: 57
          +3
          "Did the USSR buy ships abroad?"

          Yes, I bought it. Before the war, the Union acquired the unfinished German cruiser Luttsov (Petropavlovsk) and the leader of the destroyers Tashkent, built in Italy according to the original design.
          Something else? Yes.

          For example, MAN ordered twenty ship diesel engines of the type G7Z52 / 70 with power 2200 hp. and type G7V74 power 1500 hp Also for the fleet samples of propeller shafts, steering gears, ship anti-fouling paints, 406-mm and 280-mm ship-mounted towers, bomb-bombs, sonar equipment were purchased ...

          You do not need to have a “seven heads in the forehead” to understand the obvious thing - in the pre-war years, the Soviet Union bought TECHNOLOGIES
          Everything else he did himself.

          With the beginning of the Cold War, the situation took an even tougher turn - in direct confrontation with the Euro-Atlantic civilization, the Union could rely only on itself. It’s just ridiculous to imagine an atomic submarine missile carrier for the Soviet Navy being built somewhere in the British Glasgow or in the American Philadelphia.

          And the Union managed! Restoring the economy and industry after a terrible war, the USSR rolled out to the expanses of the World Ocean SUCH FLEET in 1960-s, from which both halves of the Earth trembled - in time with the submarine rocket carriers swaying around the piers in Gremikha and Krasheninnikov Bay.

          It would be nice to steal ready-made technologies in the West, but that's bad luck, there was nothing to steal - what the USSR was doing often had no analogues in the world. "
          http://topwar.ru/31473-pochemu-sssr-ne-postroil-ni-odnogo-linkora.html

          Newspaper "Kommersant" © 140 (4195) from 04.08.2009
          The practice of buying Russian warships abroad began in the days of
          Peter I: in 1693, the king ordered the Amsterdam burgomaster, the owner of the shipyard
          Nikolai Witsen is building the 44 cannon frigate and galley. Until 1917 year
          Russia bought or ordered (mainly in Holland, England and the USA) several hundred
          ships. For example, overseas
          Russian-Japanese war cruisers "Varyag" (manufactured at the American shipyard
          William Cramp & Sons) and Bayan (built by the French company Societe Nouvelle
          des Forges et Chantiers de la Mediterranee).

          This practice continued after the 1917 revolution of the year. In particular, in 1937-1939
          years commissioned by the USSR in Italy at the Odero shipyard. Terni. Orlando was
          the leader of the destroyers "Tashkent" was built, which was considered one of the best
          30's shipbuilding designs. In the 1940 year of the USSR for 104 million Reichsmarks
          bought from Germany an unfinished heavy cruiser Lutzow. He was transported to
          Leningrad and renamed "Tallinn", but because of the outbreak of war they did not manage to enter
          system and in the fighting, the ship participated as a floating battery. From
          During the Second World War, the USSR and the United States received Britain under Lend-Lease and at the expense of
          reparations of more than six hundred ships - including the battleship Royal Sovereign
          ("Arkhangelsk") and the cruiser Milwaukee ("Murmansk").

          After the war, the USSR no longer turned to NATO countries for the purpose of acquiring ships.
          But the Soviet Navy actively worked shipyards of the Warsaw Pact states,
          above all Poland. Here in Gdansk, a few dozen were built for the USSR
          medium landing ships (projects 770, 771, 773) and 28 large landing
          ships of the project 775, 15 of which are still serving in the Russian Navy. AT
          The German Democratic Republic for the Navy of the USSR in 1986-90 years built
          a series of 12 small anti-submarine ships of the 1331M project (eight of them
          remain in the Russian fleet).
        4. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 29 October 2014 15: 23
          +3
          Quote: Gardamir
          When was the USSR buying military equipment from the bourgeois?

          I bought it. And not just among the bourgeoisie, but among the black-shirt fascists - the leader "Tashkent" and 2 border patrolmen. They bought "Luttsov" - "Petropavlovsk" from the Nazis.
          For him, by the way, Limes should be extremely grateful to us - Soviet orders were carried out by the Germans in the first place, even at the cost of delaying orders for their ships. As a result, the LK "Bismarck" launched its first and last military campaign without 2 aft stabilized antiaircraft artillery guidance posts - instead of them, army commando-gerata were stuck without any stabilization. And the English torpers successfully entered the LK just in the aft sectors ...

          In addition, practically all large ships of the pre-war fleet of the USSR - EM pr. 7 and KRL pr. 26 - were designed on the basis of blueprints for serial Italian ships purchased from the Ansaldo design bureau. Moreover, Italian components were used for the lead ships. When in 1936 our design bureaus came to a standstill with the project of the "large LK" (the future LK "Sovetsky Soyuz"), the preliminary design of the LK was ordered to the same "Ansaldo".
          In terms of components: turbines were purchased in Britain for a dozen of EM pr. 7. The turbines at the head LK Sovetsky Soyuz were purchased from Brown-Boveri. For the KRL Black Sea Fleet in Italy, they bought 100-mm twin anti-aircraft guns.

          The army also bought over the hill - for example, ordered large-caliber guns from Skoda.
          1. Demetry
            Demetry 29 October 2014 15: 40
            +4
            Quote: Alexey RA
            In addition, almost all large ships of the pre-war fleet of the USSR - EM pr. 7 and KRL pr. 26 - were designed on the basis of blueprints of serial Italian ships purchased from the Ansaldo design bureau.

            I will add that the German most massive submarines of the "VII" series and our best submarines of the "C" series are, in principle, one and the same project of German design. Series "C" is the one on which Marinesko sank Wilhelm Gustlov.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 29 October 2014 16: 11
              +4
              Quote: Demetry
              I will add that the German most massive boats of the "VII" series and our best submarines of the "C" series are, in principle, one and the same project of German design.

              Well ... formally, the project of the future "esok" was Dutch. Then the Germans could not openly obey Versailles, and were forced to register the IvS Design Bureau in the Netherlands.
              A good example, by the way, is how the Germans bypassed the bans by means of "reverse outsourcing": their designers worked hard in Germany on forbidden weapons, but formally everything was observed - they plowed for a foreign company, "not from our area".
              1. Demetry
                Demetry 29 October 2014 16: 15
                +2
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Well ... formally, the project of the future "esok" was Dutch. Then the Germans could not openly obey Versailles, and were forced to register the IvS Design Bureau in the Netherlands.

                Well yes. He often appears as Dutch-German. But you understand that he is really German.
                Even built for export. To Spain ))). And something with Finland was muddied.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 29 October 2014 17: 42
                  +1
                  Quote: Demetry
                  Well yes. He often appears as Dutch-German. But you understand that he is really German.

                  Of course German. I just clarified the formal side of things.
                  Yes, I'm a bore professional. smile
          2. yehat
            yehat 30 October 2014 13: 22
            0
            during the Second World War, torpedoes in the navy were originally from Italy.
      2. Dikson
        Dikson 29 October 2014 21: 10
        0
        "Novorossiysk" - does this name mean anything to you?
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 29 October 2014 22: 46
          +2
          Quote: Dikson
          "Novorossiysk" - does this name mean anything to you?

          Giulio Cesare ("Novorossiysk") was the victim of combat swimmers of the 10th squadron of the Italian fleet due to the gross violation of the rules for the protection and defense of the Sevastopol GVMB. If the tug closed the boom gates for the night, and the OVR boats made night rounds of the anchorage sites of rank 1 ships (the Novorossiysk was on the first cruising barrels), then unnoticed at least 200 kg of explosives would be thrown through the boom net and a mine under the battleship bottom would have been thrown unnoticed impossible.
          So they themselves have given rise to a big misfortune with the little things of non-performance. But it was infa through intelligence channels that the Italians declared that Julius would never serve the Soviets. One could also be on the alert.
    2. Ramadan
      Ramadan 29 October 2014 10: 02
      +1
      No one thinks
    3. PV KGB of the USSR
      PV KGB of the USSR 29 October 2014 11: 37
      +3
      Let's not buy medicine yet - they will poison, cars - they will lead to a car accident, tourism - they will recruit, movies - they will be zombified. Dear, you have paranoia! wink
      1. Gardamir
        Gardamir 29 October 2014 11: 48
        -1
        Funny in the other comments you are more adequate. Moreover, those of your comments contradict the above.
      2. jayich
        jayich 29 October 2014 12: 30
        0
        And at the expense of cars is not a bad idea laughing
      3. The comment was deleted.
    4. tkhonov66
      tkhonov66 29 October 2014 15: 11
      0
      "...
      So the money will not be returned either, for sanctions.
      ..."
      .
      this is not sanction - this is war ...
      8- (
    5. Dikson
      Dikson 29 October 2014 21: 09
      -6
      Quote: Gardamir
      in full calm will go under water. taking with them the lives of Russian sailors
      plus a lot .. just the local population does not remember the fate of one large ship that the USSR inherited after the Victory ... Who will give a 100% guarantee that this box will not fall apart at the right time? The ship is big, to lay a guided mine somewhere in the midsection during construction - no big problems .. I certainly overdo it, to be honest - at the very first movements of the frogs about "we won't give the Mistral to the Russians .." - I would be stupid torpedoed during sea trials in neutral waters (where it is deeper) and then would have watched with interest the French, who, apart from apologies, would have paid us a penalty for moral and political damage in addition to the cost of this refrigerator .. Well, not with a torpedo ... Well, swimmers do we still have combat in our country ??
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 29 October 2014 22: 50
        +4
        Quote: Dikson
        I would stupidly torpedo it on sea trials in neutral waters (where it’s deeper) and then I would watch the French with interest,

        Doesn’t it bother you that our two crews undergo an internship on it?
      2. yehat
        yehat 30 October 2014 13: 25
        +1
        Quote: Dikson
        on sea trials in neutral waters .. Well, okay, not a torpedo ... Well, do you still have combat swimmers in our country ??

