Military Review

Projects of Soviet aircraft landing ships. Our "Mistral"

53
Aircraft universal amphibious assault ship-docking project 11780


Projects of Soviet aircraft landing ships. Our "Mistral"



BDK project 1174 type "Ivan Rogov" had many flaws, therefore, at the direction of the Commander-in-Chief of the USSR Navy, Admiral S.G. Gorshkov Nevsky Design Bureau began the development of a full-fledged universal amphibious assault ship of the 11780 project of the Kremenchug type, which was developed throughout the 1980s as a reduced analogue of the American UDC of the Tarava type, for which he received the unofficial nickname “Ivan Tarava”.



The shape and purpose of the ship changed during the development process. Initially, the purpose of the ship were only amphibious operations. UDC had to have a solid deck, which allowed the use of both helicopters and vertical take-off and landing aircraft Yak-38. The General Staff proposed to turn the ships of the 11780 project into universal aircraft carriers, equipping them with a bow ramp and providing basing and other aircraft. It was assumed the construction of two ships of this project "Kherson" and "Kremenchug".



The ship had a normal displacement of 25 000 tons, length 196 meters (180 on KWL), width 35 meters (25 on KVL), draft 8 meters. As the main power plant was used kotloturbinnaya power 180 000 HP (142,4 MW), unified with the power plant of 956 squadron destroyers. The full stroke speed was 30 nodes, the economic rate of 18 nodes. The sailing range of the economic course was 8000 miles.



It is known that there were two versions of the ship, which differ in the placement of weapons. Depending on the version of the project, which included from 3 to 6 the TLU of the Dagger anti-aircraft missile system, from 2 to 4 of the combat modules of the Kortik anti-aircraft missile and artillery complex and the AK-130 universal artillery unit.



The air group consisted of X-NUMX airborne Ka-12 helicopters in the airborne version or 29 anti-submarine Ka-25 helicopters in the anti-submarine version. Four landing craft of the 27 project or 1176 landing craft on an air cushion of 2 avenue could be placed in the dock chamber of the ship.



There are no exact data on the number and composition of the landing force for project 11780, the “Aircraft Carriers of Russia” indicate that a similar-sized helicopter carrier, project 10200 “Khalzan” was designed for transportation of 50-60 tanks and a battalion of marines.



Ships with a standard displacement of 25 000 tons could be built only on the Black Sea GCC, so the “struggle for the stocks” began. At this time, the construction of heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers of the 1143.5 project, the General Staff, should have begun on the stocks of the Black Sea GCC, attaching great importance to the construction of the UDC, and proposed to build them instead of aircraft carriers. This was resisted by the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy. Understanding that the construction of the UDC, due to the lack of the required shipbuilding capacities, will most likely lead to the abandonment of the construction of aircraft-carrying cruisers of the 1143.5 project, they went to the trick. According to the instructions of the Commander-in-Chief, the AU AK-130 was placed in the bow of the ship, right on the flight deck, and the NII NII was assigned the task “scientifically” to substantiate the presence of such weapons and their location. As a result, the General Staff cooled to the project, and construction was postponed.



At the request of the USSR Minister of Defense Marshal Ustinov, in peacetime tasks of the 11780 project ships, tracking of enemy submarines in the ocean zone was added in peacetime. Ultimately, all of these changes meant that the 11780 ships were never laid.

10200 Halzan assault helicopter carrier



PLO helicopter carrier, landing helicopter carrier (draft). The development of the PLO helicopter carrier on the basis of the high-speed civilian container ship Roker 1609 Ave. was initiated by the Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces, Admiral N.N. Amelko in 1978 after conducting the Argus research project (study of an integrated anti-submarine system, including the possibility of building low-cost PLO helicopter carriers based on civilian vessels, the Central Research Institute named after A.Krylova, the head of the research .V.Dmitriev). Ship 1609 av. "Captain Smirnov" (head, 1978 g., All built 4 pcs.) With a gas turbine power unit 2 x GGTA M25 with utilization circuit and power 25000 hp on each of the two shafts, deadweight 20000 t, full displacement 35000 t, length 203 m, width 30 m, depth of the board 21 m, draft 9,9 m and speed of 26 nodes built at the Kherson CVD. TTZ for the creation of a helicopter carrier pr. 10200 prepared in 1977. The Resolution of the USSR Council of Ministers on 21.04.1977 planned construction in 1981-1990. a series of 4 project ships on the stocks No. 1 GCC in Nikolaev as part of a series of rollers of Ave 1609 with parallel construction on the stocks No. 0 of the TAKR series Ave 1143 with a gradual improvement of the project.





The design of the helicopter carrier pr. 10200 was conducted by the Central Design Bureau "Chernomorsudproekt" (Nikolaev) in 1978-1980. Chief Designer Yu.T. Kamenetsky. The sketch project was completed at the end of 1977 in the 4 variants. In the process of designing, the TTZ was changed several times and as a result, a helicopter carrier was designed in two versions - as a ship for a long-range PLO and as a landing ship. Originally it was planned to build project ships at the Kherson CVD, but after the changes due to increasing displacement, the construction of the project became possible only at the Nikolaevsk CVD (which was loaded with construction of the ships of 1143 Ave. and other large orders).

