Mistralnaya epic: failure, reprimand and "Rhinos"

78
The further fate of the two helicopter landing craft-docks (MFDD) of the Mistral project, built in France by order of Russia, remains the subject of controversy. The first ship was supposed to be handed over to the Russian side last fall, but it still remains at the wall of the French shipbuilding plant. Last week, with a difference of several days, a number of new reports appeared on the possible continuation of the epic with landing ships for the Russian Navy.



Refusal of ships

On Tuesday, 26 in May, domestic media outlined the current plans of the Russian leadership. Oleg Bochkarev, deputy chairman of the board of the Military-Industrial Commission of Russia, said that the fact that Russia does not take French-built ships can be considered a fait accompli. Now the topic of discussion is the amount that the French side must pay Russia for non-fulfillment of the order. Domestic media have perceived these words as unofficial confirmation that the Russian leadership no longer intends to demand the delivery of built ships, but is also going to receive all the money paid from an unscrupulous contractor.

O. Bochkarev also said that Russia does not plan to abandon the construction of landing ships. However, due to problems with foreign countries, all such projects will be implemented independently. O. Bochkarev noted that when developing a new project, the goal would not be to copy the French Mistrals. Since the Russian military have different views on the methods of landing, promising domestic ships will differ markedly from the French technology. In particular, it is not planned to build full-fledged helicopter-carrying ships.

According to domestic media reports, the French side did not respond to such statements by O. Bochkarev. Official Paris intends to negotiate, but is not going to make any serious statements before they begin. As a result, the statements of the deputy chairman of the MIC collegium remained without comment from French officials.

Rebuke

27 May edition of Kommersant reported on the reaction of officials to the statements of O. Bochkarev. According to the newspaper, on Tuesday evening, Deputy Prime Minister and Chairman of the Military Industrial College Dmitry Rogozin found out about Bochkarev’s words. He responded to the statements of his deputy, which turned out to be a severe reprimand for the latter. Sources of Kommersant reported that the reason for such a recovery were both incorrect public statements and factual mistakes made by O. Bochkarev.

The reason for the recovery was an incorrect statement about the ordered ships of French construction. Official Moscow does not plan to abandon ships, and the statements of O. Bochkarev were at least premature. Thus, Deputy Prime Minister D. Rogozin was forced to respond to incorrect words of his subordinate and resort to penalties.

Also, the Kommersant publication, citing its sources in the government, wrote that the deputy chairman of the military-industrial complex collegium is responsible for the supply of weapons and military equipment to ground and airborne troops, but has never been involved in any negotiations. As a result of this incident, D. Rogozin ordered the development of regulations for communication with the press. In particular, it is proposed to coordinate comments for the media with the chairman of the MIC panel.

Intended replacement

Others appeared last Wednesday newsrelated to the landing ship construction program. The Interfax news agency, citing an unnamed source in the shipbuilding industry, said that in the event of a complete disruption in the supply of Mistral-type ships, the Russian Navy could find a replacement for them. There is no doubt that it will take some time to build their ships of this class. In that case, the naval the fleet a temporary replacement may be necessary, which will help to provide the required combat potential for the time while completely new ships will be built.

As a temporary replacement for the Mistral ships are offered large landing ships of the project Rhino 1174. With the help of repair and modernization, two ships of this type can be returned to service: the “Alexander Nikolaev” and the “Mitrofan Moskalenko”. Currently, these BDK are in reserve, but can be restored.

The source of Interfax notes that the ships of the 1174 project are equipped with a dock camera for landing craft, and can also carry helicopters. Thus, to a certain extent, it differs from the Mistral or other similar ships, the BDK of the 1174 project is actually the DVKD. Nevertheless, the domestic "rhinos" for a number of characteristics inferior to the French ships. For example, domestic ships can carry only 4 helicopters against 16, and their maximum cruising range is almost three times less and reaches only 7500 nautical miles. At the same time, the amphibious assault ships of the two projects have a similar capacity and can carry up to 480-500 marines. In addition, the ships have great differences in the composition of weapons.

The Interfax agency writes that the hulls of the ships “Alexander Nikolaev” and “Mitrofan Moskalenko” are in good condition, but serious repair will be required for full restoration. The industry will have to change a number of systems, including the main power plant. However, for now this is only speculation. According to an unnamed source, the decision to start the restoration of ships from the reserve has not yet been made.

The proposal to return to the BDK project 1174 "Rhino" is of particular interest. According to their capabilities, these ships meet some requirements for helicopter landing ships-docks. Thus, with certain restrictions, “Rhinos” can be considered as a temporary alternative to the French “Mistrals”. Nevertheless, the implementation of such proposals can prevent a solid age of domestic ships.

Project 1174

The development of the project of the large landing ship 1174 with the cipher "Rhino" began in September 1964. The creation of the project was entrusted to the Nevsky Design Bureau (PKB). The chief designer of the new BDK was PP. Milovanov. Captain 2 of rank A.V. was appointed observer from the Navy. Bekhterev. During the design work the customer several times edited the technical task. The development of the fleet and armaments forced the military to make new demands. One of the main factors that influenced the appearance of the "Rhinos" was the emergence of the first information about the creation of American universal landing ships of the Tarawa type.

The influence of the American project was to expand the capabilities of the landing. A bow dock with a lap port was added to the bow gates, traditional for domestic BDK, for landing on shore or on water. In addition, it was decided to increase the composition aviation ship groups. Due to all the improvements and changes, the project development was noticeably delayed. The technical project was approved only in May 1968, and the laying of the lead ship of the project took place in September 1973.

Requirements for using the docking chamber and surround tank decks led to the use of a characteristic layout with the placement of the maximum possible number of nodes and systems in the superstructure. The ship of project 1174 received a hull with a total length of 157,5 m, a width of 23,8 m with a normal draft of 6,7 m. The normal displacement was 11580 tons, the total displacement was 14060 tons. The ship had a characteristic appearance with a forecastle equipped with an artillery mount; superstructure shifted to the stern and two helipads. The crew of the ship consisted of 239 people, including 37 officers.

In the two onboard compartments of the hull there were two gas-turbine power plants with 18 thousand hp power, connected with two propellers. Such a power plant allows you to reach speeds up to 20 units. The normal cruising range was 4000 nautical miles. Maximum fuel reserves and economic speed of 14 nodes allowed to go up to 7500 miles.