        Well, what kind of swimmers will catch up with the ship on sea trials in neutral waters?
        I wish the Russian national swimming team would find out
  4. Eggor
    Eggor 29 October 2014 08: 36
    +1
    Footage from the exercise "Catamaran 2014":

    Mistral Interior:
    1. Juborg
      Juborg 29 October 2014 12: 08
      11 th
      This is not a ship or even a barge or even a trough, it is a floating, non-missile target, after falling into which it turns into a mass grave.
      1. Juborg
        Juborg 29 October 2014 14: 18
        +1
        Minus members, ooh! And write, why is it a minus ?! I did this after watching the two clips above. Buy a ship, a floating barge conveyor to it, find a shore where there is no enemy, or command the enemy not to shoot while you land, lay wire asphalt, lights, roadside cafes to them (suddenly a soldier gets hungry!). He has a draft of 6.3m, more than a tanker, even shipping in the coastal zone is in question.
        1. IAlex
          IAlex 29 October 2014 14: 31
          0
          Type is not patriotic, but the rest is not important, incl. get used to me, too, by the way zamusunut ...
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Eggor
          Eggor 29 October 2014 14: 38
          +9
          Quote: juborg
          Minus members, ooh! And write, why is it a minus ?!

          Well, yes, the landing ship should apparently be no more than a meter in height, ten centimeters draft, get ashore as an air cushion, armed like a cruiser and carry 100500 tanks and armored personnel carriers, and a landing force.
        4. Stas57
          Stas57 29 October 2014 14: 55
          +7
          Minus members, ooh! And write, why is it a minus ?!

          I didn’t put a minus there, but I’ll answer

          This is not a ship or even a barge or even a trough, it is a floating, non-missile target, after falling into which it turns into a mass grave.

          I’ll probably repeat it for the hundredth time — at present, anti-ship anti-ship missile systems have such accuracy that they can fly into the window, therefore, electronic warfare means are in the first place, and the struggle for survivability, there are examples when two ships of the same type received a rocket one could not organize a normal BZZH, which caused death.

          Buy a ship, a floating barge conveyor to it, find a coast where there is no enemy, or command the enemy not to shoot while you land, lay wire asphalt, lights, roadside cafes to them (suddenly a soldier gets hungry!). He has a draft of 6.3, more than that of a tanker, even shipping in the coastal zone is in question.

          there is a clear ignorance of the issue.
          the points
          -Buy a ship, a floating barge conveyor to it
          Established amphibious assault landing gear of the French Mistral class DVKD:
          4 CTM landing craft (Chaland de Transported Materiel),
          or 2 LCAC-type hovercraft.

          that is, he does not need to approach the shore, he can and should be as far from the shore as possible

          -Put wire asphalt, lights, roadside cafes to them (suddenly a soldier gets hungry!).
          2 hovercraft

          or 4 CTM landing craft -
          CTM type boats have a length of 23 m and a width of 6,3 m. For the first Russian DVKD of this class - Vladivostok - in France by October 2014 of the year 4 boats CTM NG (Chaland de Transported Materiel de Nouvelle Generation) should be built. Unlike their predecessors (CTM), boats of the CTM NG type have a length of 27 m and a width of 7 m, they are equipped with two ramps for landing: bow and stern, which gives them more room for maneuvering. Boats of the CTM NG type will be better suited to operations in conditions of strong pitching, and their speed will be up to 20 knots (2 times higher than that of CTM).

          although I liked the Dutchman more)))

          1. Stas57
            Stas57 29 October 2014 15: 19
            +3
            about upset

            Universal landing ships of the 11780 project
            Draft 8 m



            and more
            In the landing version - 12 transport and combat helicopters Ka-29. In the docking chamber - 4 landing craft of the 1176 project or 2 landing craft of the hovercraft of the 1206 project [1].
            does not resemble anything? after all, "stupid scoops" even then bothered to drive banana republics ...
        5. abc_alex
          abc_alex 29 October 2014 16: 20
          +2
          It’s just a hundred times already said that this is a ship for "projection of force". Does it make sense to repeat everything 100 times? If we have a region where we want to shine "in shine and roar" then we send such a ship there. He carries both marines with the means of landing and a helicopter link, and in which case he can coordinate the actions of the ship's group sent for reinforcement. Yes, this is not a ship to storm the fortified coast. And the video proves it once again. We have a large landing craft for the assault.
        6. Tektor
          Tektor 30 October 2014 11: 24
          0
          Mistral alone will not let anyone go ...
      2. Berg berg
        Berg berg 29 October 2014 17: 07
        +3
        For Americans, aircraft carriers are also not a missed target! And while they are floating.
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 29 October 2014 17: 25
          +3
          Quote: Berg Berg
          And while they are swimming.

          Go around?
          1. Serg 122
            Serg 122 29 October 2014 18: 45
            +2
            Go around?

            Not at all. These are just swimming laughing
      3. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 29 October 2014 23: 46
        +6
        Quote: juborg
        It’s not a ship or even a barge or even a trough, it’s a floating, waterproof target

        Yur, I set a minus. I will explain why.
        1. This is a ship. With all the ensuing consequences respectful attitude to him. Will bear the name assigned to him - he will deserve even more respect.
        2. About the target. He will be guarded by IA, air defense systems of the OBK ships, then he has (will) and his own electronic warfare systems, self-defense air defense systems. During the landing, the area is cleared of submarines by the forces of anti-aircraft defense and the special mission of the landing area. Prior to this, RV and fleet forces operate at basing points. To hide the intentions, a false and demonstrative DesO is organized, with the aim of diverting the enemy's forces into false directions. Everything is being done so that the first wave of landing is swift! landed ashore, captured and held the landing site. For this, there are landing and landing equipment, but the main thing is helicopters: military transport and fire support. And the ships to the shore are cleared by PLO, PMO, OKOP (fire support detachment) ships, etc., according to the views of our school. At the same time: the landing operation is considered the most complex type of database in the organization of the interaction of forces, arms and types of armed forces of the Russian Federation. Because in the interests of the fleet during this period even the Strategic Missile Forces and the DA operate. But the Air Force just goes crazy, since it is necessary to cover the area of ​​DesO formation, its transition by sea to the landing area, to gain and maintain air supremacy during the landing forces, and to promote the landing in the battle for landing. And all this must be done in the absence of marching forces of the landing of the MAO aircraft carriers! .
        Quote: juborg
        target, after falling into which it turns into a mass grave.
        There are no casualties in a war, but the main goal is defended by all the forces involved in the MAO. Despite the fact that the BDK and UDC, DKV are the most unsinkable ships, they have a buoyancy margin of up to 300%. The worst thing is the fire. But if the crew is spent, then the APs even crush burning fuel. The main thing is not to turn off the power. If this happened, then I’m afraid that the situation will not be pulled by reserve sources ...
        Well, in general, whoever is lucky: at the Black Sea Fleet there were 2 anti-ship missiles, 1123 Ave., Moscow (burnt by fire, with a stone in the fairing of the GAS) and Leningrad - the cradle of the revolution, a city of naval glory and fleet traditions. Both their fate and service are different, although single-project, both with the names of the capitals ...
        Quote: juborg
        coastal shipping is in question.
        Mistral will not go there. There are minefields and engineering underwater structures of PDO. Therefore, he has 16 turntables. The minimum 8 in the transport and landing design. Plus 4 DVK. There will be raid unloading.
        And "coast-coast" is (I apologize for the causticity) for the pride of the domestic long-term construction project 1171.1 "Ivan Gren".
        Well, in general, somehow. Sorry, that is long, I ate something ... not that.
        1. Juborg
          Juborg 30 October 2014 01: 34
          0
          Thanks to the minors who answered. The evidence part is informative and informative enough.
        2. Sinsov
          Sinsov 2 November 2014 14: 43
          0
          Based on the buoyancy formula, we can see the result, only up to 100%. You have 300%. What is it like?
  5. Wolka
    Wolka 29 October 2014 08: 38
    0
    everything will be very interesting November 14, 2014.
  6. X Y Z
    X Y Z 29 October 2014 08: 53
    +2
    Fines are not the greatest threat to the French. Money has to be received for a long time, according to the courts (local) and to the heart-rending cry of the press, accusing us of all sin. The outcome of the information battle in this episode is unpredictable. The loss of several hundred jobs is also unpleasant, but not fatal, despite the known activity of the French trade unions. But the loss of reputation in the arms sellers market is serious. Here, losses can amount to tens of billions in the medium term. Such a shameless subsidence near America will make many potential consumers of French products seriously think.
    1. nerd.su
      nerd.su 29 October 2014 11: 24
      +1
      Quote: XYZ
      But the loss of reputation in the arms sellers market is serious.


      Yes, what a reputation, who needs it !? We forwarded Iran and Syria - did our reputation hurt badly?

      Billions of euros to be returned - that’s what’s serious!
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 29 October 2014 12: 18
        +4
        Quote: bot.su
        We forwarded Iran and Syria - did our reputation hurt badly?

