Russian Mistrals and American San Antonio

54


Not a little has been written about amphibious control and projection ships of the Mistral type. (Mistral class amphibious assault ships) In this article I would like to pay more attention to the landing ships-docks of the conditional enemy LPD-17 of the San Antonio type and draw some comparison between these ships.

USS San Antonio


History
In January, 1993, the United States Military Procurement Commission approved the construction of San Antonio Landing Platform Dock (LPD) ships. The LPD-17 program was very ambitious; This type of ship was designed to replace 4 existing ship types - amphibious docking ships LPD 4 Austin type, tank landing ships (Tank Landing Ships, LST) 1179 Newport, Charleston type cargo ships (LKA 113) and amphibious docking transports Anchorage (Dock Landing Ships, LSD 36). In the end, the twelve LPD-17 class ships will replace and duplicate the 41 capabilities of other, less modern ships. In December, the Avondale shipyard 1996 won a contract to build a first class ship (USS San Antonio) with an option to build two more. Disputes over the official contract caused a delay in signing it until April of 1997, and construction did not start until August of 2000. San Antonio was launched in July 2003 of the year and commissioned in January of 2006. As part of contract negotiations in 1996, the naval forces pledged to purchase twelve LPD-17 ships, eight should be built at the Litton Avondale shipyard (Northrop-Grumman), and four will be built using General Dynamics Bath Iron Works facilities. In 2002, the fleet changed this agreement, redirecting the construction of four ships from the Bath Iron Works to Northrop Grumman, and leaving the production of four destroyers Arleigh Burke (DDG 51) to Bath Iron Works. Ships of the San Antonio LPD type include in their design a number of characteristics that lower the ship's visibility (stealthy characteristics). For example hull lines with deliberate attempt to reduce the number of right angles of the hull and superstructure. Straight surfaces contribute to radar reflections, while the tilt angles of San Antonio's hull structures redirect reflected radar energy. In addition, LPD-17 series ships use advanced enclosed masts / radars (Advanced Enclosed Mast / Sensor-AEM / S). On more traditional ships, electronic sensors (radios, radars, radar receivers) were installed on open masts. In the AEM / S system installed on San Antonio, both masts with vessel sensors are enclosed in large hexagonal structures. Although these structures to some extent impair the operation of the sensors, their main function is to absorb the incoming electron radiation and redirect it. In addition, AEM / S protects sensors from external influences, reducing maintenance costs. The AEM / S system of the LPD-17 type ships also includes the Mk 2 ship self-defense system (Ship Self Defense System, SSDS), which integrates electronic sensors (radar, ESM sensors), a ship’s armament system and electronic warfare system, providing a single integrated defensive network.



Naturally, all these improvements have a price, according to some sources, the originally planned value of $ 617 million increased to more than 800 million dollars on the first LPD-17. (There is conflicting information about the final price of both the lead ship of the series and the subsequent ones. Some sources report prices of about $ 800 million, others about $ 1.2 billion, and some even about $ 2.5 billion. The author is inclined to trust the amount of $ 2.031 billion for the eleventh ship a series of voiced in the report of the US Congress). Although the LPD 17 system represents some progress in naval amphibious technology and capabilities, it was not without some compromises. On ships of the San Antonio LPD type, some of the flagship command and control capabilities available on some older LPD 4 type ships are missing. Also there are not enough opportunities for maritime transport, as on amphibious transport docks of the Anchorage type (LSD 36) (3 hovercraft on the LSD 36 compared to two on the LPD-17) and it lacks a bow ramp for unloading cargo onto the coast. Finally, the LPD 17 does not have the same significant handling options as cargo ships of the Charleston type (LKA 113). Currently, six ships of this type are in service: San Antonio LPD-17, New Orleans LPD-18, Mesa Verde LPD-19, Green Bay LPD-20, New York LPD-21 and San Diego LPD-22. 2 has already been launched: Anchorage LPD-23 and Arlington LPD-24, and finally 3 are in different degrees of readiness: Somerset LPD-25, John P. Murtha LPD-26 and LPD-27. There are conflicting information about the plans to build the last ship of the series, according to some sources the project was canceled, while others would receive funding on time.