The technical design of the ship pr.10200 was prepared in 1980 by the Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR dated 28 in March 1980 in the plan for the construction of ships on 1981-1990. The construction of two ships of the 10200 Ave. on the stocks # 0 CVD in Nikolaev instead of the lead ship of the 1143.5 project with the delivery of the lead ship in 1986 was included. In August 1980, the 1 institute of the Navy made a positive decision on the technical project of 10200 Ave. At the same time, Nevsky PKB, together with the Central Research Institute. A.N.Krylova was proposed an alternative version of pr.10200 in the case of TAKR pr.1143. Analysis of variants of the project 10200 in September 1980 in the Central Research Institute for them. A.N.Krylova showed that the execution of a helicopter carrier in a civilian building does not provide adequate reliability in terms of the GEM (located in one compartment) and does not meet the requirements for military ships in physical fields (GEM had high noise,) low search performance of the PLO system ( 5 times smaller ships pr.1143) .. TsNII them. A.N.Krylova recommended for construction the variant pr. 10200 in the case pr.1143. After that, in September 1980, the 1 institute of the Navy revised the earlier decision on the approval of pr.10200. In November, 1980, on the scientific and technical council of the USSR Ministry of Industry and Technology, the technical design of project 10200 was rejected. At the end of 1980 - the beginning of 1981. Nevsky PKB developed a project of an antisubmarine helicopter carrier with amphibious capabilities of the 10200М, which was also rejected by 31 in March of 1981 by the decision of the 1-th Institute of the Navy, Central Research Institute. Academician AN Krylov, 24-th Institute of the Navy, a branch of the 30-th Institute of the Navy and the Nevsky PKB.

The default data of the original pr.10200 "Halzan" TsKB "Chernomorsudproekt":

Crew - 960 people.
Propulsion system - gas turbine power plant with heat recovery circuit (gas turbine reversible all-mode units GGTA М25 with utilization circuit) with power 2 x 25000 hp Two screws fixed pitch. Electric generator with power 12000 kW.
Length - 228,3 m.
Waterline length - 211 m.
Width - 40,3 m.
Waterline width - 30 m.
Draft - 8,9 m.
Midship height - 21 m.
Displacement is empty - 22250 t.
Displacement standard - 24000 t.
Full displacement - 30000 t; draft design - 31000 t.
Economic speed - 18 knots.
Full speed - 25-27 knots
Stroke range - 12000 miles at speeds 18 knots.

Cost:

The cost of construction of the container ship-Roker Ave. 1609 - 30 million rubles. (1977 g.).
The cost of building an anti-submarine helicopter carrier according to the findings of the Argus research and development project - 80-100 mln. Rub. (approximate, 1977 g.).
The cost of the construction of the anti-submarine helicopter carrier pr. 10200 according to draft designs - 125-137 mln. Rub. (end of 1977).
The cost of building a helicopter carrier pr.10200 according to the technical project - 170 million rubles. (1978 g.).

Armament:

Dagger SAM, 2 batteries for 6 drum PU of vertical launch in the stern of the ship and on the port side, total 12 of PU drums of vertical launch for 8 SAM, 96 missile ammunition (excluding cellar recharging); Two antenna posts radar control system.
8 x 30 mm artillery installations.
AK-630M with 4 x Radar MP-123 "Pennant".
2 x 140 mm coaxial launchers for jamming the ZIF-121 with the Tertia control system.

Equipment:

BIUS.
Radar "Fregat-MA" general detection.
Radar "Tackle" detection of low-flying targets.
Radar "Vaigach".
Radio engineering drive helicopters.
Upper helicopter hangar on 6 helicopters, lower under deck hangar on 22 helicopters.
Two helicopter lifts (from the hangar).
9 helicopter launch pad.

Wing:

Outline design pr.10200 (1 and 4 variants) - 28-30 PL-15 Ka-27 helicopters.
Draft design pr.10200 (variants 2 and 3) - 12 helicopters PLO type Ka-27.
In the version of the PLO - 28 helicopters PLO type Ka-27.
In the landing variant - 14 landing helicopters Ka-29, 6 VTOL, 56 tanks and one battalion of marines (300 people).

Modifications:

Draft 10200 pr. 1 variant (1977 g.) - helicopter carrier variant with advanced weapons systems.

Draft 10200 pr. 2 variant (1977 g.) - helicopter carrier variant - mobilization re-equipment of the roker 1609 pr.

Draft 10200 pr. 3 variant (1977 g.) - helicopter carrier variant - mobilization re-equipment of the roker 1609 pr.

10200 draft sketch 4 (1977 g.) - A helicopter carrier variant with existing weapons systems.

10200 Technical Ave. (1980) - anti-submarine helicopter carrier developed by the Chernomorsudproekt Central Design Bureau.