        Highly. And still not restored. Especially in Iran, which was thrown twice.
        1. nerd.su
          nerd.su 29 October 2014 12: 54
          +1
          Well, if only in Iran itself. In Syria, we leveled the negative with political and other support.
      2. Setrac
        Setrac 29 October 2014 17: 27
        +4
        Quote: bot.su
        We forwarded Iran

        Who, by some miracle, managed to create a complete analogue of the S-300! Is this called "forwarded"? Or do you think that the Iranians themselves cut it down?
        1. nerd.su
          nerd.su 30 October 2014 00: 37
          0
          Well, these are their words about a complete analogue. Who checked them?
  7. rudolff
    rudolff 29 October 2014 08: 53
    +9
    Given the possible inflation, stagnation, recession, continued fall in oil prices and other unpleasant nonsense, even if the French return the money, they will go to patching holes in the budget, and not to the fleet. Therefore, choosing between nothing and ships, ships are better. Moreover, no other ocean zone larger than frigates is expected in the foreseeable future.
    The first will most likely be handed over without any problems, the second will have questions, but we will probably have to forget about the option to build the second pair.
    The author remembered the stern out of place. The French were the customer, the Baltic Shipyard contractor. Money paid, ownership passed to the French stronghold. Only the total amount of the contract plus penalties can be returned.
  8. Yun Klob
    Yun Klob 29 October 2014 08: 55
    +1
    It seems that the Napoleonic wars destroyed the best gene pool of the French nation, leaving for the most part subtile.
  9. Eggor
    Eggor 29 October 2014 09: 00
    +3
    The decision at the state level, as French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Tuesday at the Euronaval 2014 naval show near Paris, should be made during November. According to information from unofficial sources (...), this issue can be resolved in the "first two weeks of next month." Apparently, this will happen during the meeting of the arms export commission (...) in the first half of November. Naturally, no dates, even preliminary ones, when Vladivostok will be handed over to Russia, are not named in Paris. As Emmanuel Godez, a representative of (...) DCNS, told RG, "we do not comment on this information, do not confirm or deny it." According to him, this topic (...) is within the competence of the country's leadership. If we talk about the technical implementation of the contract, then it has been completed. This was confirmed by DCNS President Hervé Guyot. He said that the contractual obligations for the construction of the first UDC are "fully implemented", as for the training of Russian sailors who will be in charge of the ship. "The rest is politics. We do not play games with our customers," Hervé Guyot stressed. So, as they say, the ball is on the lawn of the Elysee Palace. As for the top managers of the defense industry, they believe that "Paris should be given the go-ahead to supply helicopter carriers to Moscow." Experts believe that the fate of the annual external orders for military equipment of the French defense industry in the amount of six billion euros depends on the fate of the deal with the Mistrals. Russian newspaper.

    Sevastopol, 25.10.2014 (clickable):
    1. VOLKHOV
      VOLKHOV 29 October 2014 15: 17
      -4
      Sevastopol previously went to sea, but here the Frenchman is repainted.
      1. Eggor
        Eggor 29 October 2014 15: 37
        +2
        Quote: V0LHOV
        Sevastopol previously went to sea, but here the Frenchman is repainted.

        What is take-away smoke? smile
        1. VOLKHOV
          VOLKHOV 29 October 2014 16: 01
          0
          I just use my eyes and your picture - the ship is not at the pier, where Sevastopol is supposed to be, but in the dock. Below in the commentary is a photo of repainting its underwater part - it is after long operation with fouling and wear of paint by cavitation, i.e. This is an exploited ship, not a new building Sevastopol.
          1. Eggor
            Eggor 29 October 2014 16: 23
            +2
            Quote: V0LHOV
            the ship is not at the pier, where it is supposed to be to Sevastopol, but in the dock.
            Sevastopol has not yet been launched.
            October, Sevastopol:

            October, Vladivostok:

            1. VOLKHOV
              VOLKHOV 29 October 2014 17: 20
              -1
              In the top picture, the Frenchman is repainted, all the same, he even has a dirty board. In the bottom picture is another painted Frenchman with interesting containers on the pier.
              On the video - Vladivostok, but in the summer (by foliage of trees). Take a close look at the details and proportions (French below) and study the Virtual Fleet - the fastest growing.
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. Eggor
                Eggor 29 October 2014 17: 59
                +2
                Quote: V0LHOV
                Look carefully at the details.
                French Add-in:

                Add-in Frenchman Russified:
                1. VOLKHOV
                  VOLKHOV 29 October 2014 18: 57
                  +1
                  That's right, and the color is different - new ships could not repaint every month.
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 30 October 2014 00: 11
        +4
        Quote: V0LHOV
        after long operation with fouling and wear of paint by cavitation,

        Little remark. Cavitation - on the blades of the screw. And so that she ate the paint of the underwater part of the hull, Mistral must run at the speed of the RCA on hydrofoils. 21 knots for this will be too little.
        laughing
        1. VOLKHOV
          VOLKHOV 30 October 2014 00: 33
          0
          These bands are most likely from the imposition of waves (interference) in places of maximum, but from the course, vibration of the hull or sonar can not immediately say. On this ledge, any wave gives a maximum, and it already causes cavitation. The wavelength is about a meter, for steel it is about 5 kHz - the sound frequency. The maximum of fluctuations (the longest line) at the top of the bull, as it should be.
          The bottom line is that this is not Sevastopol and Vladivostok, but a second-hand Frenchman.
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 30 October 2014 18: 12
            +1
            Quote: V0LHOV
            These bands are most likely from wave overlay.

            I don’t know in what area you are special, but obviously not in hydrology and processes in liquid media!
            Quote: V0LHOV
            On this ledge, any wave gives a maximum, and it already causes cavitation.
            Cavitation is essentially an explosive collapse of gas bubbles dissolved in a liquid. Depends on pressure drop, not wavelength.
            Quote: V0LHOV
            The wavelength is about a meter,

            Where??? On the surface or in water?
            Well, in short ... we will disperse peacefully so that I do not lose faith in humanity. smile
            1. VOLKHOV
              VOLKHOV 30 October 2014 18: 44
              -1
              Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
              Where??? On the surface or in water?

              We are talking about a sound wave in the body metal, 5 km / s the speed of sound in steel, half-waves (bands) after about half a meter, wave - meter, frequency - 5 kHz. Maximum fluctuations and creates a pressure drop in the adjacent water, and it acts on the paint.
              Dirty parts in factories are also washed with sound, only faster and the frequency is higher.
              Moreover, faith in humanity is a school course on the dependence of frequency and wavelength, there are still experiments with filings, how they are collected in stripes. With narrowing of the wave front (to the nose and bulb), the amplitude grows, at the apex maximum. You can believe that a very small part of humanity taught physics at school wink
              Perhaps the Mistrals are so buzzing under water that they don’t collide with anyone except torpedoes ... bully
              1. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa 30 October 2014 20: 27
                +2
                WHEN DOES CAVITATION ARISE?
                The main factors causing cavitation:
                - High pressure drop
                - Low back pressure
                - High flow rate
                Quote: V0LHOV
                Perhaps the Mistrals are so buzzing underwater

                The main noise is made by screws - cavitation - and structural noise is about something else.
  10. apolenkov
    apolenkov 29 October 2014 09: 02
    0
    It’s time for the frogmen to decide whether I will be transferred to the Mistral or not, it seems to me that the French will still transfer them to Russia, business is business !!!
  11. Fantazer911
    Fantazer911 29 October 2014 09: 03
    +1
    I do not think that the French save before the amers and do not hand over the ship, especially sanctions by the sanctions and workers at the shipyard if they decide the political career of the French government completely, and even more so their union.
  12. Stas57
    Stas57 29 October 2014 09: 30
    +5
    ours already in full use this device BWE-10907-VLADIVOSTOK and are rumored to be quite happy.
    already and bumper bulb scratched


    larger http://f5.s.qip.ru/yVu0pp1h.jpg
  13. bionik
    bionik 29 October 2014 09: 37
    15 th
    Why did they order them at all? At the same time, their helicopter carriers built with the union, we ourselves are quite no worse than a similar DVKD, we can bung Umah and shipyards in Russia have not yet broken
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 29 October 2014 16: 00
      +5
      Quote: bionik
      Why did they order them at all? At the same time, their helicopter carriers built with the union, we ourselves are quite no worse than similar DVKD

      And tell me the landing helicopter carrier built by the USSR? Not cruiser pr.1123, namely the landing ship.
      All the USSR could do was build several "rhinos" and design a horror-horror-horror called "Halzan". Well, 10 years of procrastinating on the "Ivan Tarava" project.
  14. Semenov
    Semenov 29 October 2014 09: 39
    0
    Hollande manners, they have such a style. Twist the ass and give (give the ships). Although on the other hand, they are the same in France and in Russia, what to take from them.
  15. aszzz888
    aszzz888 29 October 2014 09: 45
    0
    Clamped our paddling pool contract. And those spinning like a louse on a scallop. And you want to burp and eat a hunt.
  16. Pavelm
    Pavelm 29 October 2014 10: 22
    0
    Mistral is a rather "strong" combat engineering project but !!! ... which is built by a NATO member.

    It’s just KAPETS of some kind

    Imagine if we had built a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier CVN-78 Gerald Ford for the USA

    They have on hand the technology and detailing of the landing craft literally "to the cog." I understand that we will install the communications equipment, missile systems and other weapons, but that doesn't make it any easier.
    Anyway, it’s all wrong.
    1. gispanec
      gispanec 29 October 2014 10: 48
      +2
      Quote: Pavelm
      Imagine if we had built a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier CVN-78 Gerald Ford for the USA

      Americans built our ships ..... and not one .... and what ?? ...
    2. sniper
      sniper 29 October 2014 15: 50
      +5
      Quote: Pavelm
      Mistral is a rather "strong" combat engineering project but !!! ... which is built by a NATO member.