Description
General characteristics
Displacement: 25,296 tons
Length: 208 m
Width: 32 m (Capable of passing the Panama Canal)
Total draft: 7.0 m
Maximum speed: 22 node
Capacity (including crew): 109 officers (maritime 32, marines 66, other 11), 335 sailor and 591 infantry.
At the stern of the ship is a landing deck that can accommodate two Sikorsky CH-53E Sea Stallion helicopters, six Bell AH-1W Super Cobra helicopters, four Boeing CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters, or two Boeing Bell MV-22 Osprey convertoplanes. Deck hangar provides facilities aviation technology and is large enough to accommodate one Sea Stallion, two Sea Knight, three Super Cobra helicopters or one MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor. Hangar doors built by Indal Technologies. Each explosion-proof door weighs 18 kg and consists of three horizontal folding panels.



The San Antonio dock is similar to the LHD 1 Wasp class docking craft, which allows you to take and land landing craft or air cushion vessels (two standard LCAC air cushion vessels or one LCU landing craft) through the rear ramp.
To support troops on the coast, the San Antonio ship is equipped with a hospital on 24 bunks, two operating rooms, two dental offices, three car decks on 2323 square meters and 1000 cubic meters of bulk cargo holds.



Power point
San Antonio is equipped with four diesel engines Colt Pielstick with sequential turbocharging with a total power of 41600 horsepower, driven by two screws with controlled pitch. The vessel is supplied with electricity by five 2500 kW Caterpillar diesel generators with self-cleaning filters and electric pumps. Seven 200 air conditioners York designed to cool the office and residential premises. All ship support systems are fully electric, including electric heating, electric water heaters, and desalination and water treatment systems using the reverse osmosis method.

Electronics


Closed masts of the vessel consist of two large octahedral structures, in which radars and antennas of communication with a hybrid frequency-selective surface are placed. Besides the fact that they reduce the radar visibility of the vessel, the masts protect the equipment from the effects of the elements. They contain the C / D-band SPS-48E air search radars, the G-band SPS-67 (V) 3 surface search, I-band SPS-64 (V) 9 navigation and I-band SPQ-9B navigation. Command and control systems include the Advanced Sensor Distribution System SPQ-14 (v), the USQ-119E (V) 27 marine global command and control system, the KSQ-1 landing control system, the Mk 91 guided missile guidance system, as well as an integrated combat system for the transfer and processing of USG-2 (V) data. Means of defense and electronic warfare include a system of self-defense vessel Self-Defense System Mk 2 mod 2, launcher Mk 36 SRBOC, launcher director clutter Mk 53 Nulka, electronic warfare system SLQ 32 (V) 2 and SLQ-25A and system anti-torpedo protection surface ships Nixie.

weaponry


The ship is armed with two launchers Mk31 mod 0 capable of launching self-guided short-range anti-aircraft missiles Raytheon. The Earth-to-Air RAM (RIM 116) missile has dual-mode radio frequency / infrared homing and is designed to destroy anti-ship missiles. It has an 8 km range. Also on the ship is provided for the volume and weight of the place to accommodate the vertical launcher of missiles Seasparrow (ESSM).

For self-defense, the ship is equipped with two 30-mm guns Мk46 mod 1 with a rate of fire of up to 250 rounds per minute. The fire control system includes a thermal imager, a camera operating in low light and a laser range finder with a closed tracking system. The gun can be controlled directly from the tower or remotely from the command center. Additional armament includes two machine guns Mk26 mod 18 caliber 12.7 mm.

Problems and accidents
No wonder that the head ship of the series has growth problems. Could not avoid them, and “San Antonio”. So three years after it was put into service, $ 6 million dollars was allocated to eliminate problems with the leak and steering. In 2008, the ship was laid up in Bahrain due to oil leakage. In 2009, during the passage of the Suez Canal on two engines at full power, one engine unexpectedly started working in the opposite direction by deploying a ship and almost pushing it with another vessel. The crew also complained about the lack of all the necessary instructions and procedures and the poor quality of the work of shipbuilders. As a result of the foregoing, the Navy canceled the maintenance and repair contract with Earl Industries.