Almost all the internal hull volumes of the BNC 1174 project were devoted to the placement of the landing force and its equipment. For the 500 Marines provided for cockpit and officer cabins. A tank bilge with a length of 54 m, a width of 12 m and a height of 5 m was located in the forward part of the hull. . The first gangway connected the tank deck and the dock chamber, and when raised, served as a bulkhead between them. The other two were intended for communication between the upper deck and tank holds.

For loading and disembarking, vehicles of the "Rhino" type could use swinging bow gates and aft lazport. In the first case, when approaching the coast or at a distance from it, a gangway of length 32 m was advanced, along which the equipment could descend to land or water. In the ship's transom, a lazport was provided with a flap that covered the dock chamber. If necessary, it could be used as a gangway, and also provided an exit from the ship of the landing craft.

Depending on the intended tasks, the 1174 BDK project could be loaded only with armored vehicles or armored vehicles and landing craft. When using the dock camera as an additional deck for land or floating equipment, ships could take on board up to 50 PT-76 type tanks, 80 armored personnel carriers or infantry fighting vehicles, or no more than 120 vehicles. Dimensions of the dock camera made it possible to transport six landing boats of the 1785 project or the 1176 "Shark" project. It also provided transportation of three hovercraft of the 1206 “Kalmar” project. On the landing sites were four Ka-29 helicopters, each of which could carry 16 fighters with weapons.

For the protection and fire support of the landing force, the 1174 ships carried a set of artillery and rocket weapons. Artillery armament consisted of one 76-mm AK-726 rifle mounted on a forecastle and four AK-360 anti-aircraft rifles. Air defense was provided by the Osa-M missile system and four columns for the installation of MANPADS. To support the landing it was supposed to use 2 MLRS A-215 "Grad-M".

The lead ship of the 1174 project received the name "Ivan Rogov" and was laid down in September 1973. This BDK was launched on 31 on May 77, and in June of the following year they were accepted into the fleet. The ship "Alexander Nikolaev" was built from 1976 to 1982 year. In the last days of December, 82 was handed to the customer. The third and final "Rhino", "Mitrofan Moskalenko", was laid in the spring of 1984 and adopted by the fleet in the autumn of 1990.

The first two ships of the project 1174 served until the mid-nineties. The ships "Ivan Rogov" and "Alexander Nikolaev" were taken to the reserve in 1996 and 1997, respectively. Mitrofan Moskalenko continued to serve until 2002. As follows from recent reports, recently there was a proposal to restore the second and third ships of the project in order to equip the navy with large amphibious ships with high performance.

Prospects Offers

The proposal to restore the two BDK project 1174 "Rhino" to equip the fleet with the necessary equipment for the period of development and construction of a full-fledged Russian DVKD looks very interesting. For all of its problems, such a proposal theoretically allows for the necessary ships to be transferred to the fleet relatively quickly. However, already at the discussion stage of the proposal, one can find its weak points.

The main problem of this project is cost. According to the Interfax source, the hulls of the two landing ships are well preserved, but some units will need to be replaced, including the main power plant. This news alone can cast doubt on the feasibility of the entire project. Replacing engines and related equipment leads to the need to develop a new complex project that will necessarily affect the duration and cost of work.

In addition to the engines, you will have to change the mass of other systems that no longer meet the requirements of time The ships of the 1174 project were built in the seventies and eighties, which determines the composition of weapons and airborne equipment. All these features of restoration should be taken into account in the project of repair and modernization. As a result, the project will become even more difficult and more expensive.

In general, the proposed restoration of the two "Rhinos" significantly resembles the project currently underway to restore two heavy nuclear missile cruisers of the 1144 project. It is expected that the restoration of these ships, implying repairs, as well as the installation of new weapons and special equipment, will strengthen the navy. However, due to the complexity of all the necessary work for their implementation, a few years are given.

In the case of the BDK project 1174, all the necessary work can also last for several years and cost billions of rubles. The possible correlation of the cost and duration of the repair should be considered when determining the feasibility of such a project. In addition, the military will have to determine the capabilities of the shipbuilding industry. Restoration of two amphibious ships should not hit other projects, including the design and construction of promising Russian-made DKKDs.

Finally, it is necessary to take into account the characteristics of ships after modernization. According to its characteristics (first of all, roominess) "Rhinos" surpass all landing ships in the Russian Navy. However, even after the upgrade, they may not fully meet the requirements of the time.

The future of the Russian fleet of amphibious ships has not yet been determined. DVKD "Mistral" still remain in France, and their fate is the subject of controversy. This year it is planned to hand over to the fleet the lead ship of the 11711 “Ivan Gren” project, which is being built from 2004 of the year. In addition, there was a proposal to restore two BDK project 1174. It is already known about the plans of the Ministry of Defense to begin construction of the second BDK project 11711. What will be the fate of "Mistral" and "Rhinos" - time will tell.


On the materials of the sites:
http://tass.ru/
http://interfax.ru/
http://ria.ru/
http://rg.ru/
http://svpressa.ru/
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

78 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +11
    1 June 2015 06: 26
    The reason for the recovery was an incorrect statement about the ordered ships French construction. Official Moscow does not plan to abandon the ships, and O. Bochkarev's statements were, at a minimum, premature.

    It is somehow doubtful that Bochkarev’s statement was an accidental gag. On the other hand, if it was planned from above, then the question arises - for what purpose.
    1. +5
      1 June 2015 10: 04
      According to domestic media reports, the French side did not respond to such statements by O. Bochkarev. Official Paris intends to negotiate, but is not going to make any serious statements before they begin. As a result, the statements of the deputy chairman of the MIC collegium remained without comment from French officials.

      So the negotiations were effectively thwarted by the French. Upon arrival in Moscow, conditions were offered (in a categorical form!) That suited only one paddling pool. Like: here's the solution, you just have to sign it. From ours followed a categorical refusal to conduct such "negotiations". The French left on the same day, without even having time to check into the hotel.
      http://www.rg.ru/2015/05/29/mistral-anons.html
      http://flot.com/2015/%CC%E8%F1%F2%F0%E0%EB%FC37/

      In the photo: another trolling about the Mistrals from the Russian Foreign Ministry hi
    2. +7
      1 June 2015 11: 32
      We are familiar with the design documentation for the Mistrals, we built the stern ourselves, the internal communications were made for us and with our participation. I think we can safely build copies of the Mistrals, "changing the shape of the anchor" and declaring that this is purely our design. We need to learn this from the Chinese.
    3. +6
      1 June 2015 17: 33
      1. The restoration and construction of new DVKD in the current state of shipbuilding will take the same time and will come out in the same amount if the restoration of the Rhinos does not come out even more expensive.
      2. Buy from the Chinese, they will quickly and inexpensively build a type of Tarawa, or even they have similar projects:
      1. avt
        +3
        1 June 2015 17: 46
        Quote: Civil
        2. Buy from the Chinese, they will quickly and inexpensively build a type of Tarawa, or even they have similar projects:

        good For a year, they will definitely make a box with dvigl and pick it up for completion. Current question is - do they make the engines themselves ???? We somehow have the trouble themselves ....
      2. +4
        1 June 2015 17: 56
        Quote: Civil
        if the restoration of the Rhino does not come out even more expensive.