      It’s just KAPETS of some kind

      Imagine if we had built a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier CVN-78 Gerald Ford for the USA

      Let me tell you a secret: Our President drives a Mercedes, so in NATA all the drawings to a screw .... Can you imagine what horror it is ???
      1. Stas57
        Stas57 29 October 2014 16: 00
        +4
        Let me tell you a secret: Our President drives a Mercedes, so in NATA all the drawings to a screw .... Can you imagine what horror it is ???

        maybe he is one of the whole country writes on the Obninsk computer with Zelenograd windows?))))))))))))))))
      2. Demetry
        Demetry 29 October 2014 16: 12
        +2
        Quote: sniper
        Let me tell you a secret: Our President drives a Mercedes, so in NATA all the drawings to a screw .... Can you imagine what horror it is ???

        I will add that the peace of the Russian President and other top leaders is guarded, including on these three boats of the American construction belay
        And no one is afraid of the notorious secret invisible bugs !!!
      3. Serg 122
        Serg 122 29 October 2014 19: 15
        +1
        Let me tell you a secret: Our President drives a Mercedes, so in NATA all the drawings to a screw .... Can you imagine what horror it is ???
        Introducing. But ... This is temporary. Just a couple of years - and ... hi
  17. Good cat
    Good cat 29 October 2014 10: 37
    0
    The French will hang themselves for sous, terribly greedy. "Mistrals" will give these 100%.
  18. gispanec
    gispanec 29 October 2014 10: 51
    +2
    Not only the first Mistral will be handed over (November 1-14), but the second will be handed over to us as well .... only next year ... and for the next couple I think we will have questions ..... by the way, how are the rotated turntables, already on the way? .... owners of info please write ....
    1. Eggor
      Eggor 29 October 2014 12: 18
      +3
      Quote: gispanec
      By the way, how's the numbed turntable on the way?

      The new Ka-52K attack helicopters adapted for deck-based landing on Mistral-class amphibious assault ships will complete the stage of state tests in 2015.

      "A corresponding program has been developed, which is now being implemented. In accordance with it, the state tests of the helicopter (Ka-52K) should be completed in 2015," said Anatoly Punchuk, Deputy Director of the Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation (FSMTC), at the Euronaval- 2014 "in Paris.

      According to him, work is now underway to manufacture four prototypes of these helicopters. “These attack helicopters will be based on the Russian Mistrals,” the head of the Russian delegation said. aex.ru
  19. Metal
    Metal 29 October 2014 10: 58
    -3
    There was infa that his stability was calculated incorrectly. It seems like the French increased the height, but did not count. In the case of a transfer, everything must be checked carefully. We need a military unit, not just a political maneuver.
    1. tkhonov66
      tkhonov66 29 October 2014 15: 17
      +4
      Sorry, but you have a schiz ...
      8- (
      1. Metal
        Metal 30 October 2014 06: 19
        0
        Sorry, but this is your shiz. I am an engineer and I know what stability is. And the sailors who are undergoing training on helicopter carriers complained that the mistrals are "pumping" more than necessary. If I'm not mistaken, here on VO there was even an article about it. Before insulting someone, understand the issue. On naked patriotism, neither ships float, nor airplanes fly.
        1. nerd.su
          nerd.su 30 October 2014 11: 27
          0
          Quote: Metall
          And the sailors who are being trained on helicopter carriers complained that the mistrals "pump" more than necessary.

          And how did they determine what is more than necessary? Have they been to the French Mistrals? Or mathematically? If the latter, so check, everyone has already counted. Put more ballast and that's it. Not an option?
          1. Metal
            Metal 31 October 2014 08: 07
            0
            Quote: bot.su
            And how did they determine what is more than necessary? Have they been to the French Mistrals? Or mathematically? If the latter, so check, everyone has already counted. Put more ballast and that's it. Not an option?

            An experienced sailor can easily distinguish pitching above normal. Given the wind speed, congestion, etc. Mathematically, the stability of the vessel is calculated. If it does not fall within permissible limits, then the ship will swing much more. A vessel with poor stability is easier to capsize. But ballast is not an option at all. Well, or a very stupid option. In any building structures, there is a struggle for every extra kilogram. Moreover, this applies to vehicles. The same affects the carrying capacity, fuel consumption, etc.
  20. Crang
    Crang 29 October 2014 11: 20
    +2
    Cool ships. Rather, get it. And then the power of domestic naval aviation will increase significantly. And in relation to missile strike weapons, these ships are no worse than the latest corvettes and RTOs of the Baltic Fleet.
    1. Eggor
      Eggor 29 October 2014 15: 18
      +4
      Quote: Krang
      Cool ships. Rather, get it. And then the power of domestic naval aviation will increase significantly.
      Agree
      Quote: Krang
      And in relation to missile strike weapons, these ships are no worse than the latest corvettes and RTOs of the Baltic Fleet.
      I repeat, but so far there has been only such graphics in service:
  21. The comment was deleted.
  22. Bayonet
    Bayonet 29 October 2014 11: 43
    +3
    Everything will be fine!
  23. Megatron
    Megatron 29 October 2014 12: 20
    -7
    It is a pity if they give it all the same. Better forfeit. We’ll build our own on it.
    1. Crang
      Crang 29 October 2014 12: 47
      +5
      Quote: Megatron
      We’ll build our own on it.

      Very optimistic statement. Man clearly lost his sense of reality. And today the reality is - in four times The smaller BDK pr.11711 "Ivan Gren" has been under construction for 10 years. And they all can't pass.
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 30 October 2014 00: 25
      +3
      Quote: Megatron
      It is a pity if they give it all the same.

      Give 14 November. Rosoboronexport on this date received an invitation to the ceremony of transferring the first to the customer and launching of the second. However, the pace of the paddling pool!
  24. kim. 230752
    kim. 230752 29 October 2014 12: 21
    13 th
    These galoshes are needed to seize territories from the "banana" republics, which have neither a fleet nor an air force. Russia has a non-aggressive military doctrine. Therefore, these slugs with dubious seaworthiness are unlikely to be needed. This is most likely the fruit of Serdyukovism. Although on occasion it is possible to seize Odessa using the Sevastopol mistral.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 29 October 2014 12: 31
      +6
      Quote: kim.230752
      This is the fruit of "Serdyukovschina" most likely

      Serdyukov, as far as I remember, was the Minister of Defense. And the country was ruled by Medvedev under the wise leadership of the National Leader. And it was at their level that a decision was made.

      By the way, Medvedev was personally present at the signing ceremony of the transaction.
      1. Steel loli
        Steel loli 29 October 2014 17: 04
        0
        Yeah, but who was the Prime Minister, can you tell?
    2. Crang
      Crang 29 October 2014 12: 45
      +6
      Quote: kim.230752
      These galoshes

      Aha ... Try to build at least one such "galosh" yourself.
      Quote: kim.230752
      Russia has a military doctrine that is not aggressive.

      What does it have to do with it? That the fleet is no longer needed if it’s not aggressive?
      Quote: kim.230752
      Therefore these slow-moving

      They have normal speed for their class. Our BDK pr.775, 775-M and 1171 are not nearly faster.
      Quote: kim.230752
      with doubtful seaworthiness

      They have absolute seaworthiness. That is, nothing will happen to them even in the ultimate 11-point storm. Depth from 9th floor approximately.
      Quote: kim.230752
      hardly we need.

      They are very much needed. The situation with naval aviation in our Navy is deplorable at the moment. With such a naval aviation as it is now, neither a landing force can be normally landed, nor a normal anti-aircraft missile defense can be organized on distant sea lines, nothing. Nehru was then "Moscow", "Leningrad" and "Kiev" with "Minsk" cut.
    3. Stas57
      Stas57 29 October 2014 12: 59
      +5
      These galoshes are needed to seize territories from the "banana" republics, which have neither a fleet nor an air force. Russia has a non-aggressive military doctrine.

      and in india?
      The Indian Navy Command has announced a tender for the construction of four amphibious helicopter dock ships (DVKD),
      and the Indonesian Navy is aggressive ?? Landing-helicopter ships-docks of the Makassar type



      and again hysteria, myths and ignorance
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 29 October 2014 16: 38
        +2
        Quote: Stas57
        and in india?
        The Indian Navy Command has announced a tender for the construction of four amphibious helicopter dock ships (DVKD),
        and the Indonesian Navy is aggressive ?? Landing-helicopter ships-docks of the Makassar type

        Algeria! Algeria forgot:
        1. Stas57
          Stas57 29 October 2014 16: 48
          +1
          Algeria!
          bastards, plan to attack the country 3 world)
          maybe Storage itself?))
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 29 October 2014 17: 44
            +2
            Quote: Stas57
            bastards, plan to attack the country 3 world)
            maybe Storage itself?))