Pr.10200 in the case of pr.1143 (1980 g.) - an alternative project of anti-submarine helicopter carrier in the body of the TAKR pr.1143 Nevsky PKB.

Pr.10200М (1980) - an alternative project of anti-submarine-assault helicopter carrier - in the TAKR case, pr.1143 Nevsky PKB. The project is recognized as ineffective in comparison with the TKR Ave. 11434 for combat stability in solving PLO tasks.



Schemes of the general location of the container ship-Roker Ave 1609 and the helicopter carrier Ave 10200 "Halzan"

Title: The USSR was developed, not built. In 1981-1990. planned construction of 2 pcs. on Nikolaevsk CVD.

Universal landing ship dock pr.11780 UDKD.



“The photographs of the aircraft carrying KMPV“ Dolphin ”in two-hull and three-hull variant, the ship was designed by the Northern PKB with 1986 for the promising Yak-141 aircraft. it didn’t even go on. The work on the project was curtailed with the completion of the Yak-200.

Unfortunately, this is all the information that is, the ship was designed as a small and inexpensive.

Another interesting fact: under the deck of the hangar is not just because of the multi-hull structure, because of this hangars are visible in the superstructure, it turns out, everything that fits on the deck, and will be the air group. By my calculations, it turned out 14 LA.

The length, if the proportions of the Yak-141 count, goes 170 meters.



Universal landing ship dock pr.11780 UDKD. Neva PKB:

Solid flight deck, 200x25 meters,
Armament 1X2 AK-130, ZRK "Dagger" 3 UVP, ZRAK "KORTIK" 2pcs,
Ka-29 12 pcs. or Yak-38, Yak-141.
GEM A boiler-turbine installation similar to pr.956.
Amphibious hovercraft DKAVP.



The project was changed several times and in the final version was left without Yak-38 / Yak-141. But the anti-submarine mission of the ship was supposed after the replacement of the Ka-29 helicopters with the Ka-27. The finished project was submitted to the General Staff, where interest in it immediately disappeared. The project was secretly called “Ivan Tarava” because, in its original form, by purpose and purpose, it looked like the American UDC “TARAVA”.

Landing ship dock project 1609



In 1985, the TTZ was issued for the development of the landing ship dock. According to the results of the study, the Nevsky PKB presented the 3 version, which differed in displacement (from 19500 to 24800), length (from 204 to 214) and the dimensions of the dock-camera (from 75 to 80). After discussion, a large-tonnage version was selected for further development, which received the 1609 project number.

24800 / 31800т displacement, 214 x41м dimensions, 80 docking chamber x 15 x 6 m dimensions. Armament: 130-mm AU AK-130, 2 LAW "Dagger", 4 LAW "Kortik", ZNUMX, ZNKX, ZNKX, ZNKX, ZNKX, ZNKX, ZNKX, ZNKX, ZNKX, ZNKX, ZNKX, ZNKX, ZNKX, 12 m. in reloading 29 helicopter), transported troops — 24 people. The docking chamber housed the 750 amphibious assault ship of the project 3 or 1206 project 10. The works did not come out of pre-sketch design due to a number of problems, one of which was the question - where to build? And at the beginning of the 11770's. it was no longer to the construction of landing ships.

According to many experts in the field fleet, ships of the project 1609 would not only not be inferior to the Frenchman, but even would surpass him. It is difficult for me to evaluate this objectively. But if you look at the proposed performance characteristics of the ship project 1609, it seems just obvious. And most importantly, these ships were to be built in Russia, and they were completely tough for Russian industry (at least in the late 90s).



On the materials of the sites:
http://alternathistory.org.ua/avianesushchii-universalnyi-desantnyi-korabl-dok-proekta-11780-nash-mistral-1980-kh
http://alternathistory.org.ua/desantnyi-vertoletonosets-proekta-10200-khalzan-nash-mistral-70-kh
http://alternathistory.org.ua/eshche-odna-alternativa-mistralyu-desantnyi-korabli-doki-proekta-1609-sssr
http://alternathistory.org.ua/proekty-sovetskikh-avianesushchikh-korablei-delfin-i-merkurii
Author:
53 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Gans1234
    24 November 2014 06: 55
    +45
    Next will be a selection of articles with photographs of models of Soviet aircraft carriers
    1. inkass_98
      inkass_98 24 November 2014 09: 34
      +8
      Quote: Gans1234
      Next will be a selection of articles with photographs of models of Soviet aircraft carriers

      Come on, work on, well done!
    2. Civil
      Civil 24 November 2014 16: 14
      +1
      There is a good side to the question ... all these projects did not go to unfinished Hohland!
      1. Gans1234
        24 November 2014 19: 59
        +1
        Varyaga abound
    3. ksan
      ksan 3 June 2015 22: 12
      0
      Thanks, interesting article hi
  2. Baikal
    Baikal 24 November 2014 07: 11
    +10
    In my opinion, our projects are much more beautiful visually than Mistral. And - any of them.
    I don’t know how the filling is, but when looking at a French project, the first association is something like this:

    1. sso-xnumx
      sso-xnumx 24 November 2014 09: 29
      +3
      I saw this Mistral on the go, in the fall of 2013, he was leaving Toulon, somewhere in the Middle East. Trough trough ....
    2. Bayonet
      Bayonet 25 November 2014 06: 30
      +1
      Quote: Baikal
      In my opinion, our projects are much more beautiful visually than Mistral.