        And the resource will be less than the new ...
    4. +2
      1 June 2015 17: 51
      Quote: Hairy Siberian
      It is somehow doubtful that Bochkarev’s statement was an accidental gag.

      Of course, they perfectly understand how such a gag can end and lose nobody who wants to go so warm and satisfying a place that they diligently went to! smile
  2. +28
    1 June 2015 06: 30
    And the name of one of the ships is very symbolic "Sevastopol"!
  3. +9
    1 June 2015 06: 35
    The situation around the DVKD is complex and there is simply no clarity about the vectors of development. Modernization of "Rhinos" is an expensive business and, unlike "Orlans", I think it does not bring significant benefits. The purchase of the Mistrals was needed, among other things, for obtaining technologies for the construction of large-block ships and obtaining control systems. The goals are partially met, how the business ends - we'll see.
    1. Evgen4ik
      +6
      1 June 2015 09: 50
      The situation around the DVKD is complex and there is simply no clarity about the vectors of development. Modernization of "Rhinos" is an expensive business and, unlike "Orlans", I think it does not bring significant benefits. The purchase of the Mistrals was needed, among other things, for obtaining technologies for the construction of large-block ships and obtaining control systems. The goals are partially met, how the business ends - we'll see.

      As for technology, this is a moot point. because it is still an export version and the main performance characteristics there are an order of magnitude lower than on analogues in the NATO army. Another thing is that we made part of Mistral with us. And the second 2 should have been completely done on Russian witches. The question is whether they managed to get these technologies. If so, then you can make a good UDC, while equipped with powerful air defense systems.
      But here the main priority of this task. In my opinion, Russia is now more important to get destroyers than large barges.
      1. +4
        1 June 2015 12: 30
        Quote: Evgen4ik
        But here the main priority of this task. In my opinion, Russia is now more important to get destroyers than large barges.

        I think so too. The construction of the destroyers of the Leader and Shkval project should become one of the priority tasks, on a par with the construction of the Borey-A nuclear submarine and the Yasenei-M submarine.
  4. +1
    1 June 2015 06: 48
    Hollande -French -man)) return the money now
    1. +1
      1 June 2015 10: 17
      The word is silver, silence is gold.
      1. +3
        1 June 2015 11: 15
        Why do these rhinos, hippos, it's time to set ambitious goals for industry and not be afraid. This is the only way to move forward, and all these alterations - trampling on the spot and + is not cheap at all.
    2. 0
      1 June 2015 18: 02
      Quote: Sasha_Bykov
      Hollande -French -man)) return the money now

      Sasha! Wrote to the wrong address - letters to the President of France should be sent to: Monsieur le Président de la République Palais de l'Elysée 55, rue du faubourg Saint-Honoré 75008 Paris France / France. hi
  5. +2
    1 June 2015 06: 51
    Honestly, I don't understand why Mistrals are needed (BDK, DVKD). It seems to me that this is the last century! Landing on ekranoplanes is many times faster and more unexpected for the enemy than these "sheds" on the water. And when captured, then you can drag the transport with the rest of the cargo ... and the removal of people in cruise ships is many times more comfortable and pleasant.
    1. avt
      +5
      1 June 2015 11: 04
      Quote: EGOrkka
      ! Landing on ekranoplanes is many times faster and more unexpected for the enemy than these "sheds" on the water.

      I myself like ekranoplanes, but why again, this search for the prodigy ??? This
      Quote: EGOrkka
      sorry these "sheds" on the water

      Normal ocean platform does not require rework as
      Quote: EGOrkka
      ... and the removal of people in cruise ships is many times more comfortable and enjoyable.

      With quite the possibility of a command post / headquarters ship and a floating hospital with an aviation, albeit only a helicopter, wing. Of course, I would like to have a full-fledged UDC - an analogue of amers. This is the same type of ship that the Navy lacks, however, as well as its escort ships, for presence in the OCEAN, not for coastal sailing. What are the “geoacademic experts” whining about before spitting on the Mistrals, saying that we have no tasks for them. With regret, we can state that if the Franks don’t give up two ships, then in the foreseeable years Russia will have 10-15 there will be no analogues .. request no matter how many potstrioty panties pull on their nose - they say we will do it ourselves. In fact, we will stay with the Soviet BDK and the long-suffering "Gren".
      Quote: FM-78
      ... I understand that "Tsarevich" and others like them have not taught our state anything, it's a shame.

      fool The passage with history is definitely not at ease - the Tsarevich "honestly plowed up military service, like his Russian continuation -" Glory ", not to mention the others-
      Quote: 25ru
      They walked and walked. The Tsesarevich served as a prototype for the Borodino EBR series - the largest series of main class ships in that Russia. "Svetlana" - fought in Tsushima to critical damage. "Admiral Kornilov" - sailed all possible service life. BrKr "Bayan" - deservedly recognized as the best ship of the 1st TOE and became a prototype in a series of 3 units.
      How did the French ships not please you?
      and there was also a series of destroyers plowed the First World War. By the way - look for and find about those ships and the Kosygin series lighter carrier that the USA bought and included in their auxiliary fleet with military transports.
      1. +5
        1 June 2015 12: 34
        Quote: avt
        1 ... but why again, this search for the prodigy ???
        2 ... if the Franks do not give up two ships, then in the foreseeable 10-15 years Russia will have no analogues

        If you catch up, you can not catch up at all! As it is necessary .... across!
        and. We have already done ekranoplans ...
        b. The construction of an ekranoplan is faster than an ocean ship ....
        at. Technology in the aircraft industry is one level higher than in shipbuilding.
        In terms of mobility, secrecy, surprise, ekranoplanes are many times ahead of the navy.
        e. Its developed niche will allow you to earn on civilian orders.
        1. avt
          +3
          1 June 2015 13: 22
          Quote: EGOrkka
          As it is necessary .... across!