            I think their plan is even more insidious: load this ship with illegal migrants, approach the border of France at night and land illegal immigrants in a combined way. laughing
  25. chukotka
    chukotka 29 October 2014 12: 29
    11
    For all its obvious and imaginary shortcomings, Mistral-type DVKDs will simply ... not be superfluous in the extremely "bloodless" Russian Navy request !
    IMHO Ordering ships "abroad" (perhaps only "self-propelled" hulls, like "Vladivostok" and "Sevastopol", followed by "saturation with Us), according to our technical requirements (and in the case of China, according to our technologies), - one from the paths of "fast saturation" with the ship's composition into the "transitional (awakening) period!" yes
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 30 October 2014 00: 34
      +2
      Quote: chukotka
      Ordering ships "abroad" (it is possible only for "self-propelled" hulls, like Vladivostok and Sevastopol, followed by "saturation with Us), according to our technical requirements (and in the case of China, according to our technologies), is one of ways of "fast saturation" with the ship composition during the "transitional (awakening) period!"

      Chukotka! Well, you give a pancake! The thought at 100% is true! Plus to you, comrade!
      But only for taxes do Russians need to feed our working class. Think about this thought at your leisure, brother. what
  26. Megatron
    Megatron 29 October 2014 12: 40
    +6
    By the way, Medvedev was personally present at the signing ceremony of the transaction.
    1. aszzz888
      aszzz888 29 October 2014 12: 54
      +3
      It seems that Medvedev was pumped up thoroughly (especially in the right photo, he is taking him somewhere)
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 30 October 2014 00: 40
        +2
        Quote: aszzz888
        Medvedev thoroughly pumped

        No, I myself drank their "kava" for free. In general, no matter how liberal, they don't know how to drink: that Borya, that Plushy ...
        That's what it means to have no school! Where can they execute an arbitrary program if they cannot cope with the obligatory !?
      2. ma_shlomha
        ma_shlomha 30 October 2014 07: 37
        0
        Poor-poor at that time the supreme (LADY). He succumbed to the entreaties of the adventurer Serdyukov, who was known to him as a non-silver man. And, I suppose, he commanded the LADY: "I will give money for what our fleet needs, as our partners believe." And .... gave.
    2. Nik SU
      Nik SU 29 October 2014 16: 00
      +1
      From the characteristics "... I was not seen in a booze, but on Mondays he drinks plenty of water ..."
    3. Demetry
      Demetry 29 October 2014 16: 19
      +1
      ..... in numbering, friend Silvio !!! In numbering Nicholas !!! wink
    4. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 29 October 2014 17: 02
      +3
      The photo asks for a signature: I demand the continuation of the banquet!
  27. doktor_alex
    doktor_alex 29 October 2014 13: 11
    -6
    Can anyone explain to me why they are to us NOW (I mean not the current political situation, but the current situation with the surface fleet)? Mistrals are essentially ships of the "attack on the Papuans", in which zibabwe are we going to land troops and which palms are we going to iron with helicopters? Or are we so urgently needed expensive floating hospitals the size of two nine-story buildings? It seems that we are not going to squeeze out oil from anyone, so a weak enemy is not expected, and a strong likely enemy will drown these former cruise liners (you can see from the contours of which they are molded) very quickly. Maybe it really would be better to return the money to us with a penalty, and we would build on it something that would solve our pressing problems, for example, anti-submarine defense, the demonstration of the flag in the world's oceans and the nerves of the AUG commanders?
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 29 October 2014 13: 23
      +4
      Mistrals are essentially ships of the "attack on the Papuans", in which zibabwe are we going to land troops and which palms are we going to iron with helicopters?

      one more with another myth)))))
      three times already answered above, this is not a ship for dispersing the Papuans, all world powers have ships of this type, countries with smaller budgets, such as the South Caucasus, Indonesia, India and China, have or will have ships. Do these countries disperse someone?

      I think for shuttles to Syria or Aden they have almost no replacement

      Or did we urgently need expensive floating hospitals the size of two nine-story buildings?

      But is this size bad ?, for a missile, for example, FSUs, and the era of dagger volleys from the time of the battleships has passed a long time.

      ps. or are we preparing for the past war again ...
      1. doktor_alex
        doktor_alex 29 October 2014 14: 26
        -6
        "all world powers" are regularly engaged in "building dimocracy" in third world countries, for which they use these ships. The countries of the third world are the very Papuans, and the countries you named there are the same. You contradict yourself, well done ..... Once again, I ask whom to attack, you are going to, where will you land and whom will you iron with helicopters, and most importantly for what purposes? Or like "we also need them"? By the way, friend, I'm a representative of shipbuilding, so don't think that the Navy is far from me.

        Oh yes, about the size, I ask again, do we need a FLOATING HOSPITAL the size of a nine-story house? Do you catch the semantic intonation? Where is the loss to be collected? Moreover, such a scale that such hospitals were needed?
        1. Stas57
          Stas57 29 October 2014 15: 03
          +2
          "all world powers" are regularly engaged in "building dimocracy" in third world countries, for which they use these ships. The countries of the third world are the very Papuans, and the countries you named there are the same. You contradict yourself, well done ...

          China, India, Indonesia, SK of the country 3 of the world?
          China, India, Indonesia, UK regularly engage in "building dimocracy" in third world countries,
          ?
          I can list the powers, the owners of the docks and continue
          and you already make up your mind, otherwise it’s mixed up in a heap, people, horses.

          By the way, friend, I'm a representative of shipbuilding,

          if only shipbuilding?))))
          real shipbuilders do not ask such questions

          Do you catch the semantic intonation?

          intonation, let your wife catch, have something to say, say no, be silent, ancient truth

          Where is the loss to be collected? Moreover, such a scale that such hospitals were needed?

          tn "stupid scoops" back in the 80s took care of the design and construction of the UDC, I hope the shipbuilder knows this? Who were they going to attack?
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. Stas57
              Stas57 29 October 2014 15: 57
              +3
              Well, you can say about the shipbuilder yet,
              probably that he is rude and intemperate.
              Well, the forum community rightfully awarded minuses
              1. doktor_alex
                doktor_alex 29 October 2014 16: 21
                -3
                Actually, one can say about Stasik that he, thinking that he is showing no less wit, simply behaves like he was, for which he was apparently awarded a warning. finding yourself a couple of followers sincerely revels in someone’s minuses, if the minuses or pluses on the site are your sense of life, I sympathize. You still could not adequately answer the question WHY US FOR THESE SHIPS. Buy an excavator for yourself, don’t ask why you need it, it drives like a car, a roof over your head is better than nothing, don’t think that you don’t need it, because SMU # 34 has an excavator and the road workers have an excavator, and city utilities have an excavator, which means you need .......
                1. Stas57
                  Stas57 29 October 2014 16: 35
                  +1
                  the massive volume of comments in solid text using the Tav button .... and then no one can build a modern ship with us dock, here we have such shipbuildings.
                  to the question "Why?" here already 30 people have answered, including me, but you don't want this, to argue hotts?
                  well on the way
                  1. doktor_alex
                    doktor_alex 29 October 2014 16: 48
                    -3
                    Not TAB buttons, but SHIFT buttons, Stasik. You tell me about the fact that we can't build a ship dock, you can't help but tell, OK? I know better than you what we can and what not, theorist pathetic. And I guarantee you that we can design and build, but this is new for us, which means it would be ready not by 2014, but by 2018 at best. Regarding the question "why" I ask YOU personally and specifically HERE, Stasik, there is no answer? Free. Boldeyu from people like you, read the book "Sea Hunter" plus a couple of articles by "pseudo ikspertov" and prove right with foaming at the mouth.
                    1. Stas57
                      Stas57 29 October 2014 16: 53
                      +1
                      I answered you, but as I understand it, you don’t need an answer, you’re our shipbuilder)
                      although one thing is good, we know that some modern shipbuilders can only pee on forums.

                      a very unfortunate drop in level, a disaster ... but a lot of slogans, screams of hysteria and of course rudeness doktor_alex,

                      not ready for 2014 but for 2018 at best.

                      I already looked at what you are capable of. Mistral is better!
                      1. The comment was deleted.
                      2. Stas57
                        Stas57 29 October 2014 17: 02
                        +1
                        your whole answer is "they have us too," you are not our competent. Go buy an excavator, life is bad without a sucker - that's about you. Pee? Go to the toilet and pee

                        I say rudeness and complete reluctance to read as a consequence of the low educational level and lack of education.
                        The complete lack of content in the comments, logical connections, sound reasoning and analysis, but a lot of slogans, shifts and other emptiness.
                      3. The comment was deleted.
                      4. The comment was deleted.
                      5. The comment was deleted.
              2. doktor_alex
                doktor_alex 29 October 2014 17: 02
                -2
                Watch yourself for Stasik. I’ll ask you a simple question, decode REGSH-32, you won’t be able to, everything is clear with you, you will be no one and your name will be nothing, a forum warrior no more.
    2. abc_alex
      abc_alex 29 October 2014 16: 27
      +2
      Well, for example, to approach Tartus? This is essentially a small but floating military base. There is a landing with reinforcements. There is an attack helicopter wing. There are communications and connection management tools.

      Our presence in the Mediterranean Sea is not at all problematic with the presence of ...
      1. doktor_alex
        doktor_alex 29 October 2014 16: 43
        +1
        abc_alex, in the world confrontation, in fact, nothing has changed much, well, maybe a couple of players like China and India have been added, otherwise everything has returned to the old rails, there are us, and there are "they" when approaching Tartus you must remember that there are like 30 years ago, the same guys play poker on one side of "ours" on the other side of "them", and just like that, take and enter the contingent from the mistral is like pulling the barrel out from under the table during this poker game, the answer may follow, but simply approach and "threaten" you can do something else. "To carry democracy to other countries" you understand now no one will give us. In short, "A good show is more expensive than money" - this principle is not for our country now, we need "maximum functionality for our money."
      2. Stas57
        Stas57 29 October 2014 16: 50
        +1
        Our presence in the Mediterranean Sea is not at all problematic with the presence of ..