      Beautiful boats for the war on the table. And the real Mistrals are already afloat!
      1. Baikal
        Baikal 25 November 2014 08: 24
        +1
        That's right, you can’t argue)
  3. Per se.
    Per se. 24 November 2014 07: 18
    +9
    Realizing that the construction of the UDC, due to the lack of required shipbuilding capacities, is likely to lead to the abandonment of the construction of aircraft carriers of the 1143.5 project, they went to the trick. At the direction of the Commander-in-Chief, in the bow of the ship, directly on the flight deck, the AK-130 AU was placed
    Instead of such a "trick" it would be better to free the bow section under the flight deck with the installation of a bow springboard. Project 11780 UDC, I think, would be much more useful to our fleet than aircraft-carrying cruisers, especially if our VTOL aircraft could be based on them. A separate topic is the project of the atomic "Ulyanovsk", here the UDC is not a competitor to it.
    Helicopter carrier PLO, landing helicopter carrier (draft). The development of the PLO helicopter carrier based on the high-speed civilian container ship-roller carrier 1609 ave. was launched on the initiative of the deputy chief of the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces Admiral N.N. Amelko in 1978
    One of the most interesting projects that was destroyed by the original absurdity is the requirement of anti-submarine warfare from a ship created on the basis of a container ship with noisy mechanisms. It could well be a good landing helicopter carrier, as possibly a carrier of anti-submarine helicopters, with the transfer of the function of fighting boats to escort ships and helicopters. The project is interesting in that it allowed the creation of warships on the basis of civilians. Both of these projects could still be useful to our fleet.
    1. Gans1234
      24 November 2014 08: 13
      +9
      And the last of the 4x ships, the container-carrier missile carrier is now part of the US Navy - a tanker for landing operations - such a mighty ship
      1. avt
        avt 24 November 2014 09: 31
        +4
        Quote: Gans1234
        And the last of the 4x ships, the container-carrier missile carrier is now part of the US Navy - a tanker for landing operations - such a mighty ship

        It seems that they made a tie-in into it in several steps and increased the carrying capacity.
      2. Per se.
        Per se. 24 November 2014 21: 22
        +4
        Quote: Gans1234
        And the last of the 4x ships, the container carrier-roller, is now part of the US Navy
        We missed a lot of things, both the Soviet Union itself and its aircraft carrier fleet. Where their fools and skins did their best, where the Yankees fussed in advance, moreover, even against those ships that could only hypothetically be included in our Navy (this is both the purchase of rollers and a detective story on the release of the slipway with the unfinished Ulyanovsk).
        After the collapse of the USSR, all four rollers were privatized. Not knowing how to dispose of honestly acquired property, their owners sold four huge handsome men to Global Container Lines and Marianna Shipbuilding Ltd. In 2001-2002, three of them ended up in a scrap metal dump in India. The remaining "Vladimir Vaslyaev" joined the ranks of the US Navy.

        The Americans conducted a radical modernization of the ship: the ship's hull was disassembled and extended by inserting an additional section. The full displacement of the rokker increased to 50 thousand tons. The ship power station was replaced - the American equipment is designed for the frequency of the current 60 Hz. The rest of the design of the Roker is not changed - its unique power plant remained the same. Even with the USNS LCPL ROY M. increased in 1,5 fold, WHEAT is now able to develop 20 nodes. With the introduction of more automation, the crew of the Rokker was reduced to 29 people.
        Due to its unique characteristics, the former Soviet ship was selected among other 30 ships to the rapid reaction force group - an elite unit of the Shipping Command.
        In the photo USNS LCPL ROY M. WHEAT.
        1. Bayonet
          Bayonet 25 November 2014 06: 35
          +1
          Quote: Per se.
          Due to its unique characteristics, the former Soviet ship was selected among other 30 ships to the rapid reaction force group - an elite unit of the Shipping Command.