          It is necessary. But it is stupid to oppose ekranoplanes to displacement ships, they need to qualitatively complement the diverse forces of the Navy. Besides, they are still rather fragile creatures in order to hang out in the ocean for months to at least demonstrate the flag. Enough that we have the Black Sea Fleet already type "Bora" in the Mediterranean with this function directed.
          Quote: EGOrkka
          In terms of mobility, secrecy, surprise, ekranoplanes are many times ahead of the navy.
          e. Its developed niche will allow you to earn on civilian orders.

          So leave them the functions in which their performance characteristics are revealed. Here, first of all, it is necessary to use them in the PLO, and in fact the long-range reconnaissance of target designation and as shock, well, as high-speed transport, but not of the first wave. It is too expensive to lose fragile, by no means cheap, devices, compared to landing boats, on the beach under fire.
          1. +3
            1 June 2015 13: 55
            The question is not in opposition, but in a qualitative change in the existing situation, given the available resources. Do we really need to carry out amphibious operations? do we need fire support helicopters? And why should only ships give them a lift? And what if the helicopters, during the over-the-horizon landing, arrive at point "D" on ekranoplanes ??? !!!!! If there is a "helicopter maintenance container" in the group of ships !!!! I'm not talking about linear solutions! I'm about the way out of the situation!
            1. avt
              0
              1 June 2015 14: 02
              Quote: EGOrkka
              And why should only ships give them a lift? And what if the helicopters, during the over-the-horizon landing, arrive at point "D" on ekranoplanes ??? !!!!! If there is a "helicopter servicing container ship" in the group of ships !!!!

              laughing So it turns out that a floating platform - an airfield, preferably built in peacetime and fully specialized for receiving and servicing an air wing, is needed, as I said earlier about the rest.
              Quote: avt
              . Here, first of all, it is necessary to use them in the PLO, and actually the long-range reconnaissance of target designation and as shock, well, as high-speed transport, but not of the first wave
              1. +1
                1 June 2015 14: 12
                Quote: avt

                if the francs do not give back two ships, then in the foreseeable 10-15 years Russia will have no analogues

                Are you going to wait 10-15 years? A container ship can be bought right now and 1 year, which would podshamanit .....
                Other money with a completely different quality fellow
        2. +2
          1 June 2015 19: 00
          Quote: EGOrkka
          In terms of mobility, secrecy, surprise, ekranoplanes are many times ahead of the navy.

          Ekranoplanes are inferior in seaworthiness and carrying capacity.
      2. +1
        2 June 2015 04: 24
        Quote: avt
        In fact, we will remain with the Soviet BDK

        Poles. Project 775 and 775M are Polish. And their reclassification in the 80s does not play a role. They were KFOR and in terms of the tasks performed, they remain. Ships only in the far sea zone. Last year, it was actually demonstrated: the landing, after a week-long crossing through the Sea of ​​Japan and the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, is practically not operational. About the recessed armored personnel carrier is a separate story.
    2. +3
      1 June 2015 12: 30
      that is, you are not surprised by the complete absence of ekranoplanes in the fleets / air forces of the whole world? Are there any drawings?
      Or is there still something strongly hindering their mass introduction both in the USSR and beyond the hill?
      - This is a good reason for (j) Winnie the Pooh
      1. +3
        1 June 2015 12: 41
        Before us, no one flew into space .... By the way, scientific research was carried out and it was "scientifically" proved that at a speed of 100 km / h a person faces imminent death .... Under a lying person .... do not lie down !!! !
      2. +1
        1 June 2015 14: 09
        Quote: your1970
        that is, you are not surprised by the complete absence of ekranoplanes in the fleets / air forces of the whole world? Are there any drawings?
        Or is there still something strongly hindering their mass introduction both in the USSR and beyond the hill?

        So ... everything is simple there. All the advantages of ekranoplanes exist only if the Soviet Navy or the like acts as an adversary.
        As soon as the enemy has an AI and AWACS aircraft, the ekranoplan turns into a low-maneuverable subsonic target with an EPR of a missile boat, on which even the Phoenix will not miss. Because the air defense of the ship's formations of the same USN was sharpened to combat much faster, more maneuverable and inconspicuous heavy Soviet missile launchers and their carriers.
        1. 0
          1 June 2015 19: 58
          That's right, and since ours understood that: 1) amers beyond the ocean cannot be reached in any way except nuclear weapons, 2) it’s easier for tanks to Europe (for they will not be stupidly released from the Black and Baltic), 3) lack of specific tasks for such small troop volumes in Europe , 4) high operating costs, fierce corrosion of engines
          - according to the results of studying the accumulated experience and steel, the ekranoplanes are sharply not needed by the military and not only by our ...

          "The Boeing company presented the concept of an ekranolt for the transfer of military contingents and military equipment to places of conflict (the Pelican project). It was declared that it will have a length of 152 m and a wingspan of 106 m. When moving at a height of 6 m above the ocean surface (having the opportunity climb to a height of 6000 m), the Pelican will be able to carry up to 1400 tons of cargo over a distance of 16 km. It is expected that the ekranolit will be able to take on board about 000 M17 Abrams tanks.
          The last mention of the project dates back to 2003 and no information about the continuation of work on the ekranolet has been published. "
      3. +1
        1 June 2015 14: 18
        Not the best argument, but still ...
        1. 0
          1 June 2015 14: 46
          As far as I remember, the ekranoplanes had problems with the stability of the air cushion during heavy waves or, even more so, a storm.
          1. Victor the Great
            +4
            1 June 2015 17: 36
            Quote: hort
            As far as I remember, the ekranoplanes had problems with the stability of the air cushion during heavy waves or, even more so, a storm.


            Everything is much simpler and more prosaic: in order for the ekranoplane to move in bad weather, it needs to be given the rigidity and strength of an ordinary ship (therefore, the mass will be like that of a ship), BUT the thrust will be exclusively on air draft with its low efficiency ... Technically this essentially means lifting a heavy ship into the air with incredible fuel costs, and all for the sake of very dubious advantages ... therefore they disappeared, only a few highly specialized specimens remained.
    3. +2
      1 June 2015 14: 06
      Quote: EGOrkka
      Landing on ekranoplanes is many times faster and more unexpected for the enemy than these "sheds" on the water.