        I wrote in one of the first posts about shuttle flights to Aden and to Syria.
        it is at least.
        1. doktor_alex
          doktor_alex 29 October 2014 16: 53
          -1
          Hey, shuttle, what are you going to do there? Who will let you land there? Who will give you there to chop from helicopters? Dreamer.
          1. Stas57
            Stas57 29 October 2014 17: 06
            0
            Hey, shuttle, what are you going to do there? Who will let you land there? Who will give you there to chop from helicopters? Dreamer
            .Do not interfere in the conversation of two respected gentlemen with their boorish, insignificant comment.
            Their level is very discordant with the level of other forum participants, and not in the best possible way.
            1. doktor_alex
              doktor_alex 29 October 2014 17: 08
              -2
              You? Respected? Who are you and what are you written above good By the way, they asked you, did the person write to me, truncated?
              1. Stas57
                Stas57 29 October 2014 17: 12
                +1
                It seems to me that you will end quickly on this forum, but this is not a loss for the forum at all
              2. The comment was deleted.
              3. Dikson
                Dikson 29 October 2014 21: 46
                +3
                Doctor, what do you personally have against the warhead-5? There, by the way, there are people who usually go to the bottom along with the ships ...
              4. doktor_alex
                doktor_alex 29 October 2014 23: 14
                0
                I think that the BS-5 is an excellent officer, and as a rule, very competent people, not like Stasik from the couch.
  • Dikson
    Dikson 29 October 2014 21: 36
    0
    Well, they’ll shmalnu to him on the way to Tartus ... And what are you going to do? Such a trough needs an escort fleet that is not weak ... And with ships capable of long voyages, it’s just sadness now .. For me, if the USSR could successfully resist the states with submarines of the Northern Fleet, then this doctrine should not be scoured by tack. .. we don't care to keep up with the Yankes with their number of aircraft carriers .. so we have to take others .. On the other hand, it's funny when a great nuclear power sends a strike cruiser to the shores of Somalia to drive the Papuans on junks, capable of turning half of Africa into the moon in one salvo .. The commander had to gobble up his shoulder straps after such a "heroic" campaign .. Politics, her anchor in ..
  • Dikson
    Dikson 29 October 2014 21: 24
    -1
    Well ... it is probably convenient to carry "Poplar" on it .. disguised as a landing? And it can also be used as a nuclear-filled firebrand ... let them fall, who are tired of living ..
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 29 October 2014 17: 27
    +8
    Quote: doktor_alex
    Can anyone explain to me why they are to us NOW (I mean not the current political situation, but the current situation with the surface fleet)? Mistrals are essentially ships of the "attack on the Papuans", in which zibabwe are we going to land troops and which palms are we going to iron with helicopters?

    First of all, our Navy urgently needs DC now. Any. Because the "Syrian express" has been running for a year now, which knocks out the resource of the existing old large landing ships very quickly. Plus SF has now begun to work actively in the Arctic. New ships from our industry can be expected for at least another 2-3 years - we have just reached the level of serial construction of a BOD (and that is a problem with the GTU). Things have already reached the point that the fleet is reanimating the Sevmorput.

    "Mistral" is good because it already exists, and it is a UDC. That is, at the expense of helicopters, you can take other cargo, including BTT. In addition, do not forget that the first problem with the Syrian supply was precisely with the delivery of helicopters.
    Quote: doktor_alex
    Maybe it would be better if they returned the money to us with a forfeit, and we built something on them that would solve our pressing problems, for example, anti-submarine defense, the demonstration of the flag in the oceans and the unnerving of the AUG commanders?

    When would it be built? Remind you how much Gren is being built. But this is far from the Mistral.
    Ships are needed here and now. Not money, but landing ships. Because it is impossible to transport equipment to non-cash euros.
    And freight will not save us - the Syrian express began precisely with the fact that the officially chartered vessel was not allowed to reach Syria by legal means. Now some goods can be delivered only under the protection of the flag, guns and missiles - for force of law was replaced right of power.
    1. doktor_alex
      doktor_alex 29 October 2014 17: 39
      0
      Thank you for the adequate answer, I got tired with Stasik who "they have and we need." Then the question arises, is the freight protected by warships? What's a bad option?
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 29 October 2014 17: 57
        +1
        Quote: doktor_alex
        Thank you for the adequate answer, I got tired with Stasik who "they have and we need." Then the question arises, is the freight protected by warships? What's a bad option?

        It is so bad that a private carrier can simply break the contract. For one simple reason - after the first flight to Syria, he will no longer be allowed to work over the hill. They will prohibit the entry of the company's ships into the ports of the EU, the United States and their vassals, arrange a search in neutral waters (during "civil" flights), change the insurance conditions (or even refuse altogether) - and that's it, sit on the shore, smoke bamboo.

        The only alternative to the Syrian express could be a state shipping company. But it is also subject to sanctions and prohibitions, plus it requires compliance with two mutually exclusive paragraphs: compliance with contact obligations to civilian clients and the availability of its vessels for government transportation at any time. Oh yes, his ships must be profitable and at the same time fast and roomy.
        We have already stepped on this rake in the past - "Dobroflot", while observing all the requirements of the Empire's fleet to its ships, steadily balanced on the brink of loss. And if the company is unprofitable, then why should the state maintain at its own expense one more state firm, if it already maintains the Navy with its fleet of DC and auxiliary?
        1. doktor_alex
          doktor_alex 29 October 2014 18: 09
          0
          Ok, the next question, have we solved all the problems of defending our shores and the problems of displaying a flag in the world's oceans in order to ride a load in Syria?
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 29 October 2014 19: 06
            +3
            Quote: doktor_alex
            Ok, the next question, have we solved all the problems of defending our shores and the problems of displaying a flag in the world's oceans in order to ride a load in Syria?

            The Syrian Express addresses our security problems in the same way. It may sound cynical, but let it be better for Syrian soldiers to kill Islamists in Syria on our equipment than our soldiers on our equipment will kill the same Islamists somewhere in the Caucasus - and incur losses.

            Flights of our BDK to Syria solve the problems of defense of our borders. Therefore, their provision is one of the main tasks of the fleet.

            The problems of defense of their shores are also being solved - in parallel with the Mistrals. Moreover, the foreign construction of the Mistrals allows us not to distract our factories from renewing the forces of our fleet - the construction of a series of new submarines, KOR and FR and the overhaul of "large pots".

            Demonstration of the flag ... oh-ho-ho. So far, we can only use the Soviet legacy for this. So far, we have only full-fledged rank I ships in projects. And "Mistral" has nothing to do with it - to build a full-fledged EM or CD, you need to restore production from a sickly chain of subcontractors and have already worked out serial weapons and mechanisms. The best way to do this is going from small to large - training allies and shipbuilders first on small ships. And then we can fly in again - as with "Leningrad" or, even worse, "Soviet Belorussia" under Stalin. Or as with the "Gorshkovs" now - there is a gas turbine engine, but only on 3 out of 6 ships. And for the other three - they will only be in 3 years.
            1. doktor_alex
              doktor_alex 29 October 2014 19: 38
              +3
              Let's skip politics, whether it is necessary or not to supply weapons to Syria is not the point. The bottom line is that using the Mistral as a "dry cargo / container ship" is too expensive, I understand your concern that there are no fresh large landing ships in the country, but a large landing ship and a helicopter carrier are slightly different things both in purpose and in cost. If the country needs a large landing ship to deliver cargo to Syria, or somewhere else, in the 4 years that there are talks about the main lines, the Navy could get 4-6 large landing ships, I will tell you a terrible secret, 5 slipways have been vacant at Sevmash for 3 years , there are no problems to build a large landing craft, these ships are relatively simple, the term would be about 2 years. This is by the way to the question "to distract factories from renewal", we are underloaded with orders! The day before yesterday, however, 2 slipways were closed by Nakhimov, but for 4 years 50 SEVMASH did not roll out anything, just looked at the rusting chemical carriers. Believe me, we already have all the necessary cooperation for the construction of anything, up to aircraft carriers (not on the scale of them, of course, but they would have mastered the thieves), a vivid example of Vikramada repairing which I was engaged in, this is practically a new ship, all its equipment is either new or restored by the manufacturers to the state "new", in short, you greatly underestimate us. In general, I may agree that right now at this very minute, mistrals are better than nothing, but in general it was necessary 4 years ago 100 times to think about why we need it.
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 30 October 2014 11: 02
                +2
                Quote: doktor_alex
                If the country needs a BDK to deliver goods to Syria, or elsewhere, for those 4 years that there is talk of mistral, the Navy could get 4-6 BDK, I will tell you a terrible secret, on the Sevmash 5 slipways have been vacant for 3 years , there are no problems building the BDK, these ships are relatively simple, the term would be about 2 years.

                Let's share the momentary tactical and strategic needs of the Mistrals.