          Well, they say - the Yankees are stupid and fools. Not everything is so simple ...
    2. sso-xnumx
      sso-xnumx 24 November 2014 09: 35
      +2
      If our generals, etc., did not demand from the designers to create an BMP with vertical takeoff (the so-called "peacefully plowing Soviet tractor), many developments would be in service. But monetary funds for ministries, state awards, orders, medals, baronial titles , county ranks, etc. destroyed in the brain the area responsible for the expediency of creating the necessary equipment ...
    3. Dart2027
      Dart2027 24 November 2014 19: 21
      +2
      Quote: Per se.
      it would be better to empty the bow under the flight deck

      And even better - they would build additional stocks at any of the plants, since then they were enough.
  4. Wiruz
    Wiruz 24 November 2014 07: 37
    +3
    What a wonderful 1609 winked It’s a pity that they never realized
  5. Balamyt
    Balamyt 24 November 2014 08: 01
    +5
    But isn’t it time for us to pull such projects out of the dusty chests, those that never reached the building ???
    Many of them, probably a hundred points handicap will give the praised Mistral!
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 24 November 2014 08: 15
      +4
      Quote: Balamyt
      But isn’t it time for us to pull such projects out of the dusty chests, those that never reached the building ???
      Many of them, probably a hundred points handicap will give the praised Mistral!

      Will definitely give! In dreams and pictures ...
    2. Gans1234
      24 November 2014 08: 16
      +4
      I am for: the 11780 and 10200 Khalzan projects are very relevant and now - it’s a little to modify the weapons in the arsenal to remove the surplus, new radars / electronics and everything, they contain 2-3 moray eels
      At the same time as a warm-up before the construction of aircraft carriers in the future
      1. donavi49
        donavi49 24 November 2014 09: 52
        +11
        And there will be a number of unsolvable problems:

        - the liberation campaign in Nikolaev seems to be postponed indefinitely (until Ukraine falls apart - and this is very foggy). That is, there is no slipway, there is nowhere to build. Yes, and the plant will require 4-5 years of intensive resuscitation involving staff of advanced shipyards of the country and complete machine-tool re-equipment.

        - GEM. In Tarava, the boilers are identical to the 956 destroyer with all the consequences, in Halzan there are turbines with Dawns.

        - the format itself, if you redo the projects, everything will start again bit by bit, one will want to push the 100500 UKKS to the other, a large platform for receiving the Mi-26, the third something else, as a result, the story will repeat and the ship will grow into something unique and unimaginably expensive with a lot of unresolved technical and tactical issues. Here the approach must be changed to the assignment.
        1. Gomunkul
          Gomunkul 24 November 2014 12: 30
          +3
          - the liberation campaign in Nikolaev seems to be postponed indefinitely (until Ukraine falls apart - and this is very foggy).
          I can assume that the liberation campaign against Nikolaev was postponed not only for the collapse of Ukraine, but for the population of Ukraine to realize that there would be no freebie and association with the EU was not a bright future. Brzezinski made a mistake here, Russia refuses to finance the anti-Russian Ukrainian government, and even the EU does not really want to invest in the new European colony of the United States. hi
          1. chudoudodelt
            chudoudodelt 24 November 2014 13: 49
            +5
            "Brzezinski was wrong here"
            But what is Brzezinski right about? Rare Polish Gamnetso
      2. AKM9
        AKM9 24 November 2014 12: 55
        +3
        Thanks Gans, good article. God help you in your labors. We had a glorious fleet and excellent development.
    3. avt
      avt 24 November 2014 09: 50
      +7
      Quote: Balamyt
      Many of them, probably a hundred points handicap will give the praised Mistral!

      laughing As sketch designs and models, even for the Krylovsky basin - probably yes, but as specific documentation for the manufacture of a very specific ship - so read the interview with the head of the USC - 7-8 years, and now you should put all 10 for PROJECT DEVELOPMENT! So in the 15-year perspective there are NO replacements for the Mistrals in the Navy, and the most offensive thing is NOT FOREIGNED! request
      Quote: Nayhas
      Will definitely give! In dreams and pictures ..

      good
      Quote: Gans1234
      and now it’s a little to modify them in the arsenal of weapons to remove the surplus

      laughing You really stood behind the kulman, and then you performed at least some kind of mechanism on site at the factory! ?? Just look above what terms, and obviously optimistic, the current head of the USC said through clenched teeth about the construction of the UDC with us.
      Quote: Gans1234
      I am for: projects 11780 and 10200 Halzan

      From "Khalzan" in general, the naval forces themselves pushed aside as they could and I heard the version that Omelchenko muddied this version in order not to build aircraft carriers - somehow he leaned more on submarines. preoccupied "anti-submarine war", well, it so happened that the amers had a head start on the possibilities of deployment and again SOSUS ruffled their nerves, so 11780 burned out in these intrigues. And he is frankly sorry. These, instead of 1174, are clearly not enough! With regard to the alterations of their civilian ships - well, in the USSR there was quite a good help for the UDC in the person of lighters and Arctic suppliers. Here is how, on the basis of them, it would be necessary to replace the BDK with the current one. And you got a good review! good Visible and easy to read.
      1. AKM9
        AKM9 24 November 2014 13: 04
        +6
        Hello AVT, it all depends on the political will of the leadership. Take China, it was an agrarian country that was, one might say, in the "Stone Age", and now it is a world power with a mind-boggling speed of development of science and industry. The leadership needs to change its outlook, and I think that rose-colored glasses have already fallen from clear eyes. We need an industrial revolution and we can tough it, then there will be a fleet and aviation, and so on.
        1. avt
          avt 24 November 2014 16: 36
          +1
          Quote: AKM9
          Hello AVT,

          hi
          Quote: AKM9
          it all depends on the political will of the leadership.