Comparison
Russian Mistrals and American San Antonio


As it can be seen from the table above, both ships have almost the same main dimensions, speed and cruising range, area of ​​the car deck, similar weapons, both are in service with the 2006 of the year. Type "San Antonio" has a more powerful power plant, more ships of this type were built, has a lower radar visibility, more developed electronics. For the rest of the main indicators, the Mistral has clear advantages: the building cost much less, is serviced by a smaller crew, is able to carry more amphibious assault ships and landing craft, has more seats in the hospital, more seats for helicopters, a larger hangar. It should also be noted significantly better maneuverability "Mistral" due to electric rotary screw drives and bow thrusters.

USS San Antonio



Mistral
Our news channels

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

54 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. ESCANDER
    +14
    29 November 2011 08: 05
    Nothing, only before they compared their ships, and now Mistral.
    1. +10
      29 November 2011 10: 35
      What is wrong ?? during the construction of the Mistral, our workers will receive salaries, and the technology industry
      1. ESCANDER
        +6
        29 November 2011 12: 01
        urzul
        It’s better not to lose these technologies than to get what they don’t want for the loot.
        1. +1
          29 November 2011 12: 20
          We have never had such control technologies
          1. ESCANDER
            +8
            29 November 2011 12: 35
            urzul
            And they weren’t like that if they hadn’t collapsed.
            1. +1
              29 November 2011 14: 27
              I wouldn’t argue, they found such a quick way, not everything is just so bad in the country
    2. +1
      29 November 2011 23: 27
      And the mistral is ours now. And this is good!
  2. Sergh
    0
    29 November 2011 08: 44
    Professor, well done, everything is fine, only a child’s question, why does Mistral have a chopped off nose?
    1. ESCANDER
      0
      29 November 2011 09: 10
      By the way? With Cho saved?
      1. 0
        29 November 2011 09: 16
        for "parking", and to facilitate loading on their own)))) apparently.
      2. Tjumenec72
        +1
        29 November 2011 12: 53

        ... apparently for a better (larger) angle of fire with a gun
        and so the "nose" is useless, just not quite aesthetically pleasing)
    2. +2
      29 November 2011 09: 12
      And where did you see the aerodrome or runway with a sharp tip?
      1. ESCANDER
        +2
        29 November 2011 09: 28
        So it’s a HELICOPTER nose. And they are on the drum.
      2. Sergh
        0
        29 November 2011 09: 59
        Professor, whine, I understood the hint, I theoretically suspected it, but the helicopter equipment slowed me down !!! But I didn’t think about the take-off of the same UAV. +
        Only a sail from him of course ...
        1. +4
          29 November 2011 10: 11
          Yes, and here the deck seems to have been chopped off ... smile
          1. Sergh
            +5
            29 November 2011 10: 18
            Ha, it looks more aerodynamic here than a lip, like a chainsaw on the Mistral is cut off! Yudashkin is not enough for them!
            1. +5
              29 November 2011 11: 00
              Aerodynamics (you understand that at such speeds it is not at all important) in the Soviet shipbuilding school was due to the gap between designers and builders. We have a designer, theorists were more important than technologists, builders, and therefore it was necessary to bend metal in factories where it is necessary and where it is not necessary. The damned bourgeoisie were driven by production workers, and where there was no need for nothing, metal was not bent, they saved money. By the way, our metal bent almost exclusively on imported equipment. On ChSZ in Nikolaev the Krupp production machines of 1905 of the year and brand new Japanese machines worked.
            2. Anatoly
              +2
              29 November 2011 18: 20
              Yudashkin, as a saboteur, must be sent to NATO. let there ... "models" and "masters" smile
          2. yahont
            +3
            29 November 2011 14: 00
            Kuznetsov is still handsome.
            And the fact that bent iron was used there is not a problem. This warship perfectly embodied the military power of the Union.
        2. ESCANDER
          -1
          29 November 2011 10: 18
          Cyrano's nose is sorry. Saved you bastards.
          UAVs such a length of the strip unnecessarily.
    3. +1
      29 November 2011 13: 28
      Quote: Sergh
      why does Mistral have a chopped off nose?