                At the time of ordering the Mistrals, the need for them was strategic. Unfortunately, our DK fleet is outdated morally, and even under the USSR. In single-breasted, now no one is fighting - in the sense that the BDK crawling ashore are a thing of the past. For the past 50 years, the fleet has needed normal DVKD. And then an option appeared.
                On the other hand, no matter how our industry and design bureaus boasted, but, after the devastation of the 90s and the loss of a whole generation of workers and designers, independent development from scratch (having in the initial only technical specifications and pictures of analogues) a ship of a new class DVKD and its operational construction (and without "the first pancakes - lumpy") seemed a rather unlikely event.
                And the ship was urgently needed - at least so that the headquarters and marines could begin practicing in practice a new over-the-horizon tactics for us. Therefore, we went along the path tested by our ancestors - ordering a prototype abroad with parallel familiarization of designers and builders with a new animal for them. As a result, the fleet receives "combat training" DVDKDs and gains experience in their operation, and the industry - experience and documentation on real, living ships, and not the fantasies of our design bureaus. In short - hello new "Tsarevich" or "Bayan".

                This is, so to speak, a "strategic" necessity for the Mistrals at the time of their order. That is, the reasons why they were ordered then.
                And those "tactical" reasons why they are now trying to get Mistrals at any cost, and not money for them, I have already named.

                Quote: doktor_alex
                In general, I can and I agree that right now at this moment, the Mistral is better than nothing, but on the whole it was necessary 4 years ago to think 100 more times why we need it.

                Then, in order not to invent again unparalleled in the world a bike. It is better to start developing your own not with "fantasies based on", but with a really working prototype. Especially if we ourselves have not worked in this area before, and over the hill they have been doing this for over 60 years.
                No better. Do the same.
                (c) ITTs - Tupolev about B-29
    2. Dart2027
      Dart2027 29 October 2014 21: 50
      +1
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Ships are needed here and now. Not money, but landing ships.

      If some patriots finally understood this, you no longer know how to explain the difference between papers and the ship.
  • Megatron
    Megatron 29 October 2014 14: 00
    -5
    I am against any purchases of weapons abroad, except for piece consignments for "informational" purposes.
    Mistrals do not pull it.
    Aha ... Try to build at least one such "galosh" yourself.

    What does "himself" mean? Provocative questions, personalized.
    Nehru was then "Moscow", "Leningrad" and "Kiev" with "Minsk" cut.

    You already know who to address
    Chel has clearly lost his sense of reality. And the reality today is that four times smaller BDK pr.11711 "Ivan Gren" has been under construction for 10 years. And everybody can't surrender

    It’s you who write nonsense here, and minus everyone. Let’s buy planes abroad, and in general we’ll translate weapons to NATO standards, so is it more convenient after all?
    1. sniper
      sniper 29 October 2014 16: 04
      +1
      Quote: Megatron
      It’s you who write nonsense here, and minus everyone. Let’s buy planes abroad, and in general we’ll translate weapons to NATO standards, so is it more convenient after all?

      To our great happiness, things are not as bad with airplanes as with ships ... In one, you are right, you need to build yourself, but until you have restored production capacities, you have to buy ... By the way, I don’t see anything wrong with a few destroyers buy while we launch our own ... Current is the trouble, who will sell them to us ???
      1. Demetry
        Demetry 29 October 2014 16: 22
        +1
        Quote: sniper
        Current is the trouble, who will sell them to us ???

        Well, you can always agree with China wink
        They rebuilt such a shipbuilding industry that rivet a dozen - another destroyer they like 2 fingers on the asphalt ....

        But here is another question. Then we will be dependent on China. And try to prove to me that this evil is less !!!
        1. Eggor
          Eggor 29 October 2014 16: 49
          +3
          Quote: Demetry
          Well with China
          071 LPD No.999

          056 Corvette

          054a ffg

          052D No.172

          No.18th 054A

          057 FFG

          And much more ...
          1. Demetry
            Demetry 29 October 2014 17: 00
            +3
            Quote: EgGor
            071 LPD No.999

            Well, with "057 FFG" we got a little excited. The Chinese themselves do not have it yet in the metal either. But if this goes on, then at the next EURONAVAL the Chinese will offer us to build a clone of the Varyag aircraft carrier ((((
            1. Eggor
              Eggor 29 October 2014 17: 09
              +2
              Quote: Demetry
              Well, with "057 FFG" we got a little excited.
              I agree, but a painfully cute boat looms ... Yes, and somehow there is no doubt that they will fix it.
              1. Demetry
                Demetry 29 October 2014 18: 05
                +1
                Quote: EgGor
                I agree, but a painfully cute boat looms ... Yes, and somehow there is no doubt that they will fix it.

                Build, of course. They do not have D.O.R.a))). They first build, then tell. And do not tell and then .... do not build)))
  • kig
    kig 29 October 2014 14: 05
    0
    And to hell with him, Mistral! Get a forfeit and build something useful! For example, another Borey. Or even two.
  • zoknyay82
    zoknyay82 29 October 2014 14: 12
    -2
    Quote: Hairy Siberian
    The most offensive of this cartoon is that France presented the Statue of Liberty to the Americans. crying
    Actually, I don’t understand so much negativity and anger towards the French on our side, all the same the only country that was not afraid to extend a hand to Russia military cooperation. We would support them the other way around.

    Without the outstretched hand of France, our military-industrial complex would probably stretch its legs? The USSR did without France’s help and it’s scary to say other NATO countries.
    1. 00105042
      00105042 29 October 2014 19: 12
      +2
      Quote: zoknyay82
      The USSR did without France’s help and it’s scary to say other NATO countries.
      formally dispensed with, but without Western technologies and machine tools, no, remember the epic with Toshiba’s boring machine, the technology was bought bypassing sanctions, stolen — and there’s nothing bad and shameful about it, sometimes buying or stealing is much cheaper and faster than developing from scratch unknown result. I don’t see anything shameful to buy what Russia is not yet able to, or due to lack of time, to produce. Pride here is inappropriate.
      1. Dikson
        Dikson 29 October 2014 21: 52
        +2
        ... And in general - all domestic tractor construction, for example, began with the fact that they bought Fordson from Yankess - and in St. Petersburg, dismantling it to a screw, assembled "their" tractor ... Everyone steals from everyone .. China - the most striking example .. And our auto industry ?! What is a humpbacked Zaporozhets? is Fiat ... What is ZIL? - This is Ford .... But in aviation, wasn't it? Industrial espionage has never been canceled. Indeed, pride is inappropriate here.
  • Stinger
    Stinger 29 October 2014 14: 13
    +3
    I repeat, but my opinion is that greed will prevail, for it is the basis of market relations, and the ship will be ours.
  • IAlex
    IAlex 29 October 2014 14: 35
    0
    It’s a pity the Yak-201 went to another world, like the Yak-141 to the Americans, now there would be a useful wunderwafel for such a ferry ...
    If there is already no dough and technologies for the release of full-fledged aircraft carriers, they would take up such ferries with vertical take-off aircraft, at least partially compensate for the lack of full-fledged aircraft carriers with more universal and cheap ships, to help young democracies ...
  • Kaetani
    Kaetani 29 October 2014 15: 01
    +3
    Money is just money.
    Building ships is the years and years for our shipyards.
    And "Sevastopol" is already real.
    And "Vladivostok" is a near future.

    If only half the dough had been exchanged for ships.
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 29 October 2014 15: 16
      +1
      If only half the dough had been exchanged for ships.

      Truth tell the nobleman!
    2. 00105042
      00105042 29 October 2014 19: 15
      +3
      Quote: Kaetani
      If only half the dough had been exchanged for ships.
      Ships are real, tangible, and their cost is not outrageous, a little more than a springboard in Sochi.
  • Prager
    Prager 29 October 2014 15: 38
    -5
    why the heck do we need these French troughs? still we are tormented with them, it’s like giving a drink - during the tests an increased pitching was found that was not characteristic of our domestic ships.
    1. abc_alex
      abc_alex 29 October 2014 16: 32
      +2
      And why the heck did the USSR need Vickers 6 tons and a Christie tank? Why were Czech anti-aircraft guns and howitzers needed? Why were the French Gnome et Rhone14-N, Curtiss-Wright R-1820-F, Hispano-Suiza 12-Y needed? Why did the Germans buy the T-3 before the war?

      Why did RI need a Maxim machine gun? Revolver revolver?

      Indeed, in all the samples, weaknesses were later discovered that had to be modified, redone ...
  • thinker
    thinker 29 October 2014 16: 58
    +3
    The French seem to have decided:
    Rosoboronexport received an invitation on November 14 to transfer to Russia the first Mistral type helicopter carrier and launch the second, said Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin. Technically, the execution of the contract is going according to plan, he noted. According to Rogozin, Moscow believes that Paris will fulfill its obligations, and the decision is up to French President Francois Hollande.
    29.10.2014, 16: 26
  • Gans1234
    Gans1234 29 October 2014 17: 06
    +3
    And here is the invitation!))))

    клик
  • Megatron
    Megatron 29 October 2014 17: 19
    -2
    but until production facilities are restored, you have to buy ...


    And the reality today is that four times smaller BDK pr.11711 "Ivan Gren" has been under construction for 10 years. And they all can't pass.


    That's why they can’t finish building that multibillion-dollar contracts are settling in the pockets of NATO countries.
    What could be counterproductive?
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 29 October 2014 17: 40
      +3
      Quote: Megatron
      That's why they can’t finish building that multibillion-dollar contracts are settling in the pockets of NATO countries.

      PMSM, you confuse cause and effect.
      The Mistrals were ordered over the hill precisely because the Gren was not expected to be delivered in the near future. At that time, the industry was barely pulling the serial construction of corvettes.
  • zoknyay82
    zoknyay82 29 October 2014 17: 20
    +1
    Quote: sniper
    Quote: Pavelm
    Mistral is a rather "strong" combat engineering project but !!! ... which is built by a NATO member.