          “The vocation of the leader is the greatness of the nation, the destiny of the leader is modesty, the profession of the leader is the exact correspondence of promises with their fulfillment.” - Julian Semenov - Leander “Seventeen Moments of Spring” bully
  6. hohryakov066
    hohryakov066 24 November 2014 09: 52
    +2
    We’ll burn ourselves on the Mistral and get their hands on their projects.
  7. BBlad
    BBlad 24 November 2014 09: 56
    +1
    And most importantly, these ships were to be built in Russia, and they were quite tough for Russian industry (at least in the late 90s).
    Well, Medvedev and Serdyukov just need it in the teeth for "Mistral", but now what prevents dust from the USSR projects, to modify under the existing conditions and into a series? And let them eat the "Mistrals" themselves, and let them give money for the implementation of our old-new projects (at the expense of fines for late execution of orders). Let's create our own, and let the "Mistral" swallow the dust then after our high-speed beauties.
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 24 November 2014 10: 11
      +5
      Well, Medvedev and Serdyukov just need it in the teeth for "Mistral", but now what prevents dust from the USSR projects, to modify under the existing conditions and into a series?


      1) Nowhere to build, even in perspective.
      2) There is no GEM - only nuclear and diesel (boilers disappear due to zero operational survivability, and learn how to produce turbines of such power closer to the 30 years, according to optimistic calculations).
      3) Various disputes in the Navy on the topic, but what is needed ?!
      4) Distrust in crafts because 7-8 years and 20 lard rubles - in fact, will grow to 10-12 and 50-70 lard.

      In general, the ship is most likely not with a solid, but with a stern and less in volume. Like Makassar - if adequats win, or 071 if moderate. But there are advance options on 45-50k tons for the lobby of lovers of large and universal.
      1. gallville
        gallville 24 November 2014 13: 36
        +3
        Quote: donavi49
        Nowhere to build, even in perspective.

        Shipbuilding Plant Zaliv JSC specializes in commercial shipbuilding, shipbuilding for the oil and gas sector, the manufacture of offshore structures and marine engineering products. The plant has 2 technological lines for building ships - a slipway with a carrying capacity of 2300 tons and a dry dock 360 m long and 60 m wide.
        Factory "Bay" in Kerch
        Of course, he won’t pull on an aircraft carrier, but the UDC in the dock will stand up.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 24 November 2014 16: 14
        +2
        Quote: donavi49
        Nowhere to build, even in perspective.

        Sinking ... In Sevamsha - easy, even now
        1. donavi49
          donavi49 24 November 2014 17: 41
          0
          Only in Sevmash they don’t know about it. And yes, work on the expansion program has almost stopped in the last year. Yes, and the loading of the enterprise, also do not forget.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 November 2014 17: 31
            +2
            Quote: donavi49
            Only in Sevmash they don’t know about it.

            Do not identify with Sevmash.
            Quote: donavi49
            And yes, work on the expansion program has almost stopped in the last year

            Just climb the site of Sevmash and see what ships it can build
            Quote: donavi49
            Yes, and the loading of the enterprise, also do not forget.

            We have finished "Vikramaditya" relatively recently - it is just possible to start something new laughing
        2. Dart2027
          Dart2027 24 November 2014 19: 26
          +2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          At Sevamsha - easy, even now

          Do not. Better to complete the series of Boreans and Ash-trees, fix the Pike-B and modernize the Orlan. But the Baltic Plant seems to have successfully built part of the Mistral Corps - you could try it.
          But there is no finished project, unfortunately.
          1. avt
            avt 24 November 2014 19: 43
            +1
            Quote: Dart2027
            But the Baltic Plant seems to have successfully built part of the Mistral Corps - you could try it.

            Let, according to the contract, make the 3rd and 4th "Mistral" in 2-3 years, on which the fleet will work, and prepare a new UDC project with the account of the exploitation of the "French", that is, they will do what they did in due time having received from France, , Tsarevich ", issued a series of Borodino" - "Glory" and its revised version - "Andrew the First-Called", "Pavel". Well, it's not funny to have ships of 1966 in service !!! give the first one - give them more, just like the first, two to do. laughing Then exactly in two years we will have four. laughing
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 24 November 2014 21: 06
              +1
              Quote: avt
              Let, according to the contract, make the 3rd and 4th "Mistral" in 2-3 years

              Honestly, I did not understand whether they should or should not build the 3rd and 4th Mistrals. In different places it was said differently.
              Quote: avt
              and prepare a new project of UDC with accounting for operation

              The project is preparing a design bureau, not a factory.
              1. dmitreach
                dmitreach 24 November 2014 23: 01
                +1
                Honestly, I did not understand whether they should or should not build the 3rd and 4th Mistrals. In different places it was said differently.