      One question: how are you going to unload the equipment on the ekranoplan? Board-ramp-beach method? That is, we again limit the landing zone to a fairly few beaches with a flat bottom, next to which there will be 100% coastal defense? And substitute a huge target under the fire of all possible weapons, including mortars and gunners?

      Moreover, in the case of ekranoplan all will be even worse than with the BDK. Because:
      1. The survivability and security of the ekranoplan is several times less than that of the BDK - due to much more stringent restrictions on the mass of an empty aircraft for an aircraft.
      2. Wing escadons will not have ekranoplanes. And their cat weapons they cried (again, due to severe restrictions on the IHC). So the enemy BO will be entertained almost in the training ground.
      1. +1
        1 June 2015 16: 12
        The ekranoplanes are not instead of the BDK but along with the BDK.
        Why technology?
        what if attack helicopters?
        And if from over the horizon?
        And what about a converted container ship?
        1. +3
          1 June 2015 16: 59
          Quote: EGOrkka
          The ekranoplanes are not instead of the BDK but along with the BDK.

          "You cannot harness a horse and a quivering doe into one cart ..." (C)

          How are you going to organize the interaction of the BDK with their 20 nodes of the front and ekranoplan with its 350-400 km / h? It turns out that the BDKs will have to start crawling to the landing zone in advance, and this will reveal our intentions and allow the enemy to concentrate BOs in this area.
          Quote: EGOrkka
          Why technology?
          what if attack helicopters?
          And if from over the horizon?
          And what about a converted container ship?

          And that already happened. This obscenity was called "Project Halzan".
          Result: The Navy hacked all the cheap helicopter carriers, as much as possible unified with civilian ships - because of their no combat stability. And when trying to bring combat stability and air defense to the lowest possible level for a recreation center, the ship was rapidly sliding down to pr.1143.
          In addition, a converted container ship still needs to be found. The times of the USSR with its mega-shipping companies have passed - now everyone flies under convenient flags.

          It is cheaper to build the Mistral, especially since it was also built to a large extent by commercial standards. And do not be afraid of this phrase - British light AB of the "Colossus" and "Hercules" type (light naval AB, not escort) were built according to such standards.
          1. +1
            1 June 2015 17: 40
            1. No, not "Project Halzan", I meant a real "container ship" (lighter carrier, etc.)
            2. Not an alteration into an aircraft carrier, but as a warehouse, equipment, MTO and fuel and lubricants. Perhaps as a jump airfield ...
            3. Personal landing and helicopters arrive on ekranoplanes ...
            4. And further from the horizon according to the charters .....
            1. 0
              1 June 2015 18: 02
              Quote: EGOrkka
              1. No, not "Project Halzan", I meant a real "container ship" (lighter carrier, etc.)
              2. Not an alteration into an aircraft carrier, but as a warehouse, equipment, MTO and fuel and lubricants. Perhaps as a jump airfield ...

              And that was also. True, we were not burnt, but limes. Atlantic Conveyor.
              And this despite the fact that the area was covered by AB and EM with missiles, and the area itself was chosen at the limit of the radius of the enemy air force.
              Quote: EGOrkka
              3. Personal landing and helicopters arrive on ekranoplanes ...

              Helicopter WIG? This is cooler than an underwater tank landing ship (there were some). smile To begin with - try to combine aerodynamics and the ekranoplan frame with all the equipment of the helipad for takeoff / landing of a machine weighing 12 tons.
              If EDKA only transports helicopters, then their unloading, deployment of the airfield and pre-flight inspections will drag on for 6 hours.
              1. 0
                1 June 2015 18: 22
                1. "Atlantic Conveyor" is the same as Mistral, and a container ship is a container ship ....
                2. AWACS system on the plane, the plane flies. Why not fly if a helicopter with a propeller inside?
                3. We are talking about the concept and the criterion here is only possible or maybe ...
                1. 0
                  1 June 2015 19: 04
                  Quote: EGOrkka
                  1. "Atlantic Conveyor" is the same as Mistral, and a container ship is a container ship ....

                  The Atlantic Conveyor is a mobilized civilian ro-ro vessel. Minimally equipped for military needs - there was simply no time.
                  Quote: EGOrkka
                  2. AWACS system on the plane, the plane flies. Why not fly if a helicopter with a propeller inside?

                  Because helicopters need not only to be delivered and thrown ashore. For their work you need an equipped platform - either on the ship itself or on the shore.
                  Otherwise, these will be single-launch vehicles - until the BC or fuel and lubricants in the tanks run out.
                  If we work from a ship, then on board we need a platform that provides takeoff and landing, refueling, rearmament and inspection / maintenance of the machine. Designed for 12,5 tons of static mass + dynamic loads during landing and wind loads.
                  If we work from the coast, then we need to deploy the same thing. Assemble the platform from the stoves, arrange an embankment for fuel bags (plus expand hoses, valves and pumps) and boxes with ammunition, deploy a landing system and a control center.
                  1. 0
                    2 June 2015 17: 34
                    Sorry, a little confused, yes, exactly like- "Atlantic Conveyor" Even better as a lighter carrier.
              2. 0
                1 June 2015 19: 10
                Quote: Alexey RA
                This is cooler than an underwater tank landing ship (there were some).

                Underwater aircraft carrier - even cooler.
                1. 0
                  2 June 2015 10: 14
                  Quote: Setrac
                  Underwater aircraft carrier - even cooler.

                  ICH, they were even built in series. smile
                  1. 0
                    2 June 2015 10: 51
                    Yeah, even Soviet flying aircraft carriers are not as cool as underwater laughing
          2. avt
            0
            1 June 2015 17: 44
            Quote: Alexey RA
            And that already happened. This obscenity was called "Project Halzan".
            Result: The Navy hacked all the cheap helicopter carriers, as much as possible unified with civilian ships - because of their no combat stability. And when trying to bring combat stability and air defense to the lowest possible level for a recreation center, the ship was rapidly sliding down to pr.1143.

            good
            Quote: Alexey RA
            In addition, a converted container ship still needs to be found.

            Yes, just find a container ship, make a project, find a refurbishment plant with capacities as for "Vikramaditya" and actually make it.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            It is cheaper to build the Mistral, especially since it was also built to a large extent by commercial standards.

            What actually was envisaged was the construction of two on the Baltic. BUT! Where now do the components that were ordered throughout Europe for the first two ???. Indeed - it’s real to order a box with a dvigl from the Chinese — they’ll definitely build it in our military track in a year, drag it to the Baltics, and preferably to the North — in the Far East for sure 10 will saw and retool.
            1. 0
              1 June 2015 18: 08
              Quote: avt
              Yes, just find a container ship, make a project, find a refurbishment plant with capacities as for "Vikramaditya" and actually make it.