    It’s just KAPETS of some kind

    Imagine if we had built a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier CVN-78 Gerald Ford for the USA

    Let me tell you a secret: Our President drives a Mercedes, so in NATA all the drawings to a screw .... Can you imagine what horror it is ???

    Well, everything if VVP drives "gelding" urgently send Shoigu for "Abrams" or "leopards"?
  • The comment was deleted.
  • zoknyay82
    zoknyay82 29 October 2014 17: 39
    0
    Quote: Spade
    Quote: kim.230752
    This is the fruit of "Serdyukovschina" most likely

    Serdyukov, as far as I remember, was the Minister of Defense. And the country was ruled by Medvedev under the wise leadership of the National Leader. And it was at their level that a decision was made.

    By the way, Medvedev was personally present at the signing ceremony of the transaction.

    The idea of ​​purchasing from MO. The iPhone is not "Copenhagen" here.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 29 October 2014 18: 09
      +1
      Quote: zoknyay82
      The idea of ​​purchasing from MO. The iPhone is not "Copenhagen" here.

      I made the decision anyway GDP.
      And it was political - it was necessary to somehow pay for France's position in the 08.08.08 war and the absence of opposition from the French government agencies to the deal for Thales thermal imagers. Not Mistrals, so something else would have been bought / ordered.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Megatron
    Megatron 29 October 2014 18: 06
    0
    PMSM, you confuse cause and effect.
    The Mistrals were ordered over the hill precisely because the Gren was not expected to be delivered in the near future. At that time, the industry was barely pulling the serial construction of corvettes.


    And why not pull? Because they did not give money, did not invest in the development of capacities, technologies.

    And if we dig even deeper, when will our country stop filling its "gold and foreign exchange reserves" with foreign currency and debt obligations of the United States and the Eurozone? Maybe it's enough to feed our enemies already ????

    Maybe it's time to spend this very money on the development of our country ???
  • meriem1
    meriem1 29 October 2014 19: 07
    0
    Quote: Bayonet
    Quote: Gardamir
    And the USSR had no partners,

    There was no sex in the USSR either. Before issuing such pearls, you would be interested in the meaning of the words ...

    wink There was no sex, but there is Gardamir. And this is the answer to the question whether the USSR had partners.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Bayonet
      Bayonet 29 October 2014 22: 38
      0
      Quote: meriem1
      There was no sex, but there is Gardamir.

      Maybe he is from the immaculate conception? There is no sex in the USSR! - a catch phrase, the source of which was the statement of Lyudmila Nikolaevna Ivanova, one of the participants of the Leningrad-Boston television bridge, recorded on June 28 and aired on July 17, 1986.
      Funny poster!
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 29 October 2014 23: 04
        0
        In the USSR there is no sex, but there is love.
        It sounded in the original, just our intellectuals .... Well, you understand me.
      2. Manul
        Manul 31 October 2014 13: 56
        0
        Quote: Bayonet
        There is no sex in the USSR! - a catch phrase, the source of which was the statement of Lyudmila Nikolaevna Ivanova, one of the participants of the Leningrad-Boston television bridge, recorded on June 28 and aired on July 17, 1986.

        This phrase is taken out of context. It will do for "parzhat", but I want more seriousness for the site we respect.
        By the way, it is an interesting idea to collect all the most famous quotes in history taken out of context for the education of the masses. Immediately I can remember "The State is me" and "There are no irreplaceable people." Who else can replenish the piggy bank?
        1. Demetry
          Demetry 31 October 2014 16: 31
          0
          Quote: Manul
          . Who else can refill the piggy bank?

          "... took the country with a plow, left with YaB ..."
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 29 October 2014 19: 42
    0
    After all these French throwing "GIVE-NOT GIVE", France began to look more like a public girl, and not like a serious contractor. fellow
  • fregina1
    fregina1 29 October 2014 20: 02
    0
    And think if "Vladivostok" is made the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet! Well, temporarily for a couple of years for fun! It's finally such a wave rises on the outskirts! What is simple !
  • bmv04636
    bmv04636 29 October 2014 21: 17
    0
    Rosoboronexport received an invitation to arrive on November 14 for the transfer of the first Vladivostok ship to Russia and for launching the second ship. That is, from the point of view of technical execution of the contract, everything is going according to plan, and we proceed from this, ”RIA Novosti quoted Rogozin as saying.
    Rogozin posted a copy of the invitation on Facebook. At the invitation, the French shipbuilding company DCNS thanks Rosoboronexport and the Russian Minister of Defense for agreeing that the date of the Mistral transfer was previously changed.
    And what are we going to do now, then maybe a catamaran? laughing
    1. Dikson
      Dikson 29 October 2014 22: 05
      0
      I think that we will order ice-class ships from the Finns for the defense of our Arctic ... The Finns know how to build. and there is experience and long-term cooperation .. On the other hand, look at it: everything suggests that a showdown in the Arctic is inevitable. Serious showdown. But is it possible to drive the Mistral into the Arctic ??! He's a canning can .. What kind of work in the ice, in winter .. ??! It means only to drive the Papuans and work in the Persian Gulf .. Well, maybe the Baltic Sea ... very much maybe .. About the Far East, I beg you .. - what kind of landing? there is so much population per square centimeter that any amphibious assault group will simply be overwhelmed by the bodies of the defenders .. There are two real options for using the Black Sea Fleet, or the Baltic.
  • korjik
    korjik 29 October 2014 21: 42
    -3
    I'm losing weight with these Russians! A week ago, everything VO hummed and spat from these "Mistrals", today the command "FU, You Can't" came from above and the barking stopped. The same "tuziki", but under different avatars, they sing hosanna to these garbage troughs. Ugh on you!
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 29 October 2014 21: 56
      +2
      Personally, I always thought that buying them was a reasonable enough deal. Unpleasant, for national pride, but justified.
      1. korjik
        korjik 29 October 2014 22: 13
        0
        In a nutshell, please: where is Russia going to conduct amphibious operations? Which of the fleets is ready to cover this "member"? Not one two ships, but as it should be. And as it should be, see the photo of our best partner AUG.
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 29 October 2014 23: 09
          0
          In a nutshell, please.
          What is the service life of warships, if properly maintained?
          How many ships are being built and planned to be built?
          Since when has strategic planning begun to be laid out in the public domain for public review, instead of being stored under the bar of the CCC?
          Can you predict all political events, at least 10 years in advance?
          1. korjik
            korjik 29 October 2014 23: 33
            -1
            Is that all the argument? request Although I understand you. Wind. recourse
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 30 October 2014 05: 43
              0
              Are you not enough? Answer at least that.
    2. Dikson
      Dikson 29 October 2014 22: 25
      -1
      To be honest, I did not notice the hosanna for these boxes .. In fact, the money was paid. and there, at the top, they understand better than us that the frogs will never return them to us. So everything will hang like that until the ships are given back .. Once again, I repeat, - my personal opinion - I would have drowned this steamer and demanded a penalty from France .... There are no tasks for it in our military doctrine. And in the NATO doctrine, too, by the way, there is no ... - there is more about their appetites for our Siberia, but in the Ob and Yenisei "Mistral" will not climb - the ass is fat ..
      1. nerd.su
        nerd.su 30 October 2014 11: 41
        0
        If in our doctrine there is no place for DVKD, then the doctrine is outdated.

        But the doctrine of NATO is hardly directly mentioned by Siberia. Rather, there are a lot of words about democracy.
    3. Bayonet
      Bayonet 29 October 2014 22: 40
      +1
      Quote: korjik
      Ugh on you!

      Those who spat are still spitting - there is such a category of "specialists".
    4. Manul
      Manul 31 October 2014 14: 05
      0
      Quote: korjik
      I'm losing weight with these Russians! A week ago, everything VO hummed and spat from these "Mistrals", today the command "FU, You Can't" came from above and the barking stopped. The same "tuziki", but under different avatars, they sing hosanna to these garbage troughs. Ugh on you!

      Firstly, spitting is ugly. Secondly, "these Russians" sounds like a challenge - is it possible to look at your passport and are you not afraid to go against the club with your skewer ?. In the third, this is a common thing - whoever has to join to say something - he joins. The rest are silent in a rag - not their day. And there have already been so many disputes that an unspoken break has been announced - everyone is resting in the corners.
  • Andy1111
    Andy1111 29 October 2014 21: 53
    0
    MOSCOW, October 29 - RIA Novosti. Rosoboronexport received an invitation on November 14 to hand over the first Mistral-class helicopter carrier to Russia and launch the second, which may indicate Paris's interest in resolving the issue as soon as possible.
    A source in the French Ministry of Defense, commenting on this news, said that the contract with Russia is in limbo, but has not been canceled, and the shipbuilders are ready to transfer the first ship.


    RIA Novosti http://ria.ru/world/20141029/1030836731.html#ixzz3HYdL1pfG

    good news.
  • abrakadabre
    abrakadabre 30 October 2014 09: 13
    +1
    As soon as possible, he needs to make a decision that will have the least serious and painful consequences. What this decision will be will be known in the very near future.
    The least serious consequences will be the option with 100% fulfillment of the contract. The USA will swell and shut up. France is too important in partners.
  • nikolai.arbaev
    nikolai.arbaev 4 November 2014 16: 01
    0
    We would be better off if they refuse, with this money we will build cheap ocean super - springboards.