      Is it possible in more detail?
  3. zavesa01
    -1
    29 November 2011 10: 21
    in fact, tsarist Russia constantly ordered ships abroad and nothing. The question is that these are projection ships, and now we don’t have to think about projection but about defense, or am I wrong?
  4. +10
    29 November 2011 12: 27
    Invalid comparison.
    These are ships of different classes. "Mistral"-universal, and"San Antonio"- just a dock ship.
    Versatility implies percussive capabilities, y "San Antonio"they do not exist, or rather they are very insignificant. The Americans understand this very well and to realize these possibilities they build ships of the type Wasp, that's what they need to be compared in terms of performance characteristics with UDC "Mistral".
    There are currently 8 units in the US Navy Wasp. (n / a LHD1-8)

    On photo"Makin Islend" type Wasp put into operation in 2008
    1. +3
      29 November 2011 12: 59
      Invalid comparison.

      I expected such a reaction.
      And yet these ships of the same class are called at least one Mistral (btiment de projection et de commandment) "amphibious assault ships for control and projection of force" and others San Antonio (landing platform dock) "landing craft docks". They are called to perform the same functions. Their armament is practically the same as the shock capabilities.

      W it has almost twice as much displacement 41000 ton, much more serious weapons
      2 NATO Sea Sparrow missile systems,
      2 Rolling Airframe Missile systems,
      2 Phalanx CIWS,
      3 25 mm Mk 38 cannons,
      .50-cal M2HB machine guns

      incomparably powerful aviation
      12 CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters,
      4 CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters,
      6 AV-8B Harrier attack aircraft,
      3 UH-1N Huey helicopters,
      4 AH-1Z Viper helicopters,
      MV-22 Osprey VTOL tiltrotor aircraft

      and by the way up to the 2200 foot soldiers.
      1. +3
        29 November 2011 13: 41
        Their weapons are almost the same

        much more serious weapons
        and incomparably powerful aviation

        How to understand these two mutually exclusive phrases ??
        Strike capabilities Wasp - this is the universality of application. Depending on the composition of the air group, it can perform different functions, Mistral this potential is also available, and San Antonio only an airborne carrier.
        1. +1
          29 November 2011 13: 55
          How to understand these two mutually exclusive phrases ??


          Mistral and San Antonio are capable of performing the same functions. Their weapons and strike capabilities are almost the same, and the WASP is much more powerful. WASP almost reaches the Kuznetsov displacement. How can it be compared with Mistral?
          Here's what flies to WASP:
          1. +1
            29 November 2011 15: 18
            Still flies Harrier, F-35 in perspective and under .. ??


            By the way, what prevents placing this on Mistral?
            Frenchman though less Wasp, but the shock potential in it is much greater than in San Antonio, and this is universality, in general there is an official NATO classification - I repeat, these are ships of different classes and their comparison is incorrect.
            1. 0
              29 November 2011 15: 28
              shock potential in it is much greater than in San Antonio

              THAN more? Could you please be more specific?
              1. +1
                29 November 2011 19: 04
                The quantitative composition of the air group is 16 units, the competitor has 4, in terms of aviation fuel and weapon reserves, they are comparable in terms of the volume of transported assault forces.
                1. 0
                  30 November 2011 10: 04
                  Foamas, Add one more column to the table given by me and be convinced that your comparison is not correct.
                2. 0
                  9 December 2011 13: 34
                  Ships like Wasp
                  Name Board number Shipbuilder Bookmark date Launch date Put into operation
                  Wasp Lhd-1 Ingalls shipbuilding (30.05.1985) 04.08.1987 29.07.1988
                  Essex Lhd-2 Ingalls shipbuilding (30.03.1989) 07.01.1991 19.10.1992
                  Kearsarge Lhd-3 Ingalls shipbuilding (06.02.1990) 26.03.1992 25.09.1993
                  Boxer Lhd-4 Ingalls shipbuilding (08.04.1991) 13.08.1993 11.02.1995
                  Bataan Lhd-5 Ingalls shipbuilding (25.04.1994) 15.03.1996 20.09.1997
                  Bonhomme Richard Lhd-6 Ingalls shipbuilding (18.06.1995) 14.03.1997 15.08.1998
                  Iwo Jima Lhd-7 Ingalls shipbuilding (03.11.1997) 04.02.2000 30.06.2001
                  Makin island Lhd-8 Ingalls shipbuilding (14.02.2004) 15.09.2006 2008
                3. 0
                  9 December 2011 16: 26
                  Damn, not something thrown off ....
                  Correction smile
                  Ships type Wasp TTX
                  Number of aircraft lifts 2
                  Stock of aviation fuel, t 1 232

                  The number of troops and equipment of 1870 marines with equipment. 200 units equipment (5 MBT M1 Abrams, 25 armored personnel carriers LAV, 8 M198 guns, 68 trucks, 31 units of auxiliary equipment). Instead of landing, 6 tons of cargo.
                  your type of landing craft is 3-LCAC or 12-LCM6 or 4-LCPL. 4 LCPL on davits.