              Who Said "The Kerch Plant"? laughing
              There is only one way out - to return to the practice of Dobroflot / USSR and build ships taking into account mob-projects. Only which of the commercial companies will need them like that (especially taking into account the points "it is forbidden to change the design without the consent of the Navy", "is obliged to transfer the ship to the Navy within 24 hours after receiving the notification")? We will have to reorganize state-owned plan-loss-making shipping companies.
              Quote: avt
              Indeed - it’s real for the Chinese to order a box with dvigl - they will definitely build it in a year with our military record, drag it to the Baltic, and better to the North - in the Far East they will precisely saw and retool for about 10 years.

              Xnumx years?
              And you are an optimist ... 10 years for the Far Eastern Shipyard is the construction period for the head corvette. smile
              1. avt
                0
                1 June 2015 19: 12
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Who Said "The Kerch Plant"?

                Not me .
      2. 0
        1 June 2015 19: 06
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Vitality and security of the ekranoplan is several times less than that of the BDK

        Not at times - by orders of magnitude less.
    4. 0
      1 June 2015 18: 08
      Quote: EGOrkka
      Landing on ekranoplanes many times faster and more unexpected for the enemy

      It will not be unexpected, the means of detection at altitude! And faster, he can go to the bottom! For aviation, such a target is a tidbit, maneuverability is very poor. In the event of a defeat at a speed of several hundred kilometers per hour, it will simply crumble upon impact with water. No survivability compared to the ship! negative
      1. +1
        1 June 2015 18: 41
        So faster ship or ekranoplan?
        1. 0
          1 June 2015 19: 13
          Quote: EGOrkka
          So faster ship or ekranoplan?

          Why faster? Suddenly it doesn’t work out - your helicopter supply ship has secreted all secrecy.
  6. +17
    1 June 2015 06: 52
    Even being at work could not resist - illiteracy and blatant stupidity am
    The proposal to return to operation the BDK project 1174 "Rhinoceros" is of certain interest - it doesn’t represent, it’s cheaper to build new ones or order cheaply in South Korea or China. They, for a certain amount, to you an elephant with ears from a copper sheet are folded according to your drawings.
    Currently, these BDK are in reserve, but can be restored. - they cannot, what is the reserve of the 2nd stage necessary to explain? They were not even included in the VTG plans when developing the secondary school.
    Thus, to a certain extent, differing from the Mistral or other similar ships, the BDK of project 1174 are actually DVKD. - Did the Mistrals change their classification from UDC to DVKD? So what do you want UDC or DVDKD? For practical experience of operation - to our "bloody korefans".
    ... there were two gas turbine power plants with a capacity of 18 thousand hp, connected with two propellers. - On this you can finish. Who is the turbine manufacturer?
    1. +12
      1 June 2015 08: 13
      Zorya - but there are 2 turbine kits; they can be removed from 11356 Admiral Essen and Makarov. However, you understand.

      Mitrofan can still be pumped out, before the tender for scrapping, the MO said that a minimum of 150 lyamov dollars for repairs. There is nothing to be done about the Pacific Rim. For repairs so complicated there will drag on for years on 10. Plus, Nikolaev itself is capitally promo-roderen and generally preserved much worse.


      By the way, Mitrofan for sale, the MO exhibited again in April and no one bought again:
      "Uncut mixed scrap of ferrous and non-ferrous metals (from the large landing ship" Mitrofanenko "project 1174, serial No. S-103, built in 1989, including non-recoverable precious metals: - silver - 2263,2104 g. - platinum - 32,12 , XNUMX gr.)
      Quantity - 8260,0 tons of empty displacement.
      Qualitative (technical) condition - not cut, afloat.
      Location: - Murmansk region, Severomorsk. "
      1. +3
        1 June 2015 08: 27
        [quote = donavi49] Zorya - but there are 2 sets of turbines, they can be removed from 11356 Admiral Essen and Makarov. However, you understand.
        You yourself, a few days ago, when the stuffing of g started just .... the fan clearly named which units are on pr.1174. Essential question: is an import-substituting analogue made on the territory of the CU states?
        About China - no, they have a ban on re-export as a separate node. A ship - you can, a turbine or diesel - no.
        1. +16
          1 June 2015 08: 54
          Well, DT-59 are there, on 11356 - similar to DT-59. The rest (gears) are done on the Star, which is in Russia.

          But the exchange of one Rogov is entirely one 11356 - it is unprofitable even for new ones, and not supported with the extension of years on 7 DK.


          Turbines? Of course not. The only manufacturer in the USSR of shipbuilders of this type Zorya, after the collapse, they preferred to stupidly buy. Moreover, there was a stand and the whole base was. Its built fire option but:

          - the stand was planned to be fully operational by 2020, now limited operation is being accelerated to 17-18. Without a stand, not a single turbine will be surrendered to the Navy.

          - there is no factory. Now the gas generators themselves will be assembled by Vekselberg at the Ural Turbine Plant, and the rest of Rybinsk and the stand are also Rybinsk.

          Optimistic - the first turbine end of 17-beginning of 18 of the year on the stand.
    2. +1
      1 June 2015 10: 19
      Clear and to the point. I would plus several times!
  7. +5
    1 June 2015 06: 57
    The Rhino project has died a long time ago - a futile project ..
    It is better to revive the project 11780 of the type “Kremenchug with the use of new technologies developed during the development of the production of the aft part of Mistral.
    1. +4
      1 June 2015 08: 17
      And build in NIKOLAEV! After all, only one Shipyard in the USSR was able to build them, therefore they were not built by choosing Krechety.

      And BOILERS, because 956 destroyers live so well and long with BOILERS. And this cannot be replaced by turbines by the way, because 3 companies make the required power: Zorya, Rolls-Royce, General Electric.