                Should not. The subject has changed.

                There was such a mess in the media because journalists covered process negotiations. At that time, no one knew the future. There were only "Wishlist" and "Probabilities". The formula: 2 + 2, as well as the degree of localization of production in Russia (for four: 20% / 40% / 60% / 80%) - this is all from the same "opera".
                Before the "critical moment" - "categorical rejection by the people", different things were assumed. I had to add populism. We agreed on: Building TWA together, with varying degrees of production localization. Try them in operation and decide (but we understand) ... is it worth making two more, in Russia, under a license. (After finalizing the project with a file, for our roads)
                The agreement was concluded for TWO + SOME AGREEMENT, for two more "probable" ones. (Like: wanting to get married - not ...) Obviously, the latter was said, Secondly (!) to calm the "electorate". Painfully, the deal was not popular. We (the public) would be told after a year of operation of the "Vladik" - they say: good / rules / good cow / efficient weight - to build eZsho. Did not work out.
                But firstly (!), negotiated a tidbit BIUS - zenith9 and other know-how from the French. French therefore imposed a series. Say order one (two, all the same a little), CIUS - Fig. They are not fools either.
                Conclusion: 3 and 4 Mistral would be built, with correction according to the results of operation of the first.
                JV USC / DCNS was created for this project and for the "future".
                Did not work out.
  8. Tirpitz
    Tirpitz 24 November 2014 10: 24
    +2
    Back in the USSR in the 1980s, they already realized the need for a landing ship for over-the-horizon landing. And the projects were developed. And here in the 21st century they still argue about the need for such a ship.
    1. Gans1234
      24 November 2014 20: 02
      +2
      Here I am about the same.
      Current ships correspond to the concept of the middle of the last century.
      And to change in accordance with modern requirements and foreign experience is a break-it’s the same mess. It's easier to scream that slag, and no escort
  9. sivuch
    sivuch 24 November 2014 10: 36
    +8
    "In the photographs, the aircraft carrier KMPV" Dolphin "
    I worked in Severny. I didn’t hear about the dolphin. But the Mercury project really existed in several missionaries, including and such
    PS
    Admiral Amelko, not Amelchenko
  10. cobalt
    cobalt 24 November 2014 10: 37
    +2
    There is such a book by Tom Clancy "The Red Storm Rises" It just describes the situation when ours used these very Ro-ro-roers for an effective and fast landing of the Marine Corps to capture Iceland. Moreover, they transported boats on an air cushion, which were used in the attack and helicopters. Already in the 80s, the West understood the potential of our possible use of these ships, they were afraid of this. I read somewhere that the Americans bought these ships from us in the 90s and are now using them in their auxiliary fleet for landing operations.
    1. Gomunkul
      Gomunkul 24 November 2014 13: 01
      0
      It just describes the situation when ours used these same skaters to efficiently and quickly land a marine corps to capture Iceland.
      Writers can write whatever they want, but if we are guided by logic, then Iceland itself is of no value (unless, of course, we are talking about control over the Arctic). The US military command is by no means stupid, that's why they came up with the so-called "soft power", the effect of the latter we observe in the form of color revolutions, which are much cheaper for the US budget than a direct military invasion. hi
    2. The comment was deleted.
  11. Tektor
    Tektor 24 November 2014 11: 40
    +4
    We will have a DVD type Mistral. What's bad about it? It incorporates a proven logic: it has almost no flaws. Obviously, we need to work to eliminate the existing, such as low speed full speed and weak armament. The main advantage is that we can build it quickly: our shipbuilders have proved it. I see no reason to be upset. Definitely, with the advent of Mistral in the Navy, its capabilities will increase.
    1. D-Master
      D-Master 24 November 2014 12: 01
      +1
      In addition, there will be a technology for building such ships at Russian shipyards with elaborated technical documentation - which is more than good. (IMHO of course)
    2. Val_y
      Val_y 24 November 2014 12: 20
      -1
      Oh well, no flaws!?!?!? Yes, it now requires huge investments in infrastructure, besides it is necessary to change the concept of the entire Navy and, in particular, the method of landing (not directly to the shore, but over-the-horizon as part of the AUG) so ...
      1. avt
        avt 24 November 2014 12: 58
        +7
        Quote: Val_Y
        Yes, it now requires huge investments in infrastructure,

        Yeah, and our aircraft carriers did not need coastal infrastructure. wassat from that and burned on barrels. negative
        Quote: Val_Y
        , besides, it is necessary to change the concept of the entire Navy and, in particular, the landing method itself (not directly to the shore, but over-the-horizon as part of the AUG) so ...