                  Full displacement, tons 40 532
                  Standard displacement, t 28
                  Case length, m 257,3
                  Case width, m 42,7
                  Housing draft, m 8,1
                  Flight deck length, m 249,6
                  Width of flight deck, m 32,3
                  Hangar length, m 98
                  Width of hangar, m 26
                  Hangar height, m ​​6,4

                  Crew (including officers) 1077 (98)

                  Full speed, knots 23
                  Economic speed, knots 18
                  Cruising range economical, miles 9700

                  BIUS ACDS Block1 Level 2 + ITAWDS + MTACCS
                  Communication facilities Link 4A, Link 11, Link 14, Link 16
                  Satellite communications complex SATCOM
                  Aviation Flight Radar SPN-35A + SPN-43B
                  Radar detection of VC and NC SPS-48E + SPS-49 (V) 9
                  Radar detection SC SPS-67 (V) 3
                  Radar navigation SPS-64 (V) 9
                  TACAN URN 25 navigation system
                  SLA / SUAO SAM - 2 x Mk-95, SPQ-9B
                  EW Tools - Active SLQ-32 (V) 3
                  Means of electronic warfare passive SRBOC Mk36
                  Anti-Torpedo Protection System SLQ-25A Nixie

                  weaponry
                  VTOL aircraft AV-8B Harrier II-6 units.
                  Helicopters CH-46E Sea Knight- 30 units.
                  AU Mk38 25 mm 3pcs. 1 trunk
                  ZAK Vulcan-Phalanx Mk-15 20 mm 3pcs. (2pcs per LHD-5-7) 6 trunks
                  SAM Sea Sparrow- 2pcs. 8 guides, type PU- Mk29
                  SAM SAM-2pcs. 21 guides, type PU- Mk49
                  .
                  Added a column by Wasp - And WHAT??
                  It is clear that the Frenchman loses in almost all respects, except for the economic range ( Mistral it is 19000 at 14,5 knots.), but these are ships of the same class (the official classification, what were they from the lantern?!?), and you offer San Antonio, apparently only because of the geometrical dimensions and mislead people about some superiority of the French / Russian model over the American, by the way the figure is 900 people. landing on Mistral not true, the standard number of 450 people., 900 only in emergency situations (evacuation at short transitions up to 3 days).
                  Okay, I think that Mistral It was necessary to compare with English Oceantime Wasp seems too big to you, but San Antonio with classmates Bay, Albion, Foudre, Galicia, Rotterdam, the latter incidentally was also on the show in St. Petersburg.
                  smile
                  1. 0
                    9 December 2011 19: 05
                    We walk in a vicious circle. I believe that my comparison is correct and not only because the ships are almost the same size, but also because of the armament and functionality. You can remain with your opinion, but forgive me, I do not want to return to this topic anymore.
                    1. +2
                      9 December 2011 22: 56
                      Clearly, this is your opinion, but practice proves something else.
                      Here is a photo of the joint action Mistral и Ocean in a Libyan company.