      If you redo the block method, then this will be another ship already. There you need to do the CD again.
      1. +8
        1 June 2015 08: 32
        Quote: donavi49
        And BOILERS, as 956 destroyers live so well and long with BOILERS

        Is that subtle sarcasm? When I was in the past, I was lying in the same room with the commander of the Bystry. If you want to bring this respected person to hysterics - remember with him the boilers of the 956 project.
        1. +3
          1 June 2015 08: 58
          Yes, that is sarcasm, of course. smile

          The thing is that the 11780 could be redone for turbines, even according to the project. But both options will not work. To make an electric ship or assembling diesel engines on a shaft is to redo the entire ship, that is, to do it again.
      2. +1
        1 June 2015 09: 58
        you probably made a reservation ... Just the same 956 project, ruined - boilers! ((
        1. +1
          1 June 2015 14: 14
          Quote: NOMADE
          you probably made a reservation ... Just the same 956 project, ruined - boilers! ((

          As regards the boilers, one can still recall the "Kuzya", which after a couple of years of operation could no longer lift Su-shki with RVV and a full supply of fuel into the air. TAVKR simply did not have enough speed to ensure the takeoff of cars with such a load from the springboard.
          And even if there was a catapult on the "Kuza", nothing would have changed. It would be even worse, because a catapult means a short-term and rather large extraction of steam into the system. And compensation for such a selection is not a trivial thing.
          1. 0
            1 June 2015 21: 18
            because catapult means a short-term and sufficiently large selection of steam in the system.

            It is necessary to develop and install electromagnetic catapults.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. +1
        1 June 2015 19: 36
        Quote: donavi49
        And build in NIKOLAEV!

        and why is that only there ??? fellow
        Quote: donavi49
        After all, only one Shipyard in the USSR was able to build them, therefore they were not built by choosing Krechety.

        no, not only ChSZ could. The same Orlan Ave. 1144 has a full displacement of 25,8, i.e., and they were built in Leningrad, which means there is a slipway for the construction of such ships. But they wanted in Nikolaev just by the fact that in Lenegrad they built a series of Orlanes then no one was going to move them. Accordingly, if desired, nothing prevents Segodnya from using USC to build ships with similar weight and size characteristics at the Northern Shipyard. Yes, loading Sev. today is powerful, but who is stopping and especially preventing the wound from developing production in other factories ??
        hi
  8. 0
    1 June 2015 07: 05
    We had experience using French-built ships. I understand that "Tsarevich" and others like them have not taught our state anything, it's a shame. As far as I understand, Frantsuzov, we can only beat and beat again, and ships from ........ are not worth buying, toads do not go to sea.
    Sorry distracted.
    - And in our lifetime, not only "Rhinoceroses" will come down to us - the Hippos will do well.
    PS
    HAPPY !!!
    1. +7
      1 June 2015 08: 16
      Quote: FM-78
      We had experience using French-built ships. I understand that "Tsarevich" and others like them have not taught our state anything, it's a shame. As far as I understand, Frantsuzov, we can only beat and beat again, and ships from ........ are not worth buying, toads do not go to sea.

      They walked and walked. The Tsesarevich served as a prototype for the Borodino EBR series - the largest series of main class ships in that Russia. "Svetlana" - fought in Tsushima to critical damage. "Admiral Kornilov" - sailed all possible service life. BrKr "Bayan" - deservedly recognized as the best ship of the 1st TOE and became a prototype in a series of 3 units.
      How did the French ships not please you?
      PS Let's leave "Mistrals" out of brackets, politics and the school of shipbuilding are little overlapping things.
      PS "Mistrals" will be left out of brackets
    2. +2
      1 June 2015 11: 06
      I understand that "Tsarevich" and others like them did not teach our state anything, it's a shame
      It is completely unclear why you decided to find fault with "Tsarevich"? A very decent and modern ship for the early 20th century.
      The placement of medium artillery in the towers, while the casemate structure was practiced in most countries, was French know-how. Later adopted by everyone else.
      1. 0
        1 June 2015 14: 23
        Quote: Karabanov
        The placement of medium artillery in the towers, while the casemate structure was practiced in most countries, was French know-how. Later adopted by everyone else.

        To be precise, the tower installation of the second Kalib / SK was still practiced by the Yankees.
        But in those days in Europe, virtually no one cared for cousins ​​on the other side of the ocean. Especially considering their distortions in the form of two-story towers. smile
        1. +1
          1 June 2015 18: 08
          Armadillos, my favorite topic ... And there will always be opponents. This is great and interesting! Good argument is always welcome!
          As for the second caliber turrets ... The technologies of that time did not allow us to be confident in their design. And there were projects and prototypes before that. But for its time, it is the same as now - T-72 and "Armata".
          The unsuccessful experience of Russian-Japanese ... In this respect, not an indicator.
          1. +1
            1 June 2015 19: 38
            Quote: Karabanov
            As for the second caliber turrets ... The technologies of that time did not allow us to be confident in their design. And there were projects and prototypes before that. But for its time, it is the same as now - T-72 and "Armata".
            The unsuccessful experience of Russian-Japanese ... In this respect, not an indicator.

            So the first dreadnought essentially grew out of the EDB with the PMK tower.
            First in the towers was PMK. Then they started to put a second caliber there (203-254 mm). And the next step was an all-big-gun ship.
            This evolution was especially indicative of the Yankees, who, with the future Michigans, rushed from a single 12 "caliber to a mixture of 12" and 10 "(in the side towers) - and vice versa. However, as a result, they threw out the side towers altogether. smile
  9. +6
    1 June 2015 07: 08
    Somehow this topic is sick.
    1. +2
      1 June 2015 12: 17
      There is one thing. The French do not supply the Mistral, because The EU imposed sanctions on the Russian Federation for a period of 1 year. This year ends on the 20th of June. But! It is interesting that discussion of the extension of these sanctions in the EU and their extension is possible only from July 1. Thus, a "window" of several days appears when the EU sanctions will not formally take effect. ;-) The French will be able to save face ...
      1. 0
        1 June 2015 18: 21
        Quote: Tektor
        The French will have the opportunity to save face ...

        An interesting option, but will they?
  10. 0
    1 June 2015 07: 19
    The French will not lose .. They will sell Mistral Am, and will pay with Russia and even yes, the dough will be cut))
  11. +4
    1 June 2015 07: 36
    That’s for me personally, so of course it is necessary to restore the Rhinos! Maybe it’s worthwhile to give these ships to the Kerch shipbuilding, and let them conjure them there.
    And more separately: Nikolaev, let's join New Russia, and you will be provided with work for 30 years, for the construction of Russian aircraft carriers, the New Europeans will not provide you with this ..... oh dreams, dreams ....
  12. +7
    1 June 2015 08: 46
    If it’s already a fire, then 100% is a working option.