        Yes ! This is grief and misfortune in practice! wassat Indeed - the brain must be strained and generally learn to plan and organize the landing in a new way. Tolley is the case in the old way - pile on the old tank assault BDK, dump what you got to the shore and dump if something is afloat. wassat But how much later you can sing the courage of sailors and marines who fell in battle! Well, about the heroic landing from the BDK under fire.
      2. gregor6549
        gregor6549 24 November 2014 13: 00
        +2
        So maybe it's time to change? You can’t be a little bit pregnant all the time. Or sit on the coast under the guise of coastal aviation and air defense systems, or be ready for war in any corner of the oceans. If the latter, then the ocean fleet, balanced in terms of forces and means, cannot be dispensed with, including without aircraft-carrying ships. After all, even nuclear submarines need a solid cover both at the deployment stage and at all subsequent stages. Otherwise, a mighty nuclear submarine can become easy prey for a frail helicopter or PLO aircraft and no MANPADS like Arrow or its analogs will save the nuclear submarines even if there are a lot of them on the submarine. The Chinese have already realized this and are developing their fleet at an accelerated pace precisely in this direction. Moreover, along with surface aircraft carriers, variants of submarine aircraft carriers, including those on which UAVs will be based, are in full swing. Indeed, for the use of UAVs, it is not necessary to have take-off and landing decks the size of a football field and huge hangars. For their transportation and launch, rocket mines or torpedo tubes of a submarine are quite suitable. And the loss of UAVs is not as sensitive as the loss of a manned aircraft.
      3. Dart2027
        Dart2027 24 November 2014 19: 29
        +1
        Quote: Val_Y
        in addition, under it, it is necessary to change the concept of the entire Navy

        How tired of the lovers of concepts.
        The concept of A.V. Suvorov, who did not lose a single battle, was simple and tested in practice:
        "A bullet is a fool, a bayonet is great"
        What's next? Will we give up machine guns?
      4. The comment was deleted.
    3. gallville
      gallville 24 November 2014 13: 27
      0
      Quote: Tektor
      weak armament.

      Armament is limping. Although it is completely solvable if you solve this problem without forgetting that it is UDC, and not a frigate or destroyer.
      Judging by open sources, the Mistral of the Russian Federation will have 2 bending and 2 AK-630. Remove bending and put two, or even better four, shell-m. Add Package-NK.
      In general, that’s all. What else is there to invent?
      1. donavi49
        donavi49 24 November 2014 13: 50
        +2
        There are something to invent:

        Bending is still the last generation of the last contour and ultralight MD. There is no new complex - which is necessary not only for UDC, but in general for the entire fleet, on the basis of more efficient missiles (in the world of WW-Sideweider / Chinese clone with P-60 elements).

        Shell-M does not exist.

        The NK-package is not needed if there is no means of detection, and from here follows the HAC and alterations.
        1. gallville
          gallville 24 November 2014 15: 17
          0
          Quote: donavi49
          Shell-M does not exist

          Broadsword / Palm. In general, you need to finish the shell.
          Quote: donavi49
          The NK-package is not needed if there is no means of detection, and from here follows the HAC and alterations.

          Just the same. There are a lot of submarines, therefore fighting off torpedoes with what is necessary. There will be no excess.
  12. gallville
    gallville 24 November 2014 13: 21
    +2
    Quote: Val_Y
    Yes, it now requires huge investments in infrastructure,

    Are there ships under which infrastructure is unnecessary?

    Quote: Val_Y
    in addition, under it, it is necessary to change the concept of the entire Navy and in particular the method of landing (not directly to the shore, but beyond the horizon as part of the AUG) so ...

    And what prevents planting as before? Moray eels or whatever he will have in the dock as a BDK can approach the shore.
    And on the subject of AUG. It depends on where to plant. If on their own Kuril Islands the range of the land-based air force is quite enough. And in general, what kind of landing is it without at least "temporary" air supremacy on the coast (c). Here the question is much broader. Where to actually apply. At home near the borders or somewhere in Africa.
    So Mistral is quite a ship. It will provide both cargo and deliver cargo at a time greater than BDK (Syria), and will drop saboteurs (by helicopter), and the embassy will evacuate, and the connection will drop off to its own islands without port infrastructure.
  13. xomaNN
    xomaNN 24 November 2014 15: 57
    0
    As a fallback, if the French return the money instead of the washed-out "mistrals", the actual developments of the UDC are quite useful. A question with stocks. Is that Nikolaev as part of the NNR to Russia to take smile And there already from the shipyard there is one name and the skeleton of the unfinished KR 1164pr.
  14. Number 17
    Number 17 24 November 2014 18: 52
    +1
    And the ships are handsome. Something similar to TARK. Associations with museum exhibits in Leningrad. Yes, yes, I was not in St. Petersburg, I found Leningrad.
    1. Gans1234
      24 November 2014 20: 07
      +1
      From tomorrow, there will be a selection of models of aircraft carriers, daily, until the next week, according to 15-20 photos. It remains only Varyag and Kuznets to find photos of models, the rest are already in the queue for almost a week
  15. Bradypodidae
    Bradypodidae 24 November 2014 23: 17
    0
    Of all the projects, 1609 was liked the most. Everything was thought out, nothing more. Just a ship on the topic. The rest of the projects are frankly unsuccessful. They stuffed a lot of extra.