                      British helicopter carrier HMS "Ocean"and the French FS ship"Masterl "off the Libyan coast on September 1, 2011.
                      Attack helicopters "Apache" and "Tiger" operate from their sides in cooperation with each other.
                      Here, you and shock opportunities, no San Antonio и Bay no.
  5. dred
    -4
    29 November 2011 14: 06
    We had the development and sold it.
  6. J_silver
    -3
    29 November 2011 14: 21
    Russian Mistrals? There are no Russian "mistrals", whether there will be - still a big question! I am tormented by vague doubts that everything can turn upside down a hundred times - the wrong one will be chosen in Russia, or not in Russia, the crisis will blow, but pray what else happens, and it will turn out. that at the expense of the Russians there will be a couple of additional troughs for our potential adversaries, as has happened many times in history ...
    Okay, suppose that after all they were driven to Russia - where will you use them? So to speak, project power? On whom? In the Baltic? It's ridiculous! On the Black Sea? Even funnier ...
    In the north? So there anyone will blow off the deck, with the exception of summer. which lasts a couple of days a year ...
    In the Pacific? In Kamchatka? The North, Vladivostok? Are you missing the new Tsushima?
    Each needs pieces of four accompanying ships, not counting supply ships - but where are they? Will there be? With such a pace of shipbuilding ...
    1. mitrich
      +4
      29 November 2011 14: 39
      J_silver,
      it has already been announced that 3 ships will be deployed at the Pacific Fleet, one at the Black Sea Fleet. You, apparently, missed something, monitoring news from the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.
      1. J_silver
        -1
        29 November 2011 15: 32
        Yes, at least on the Kuibyshev reservoir - there aren’t these ships yet, but they will be - there will be no sense from them ...
        1. +1
          30 November 2011 05: 41
          ships will be served by military sailors, helicopter pilots - which means it will be useless anyway .. even if they transport potatoes on the mistral, or even if they stand on the wall - it will still be useful ... someone will be liquid all the time poop with them in the neighborhood ... I'm not talking about the fact that the presence of these ships stimulates the construction of new warships to escort and provide them ... so wherever you look - there are pluses all around ..
          1. J_silver
            -3
            30 November 2011 10: 44
            What about the fate of the former aircraft carriers of the Soviet fleet? How many trips did Kuznetsov make? How many pilots trained?
      2. Anatoliy
        -2
        30 November 2011 00: 42
        Serdyukov announced that we will first receive the ships and then decide where they will be based. The final decision has not yet been made.
    2. -1
      30 November 2011 05: 37
      Okay, suppose that after all they were driven to Russia - where will you use them? So to speak, project power? On whom? In the Baltic? It's ridiculous! On the Black Sea? Even funnier ...

      I boom, that if these ships are in the Baltic, on the Black Sea and in the Pacific, then some people will not be at all funny ....

      I didn’t understand about tsushima .... decipher your conclusion, which, it seems to me, is not at all into any gates .... listen to you, so right now the entire Russian fleet must be cut into metal, because "funny" and "tsushima" are for you seeming around ...
      1. J_silver
        -2
        30 November 2011 10: 42
        For decryption, so as not to repeat common truths. I’ll just refer you to the book by Academician Krylov, to that part of it that explains the principles of the restoration of the fleet after Tsushima - it’s very informative ...
        I can also refer you to a geographical atlas so that you can familiarize yourself with the geography of the regions. where do you plan to place new ships ...
    3. +1
      30 November 2011 13: 02
      This acquisition just does not leave options other than the construction of warships for protection. And any commissioned ship of the Russian Navy is GOOD !!!
  7. Ion coaelung
    +1
    29 November 2011 14: 50
    In my opinion a successful boat is more effective than the Pindos analogue! But it is not intended for independent actions, without accompaniment there is nothing to do, and accompanied by drums and for protection, there may be ours, too, with serious guns, missiles, and torpedoes.
    1. Superduck
      +2
      30 November 2011 18: 23
      I completely agree. The BDK (and this is practically the BDK with an additional helicopter component) was never intended for independent action. If anyone remembers the details of the marine incident with the Georgians near Abkhazia in 2008, their missile boats would have disassembled the BDK if they hadn’t had an escort.
  8. -1
    29 November 2011 14: 50
    In connection with the situation in Syria, everyone realized that MISTRAL class ships are vital to our navy !!!!!

    ps- although a year ago, many with foam at the mouth squealed that we did not need mistral and we had no interests abroad


    PS, from informed sources, they are afraid that France, in connection with the crap in Syria, can annul the contract with us (percent 20)
    1. +5
      29 November 2011 15: 10
      PS, from informed sources, they are afraid that France, in connection with the crap in Syria, can annul the contract with us (percent 20)