    Chinese friends are building the second triple 071.
    Case - 978 is being completed afloat, access to the ZHI until the end of the year
    Case - 979 getting ready for launch
    Hull - 980 formed in boathouse

    The first two buildings can be redeemed and retrofitted in a year for Russian equipment. Since China is a chewing gum friendship, in 2017 we’ll get the brand new DKVD, not Mistral, but not bad either.


    071 advantages for the Russian Navy:
    - a huge cargo deck dock, just like on Rogovoye, only without the possibility of sticking its nose into the beach. Without any crossings between decks and the rest.
    1. +1
      1 June 2015 15: 30
      Quote: donavi49
      The first two buildings can be redeemed and retrofitted in a year for Russian equipment. Since China is a chewing gum friendship, in 2017 we’ll get the brand new DKVD, not Mistral, but not bad either.

      A good option, but China will not sell. They are building an ocean fleet - they themselves need ships.
      If you set the task to get the DKVD (which in itself is doubtful), then you can order a couple of new 071's in China.
    2. +1
      2 June 2015 19: 38
      Where is the money Zin? (C) V.S. Vysotsky
  13. wanderer_032
    +6
    1 June 2015 09: 52
    One way or another, Russia will somehow get out on this issue, and the French should remember only one thing:

  14. +2
    1 June 2015 10: 59
    It’s a pity that we won’t have Mistrals. Soon we will save the prenistria, but we will not start landing.
    1. +2
      1 June 2015 18: 23
      Quote: oldav
      Soon we will save the prenistria, but we will not start landing.

      A joke? smile
  15. -1
    1 June 2015 11: 50
    I believe (to great annoyance and anger) that we are gradually being prepared for a systematic fading away according to the "mistral passions."
    They say, "We gave up the ships, this is a victory! -And money? Mmmm ... money, yes, big money. Well, in general, we'll get it. We'll have to do it. At leisure. Now, and now ... you what, citizens, do not you understand what the situation is now? Ukraine, Syria, crisis, we need to build a bridge across the Crimea. That's where all the efforts go. And with that ... Let's figure it out .. " request
    1. -1
      1 June 2015 21: 23
      Quote: noncombant
      I believe (to great annoyance and anger) that we are gradually being prepared for a systematic fading away according to the "mistral passions."
      They say, "We gave up the ships, this is a victory! -And money? Mmmm ... money, yes, big money. Well, in general, we'll get it. We'll have to do it. At leisure. Now, and now ... you what, citizens, do not you understand what the situation is now? Ukraine, Syria, crisis, we need to build a bridge across the Crimea. That's where all the efforts go. And with that ... Let's figure it out .. " request


      Probably the ships themselves were not interested in us, it was important to get some technology plus money (penalties) for building our own ships.
      So, the Mistrals are all right.
  16. -1
    1 June 2015 11: 53
    It is already known about the plans of the Ministry of Defense to begin construction of the second BDK project 11711.
    What are your plans ?! - the construction of "Petr Morgunov" is in full swing, soon the official laying
  17. 0
    1 June 2015 12: 02
    Quote: oldav
    It’s a pity that we won’t have Mistrals. Soon we will save the prenistria, but we will not start landing.


    Yeah ... From Transnistria - just for the Mistral. :) (it's sarcasm)

    And do not worry, even if the Mistrals were handed over to us, they would not have had time to "fall soon to Transnistria". They also need to be completed and equipped. At the very least place our weapon systems ...
  18. -1
    1 June 2015 12: 05
    Quote: donavi49
    And build in NIKOLAEV! After all, only one Shipyard in the USSR was able to build them, therefore they were not built by choosing Krechety.

    And BOILERS, because 956 destroyers live so well and long with BOILERS. And this cannot be replaced by turbines by the way, because 3 companies make the required power: Zorya, Rolls-Royce, General Electric.

    If you redo the block method, then this will be another ship already. There you need to do the CD again.

    Gold words!!! And not only, a bunch of SSRZ are very good, Kherson, Nikolaev, Ilichevsk, (Od.obl) Kiliysky shipbuilding and ship repair plant (Odessa region). And then Transnistria banderlogs with Moldavians thought to block ??
  19. 0
    1 June 2015 12: 14
    I can not understand. There is a contract in which everything is spelled out, including forfeits. Expired, don't want to give back. Pay money. And swallow your own sanctions. Such "partners" are not needed. And our government and the president should stop chewing snot. There is an old anecdote (riddle) about a stump with an "original" (I don’t want to go into it) cake in a swamp. Who knows, will understand. There is either or, and there is a third solution.
    1. 0
      1 June 2015 15: 40
      Tell this joke, please. I will listen with pleasure hi
  20. +1
    1 June 2015 12: 59
    Go your own way, and not what Serdyukov and Dimon indicated !!! And the Frenchmen must definitely get on full !!!
  21. 0
    1 June 2015 16: 07
    One headache of the Navy goes away - no need to figure out how to occupy two floating semi-hotels of the "M" type lol It is unlikely that they will suddenly decide to "revive" Project 1174. If the "Eagles" pr. 1144 is a SHOCK POWER, then the landing force is unlikely to be so urgently needed for another 10-15 years.
    But strictly, without snot about "Russian-Frankish friendship", to the maximum, with fines, to collect money from the francs !!! bully
  22. INF
    -1
    1 June 2015 22: 32
    I would have liked the ship exclusively for helicopters, without landing, landing, we have a separate topic. But we need such a ship.
  23. +1
    1 June 2015 23: 35
    I hope all the same that ALL Eagles will be repaired!
  24. +1
    3 June 2015 13: 22
    Despite the minus one, lol , I insist that without the "M" boats, the Russian Navy will be in greater gain. Even if it were not for the current refusal of the coward Oland to give back what he paid for.
    Imagine what the ships are in combat conditions, where fuel and lubricants - European bottling, spare parts and repairs should be done by a probable enemy? And the cost of operation in comparison with our NK is probably a lot more.

    So, Mr. Franks, lay out the money with fines! love
  25. 0
    5 June 2015 00: 11
    the concept of the times of the USSR, the most correct. "one soldier in the field" The main thing is not to overload with different types of weapons. it is advisable to supply the Shtil-1 air defense missile system to our BDKs, 2 packages of 12. In principle, we can also "smack" them at the ships (in the radio horizon up to 40 km). not so much they need dozens of helicopters, but just run over and push everyone away!
  26. Zaq
    +1
    9 June 2015 11: 15
    In the USSR, no one would have thought of buying any weapons, especially from a NATO country. They did everything themselves, and now the French ships, Italian SUVs, Israeli drones, not to mention small arms ...

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"