      For such money, France will sell this ship even to Assad himself.
      1. J_silver
        +1
        29 November 2011 15: 34
        It is much more profitable to take loot, build, and then refer to a change in the military-political situation ...
        1. mitrich
          -4
          29 November 2011 15: 44
          J_silver,
          so the loot is not ours with you, but the banker Pugachev. Well, let him fork out for his native state. He will not lose from him.
          1. J_silver
            +2
            29 November 2011 16: 03
            Do you think that he is building a stash? Are you so naive?
      2. -1
        30 November 2011 13: 04
        And if he refuses, then there is always the option to cover up trade with France and send a French hair dryer to all the French citizens who work in Russia. There are many of those.
  9. fedora
    +2
    29 November 2011 16: 03
    As the former commander of several ships of the Navy, including the largest, I am confused by the number of personnel on the Mistral. I want to share my doubts with you.
    One and a half hundred people per 21 tons of displacement.
    Let's make a simple rough calculation:
    - on ships of a similar displacement of more than two thousand rooms, saturated with equipment and weapons, for each crew member there are about 13 rooms (large and small) saturated with both simple and complex weapons, and those. means;
    - in each of them you need to do inspection and cranking and tidy, at least once a week, otherwise those. equipment and weapons will quickly fail. It doesn’t work out anymore, it is possible to carry out the indicated operations in each room only once every two weeks, and taking into account the lack of staff, patients, business trips, shift, the low level of preparedness of annual sailors, it will turn out at best once a month. It follows that many premises, technical equipment and weapons will not receive the regulations;
    - daily watch, maintenance of readiness and maintenance of technical means, weapons, watch and protection of weapons, etc. (daily watch and watch) will require a daily allocation of 60 to 70 people, i.e. half of the crew freed from their daily duties and, again, serving their superiors, and the duty "every other day on the belt" does not correspond to the statutes and legislation ..
    I will not continue. I do not envy the command, and the rank and file of the ship, having such a staff, it is not possible for them to maintain the ship. A maximum of six months later, a significant part of the technical, special equipment and weapons will fail, if at all the ship will undergo trial operation.
    There is only one way out - to reconsider the ship’s staff.
    1. +6
      29 November 2011 16: 22
      You raised a very interesting topic. What do you think the French are doing?
    2. J_silver
      +1
      29 November 2011 19: 14
      Indeed, at least do tidy - such areas are huge! And if an accident or a hole where - immediately run off to land in boats?
    3. Anatoliy
      0
      30 November 2011 00: 45
      I could be wrong, but in the open information it was reported that a small number of crew is explained by high comfort for those where it is provided by state.
    4. +1
      30 November 2011 05: 47
      I think that if you do not crap in the new room every day, then it will be possible to clean up less frequently ... there are practically no weapons on this ship, and the personnel should be enough to support the rest of the units ... since the French can cope, it means Russian will ...
      1. J_silver
        -2
        30 November 2011 10: 45
        I’m not a sailor, but you do not even seem to ride a boat in a park pond ..
    5. +1
      7 January 2012 23: 56
      + struggle for the survivability of the ship, which was made using the technologies of a civilian vessel to reduce the cost.

      Here (http://www.popmech.ru/blogs/post/807-mistral-v-litso/scoreid/1137/) quite a few copies were broken for and against this Mistral.

      Some of the cons:
      "......." The helicopters on the Mistral will be ours, "the agency's source continued," but to accommodate them, you will need to slightly raise the deck of the ship. In addition, we plan to use this helicopter carrier in northern latitudes, in ice. For this we will need to reinforce the sides of the ship. But, I emphasize, this will not entail major changes in the design and technical equipment of the Mistral. A very interesting statement! It is for the first time admitted that the project will need to be reworked. quite serious changes in the design. This will be confirmed by any person more or less familiar with shipbuilding. How much "a little" to raise the deck? Not by two centimeters?

      Such "elevations" lead to a decrease in the metacentric height of the vessel, that is, adversely affect its stability. It was reported that the first two Mistrals are planned to be based in Kamchatka. In the waters washing this peninsula, severe storms rage in the autumn-winter period. And the Mistral, having a flat bottom, bad walkers in such waters. If their metacentric height decreases or, due to any circumstances, becomes negative, then great disaster cannot be avoided at all ...........

      There are still a number of problems that will have to be addressed. French ships of this type are designed to operate in mild temperate, subtropical and tropical climates at temperatures from -10 to + 35 ° C. Therefore, the decks where the helicopter hangar and armored vehicles are located are ventilated naturally - through large "windows" in the sides. It is both convenient and cheap. This will not work on the Russian Mistral. The air temperature in Kamchatka in winter ranges from -11 to -49 ° C, and in the "southern" Vladivostok the average January temperature is -12,6 ° C. That is, the "windows" will have to be closed up, and the sides of the helicopter carriers should be insulated, since otherwise, due to condensation, the icing of aviation and armored vehicles will inevitably occur, which otherwise will not only fail, but will also threaten the ship overturning. But with the "windows" closed, it will be necessary to create a forced ventilation system. And this, again, is additional weight and a serious alteration of the interior of the case. It was precisely these discrepancies that Vladimir Alexandrov and Igor Orlov pointed out when, in their statement to the FAS, they wrote that “the technical solutions implemented in the design of the Mistral DVDKD do not meet the requirements of the system of state and industry standards of the Russian Federation for the creation of weapons, military and special equipment "........" [link]

      "..... In one of the episodes of the exercises, the Australian frigate" Warramunga "attacked a target ship with artillery fire, in the role of which was a decommissioned US Navy landing helicopter carrier" New Orleans ". It turned out that several 127-mm shells were hit to the ship, who received holes, took in water, lost stability, turned over and went to the bottom. Note that the helicopter carriers, to which the New Orleans belonged, served as a prototype for the creation of the Mistrals. ... "---
      follow the same link
  10. fedora
    +1
    29 November 2011 17: 33
    Professor. You raised a very interesting topic. What do you think the French are doing?

    I haven't been on French Mistrals, I don't know. Most likely they have other charters, manuals, manuals, instructions, a different system of operation at bases and at sea, and on ships the personnel are more professional, educated and not accustomed to throwing garbage into the holds, etc.
    Unfortunately, training, education, our current documents and the system for ensuring the operation of large-displacement ships with modern weapons in the base and the sea do not guarantee trouble-free operation.
  11. +4
    29 November 2011 19: 26
    Universal landing ship of the project 11780 "Ivan Tarava"


    The main performance characteristics of the BDK project 11780:
    Length: 196 m
    Width: 35 m
    Draft: 8 meters
    Displacement: 25 000 t
    KTU: 180 hp
    Speed: 30 nodes
    Cruising range: 8 miles at 000 knots
    Armament: 1x2 130mm AK-130, 2 batteries 6x8 PU SAM "Dagger", 2-4 ZRAK "Dagger"
    Aviation: landing option - 12 Ka-29, anti-submarine version - 25 Ka-27
    Landing: no data

    It was planned to base 12 helicopters of different models.

    And the Ka-27 and Ka-29. This made him a real UDC, but the main thing was a landing ship.

    1. J_silver
      0
      29 November 2011 19: 48
      And somehow I like it more ...
    2. +1
      29 November 2011 19: 57
      KTU: 180 hp
      Cruising range: 8 miles at 000 knots
      After that, it becomes very sad, remember Kuznetsov and destroyers pr.956 with their amazing boiler-turbine power plants.
      Mistral range 10800/19800 miles.
  12. +2
    7 January 2012 18: 37
    Quote: FoMaS
    FoMaS November 29, 2011 12:27

    Invalid comparison. These are ships of different classes. "Mistral" is universal, and "San Antonio" is just a dock ship. Versatility implies shock capabilities, "San Antonio" does not have them, or rather very insignificant. The Americans are well aware of this and to realize these possibilities they are building ships of the Wasp type, so they need to be compared in terms of their performance characteristics with the UDC "Mistral". At the moment, the US fleet has 8 Wasp-class units. (w / n LHD1-8)


    I almost agree.
    However, between Mistral and Vasp, too, a complete analogy cannot be drawn.
    All the same, Vasp in fact can be a light aircraft carrier when placing Harriers or F-35 on it.
    On Mistral, firstly, there is nothing to place, and secondly, even if something appears, you won’t place any significant amount anyway.
    In terms of landing capabilities, Mistral is closer to San Antonio, no doubt.
    But thanks to the presence of a solid deck of polite it can be compared with Vasp. Those. He occupies an intermediate position between Antonio and Vasp.
    Something like this ...

"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), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“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 Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"