Paris reminded of Russian Mistrals after losing Australian contract

152

Maria Zakharova, Director of the Information and Press Department of the Russian Foreign Ministry, reminded France that the loss of important multi-billion dollar contracts has become commonplace in Paris. The Russian diplomat wrote about this in her Telegram channel, commenting on Australia's refusal of the contract for the construction of submarines and recalling the situation with the Russian-French deal on the Mistral UDC helicopter carriers.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told the public about the "stab in the back", about "anger and bitterness" that Paris experienced after Canberra's withdrawal from the treaty with the French vertically integrated defense company Direction des Constructions Navales (DCNS, where "S" - “Ability to system integration and service” or Naval Group). After which the minister demanded an explanation from the United States and Australia, although he knows perfectly well what is happening.



Or is it just the knives you feel in your back that are bad?

- Zakharova mocked, reminding the French functionary that in 2015 it was Paris that terminated the agreement with Moscow on the above-mentioned surface ships, signed in 2011 and worth 1,2 billion euros.

Note that in April 2016, DCNS became the winner in a competition for the Australian Navy, which wanted to replace the Collins-class non-nuclear submarines, which will expire in 2026. The Australians have promised to pay the French about 50 billion Australian dollars ($ 35,8 billion) for 12 Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A submarines (a non-nuclear version of the Barracuda project's multipurpose nuclear submarines). However, back in the spring of 2021, it was known that the "deal of the century" was in jeopardy - the French did not want to part with the key technology, because the Australians insisted that the submarines be built on the territory of their country.

15 September 2021 Australia, UK and USA have signed trilateral defense alliance - AUKUS, aimed at countering "Chinese expansionism" in the Indo-Pacific region for the sake of "security and prosperity." As part of the new military bloc, Australia will for the first time be able to build nuclear submarines to compete on an equal footing with Beijing. London and Washington promised to assist in this matter with all available forces. After that, the services of Paris were no longer needed by Canberra.
152 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Homeless
    Homeless
    +4
    16 September 2021 21: 10
    It is very useful to understand from your own experience how it is not good to throw a large customer!
    1. guleg
      guleg
      +2
      16 September 2021 21: 20
      but small can you? Throwing is generally not good if you think morally. Although, this is the principle of many, "without a sucker and life is bad," on "nay .. if you do not deceive your neighbor, you will not live." These principles are professed by 90% of people on Earth, so what about states?

      Although, France got what it deserved. And it's not just the Mistrals. She threw many besides Russia. Already with the "Raphael", in those days when the French still sincerely believed that their expensive bespontovy toy would be snapped up in the same way as "Mirages".
    2. Akuzenka
      Akuzenka
      +2
      16 September 2021 21: 59
      They have done it so many times, and now they exclaim "What about us?"
      1. guleg
        guleg
        0
        16 September 2021 22: 20
        They exclaim it every time. As if they have amnestic syndrome
      2. Vladislav N.
        Vladislav N.
        +3
        17 September 2021 06: 31
        If a Frenchwoman is bitten by a crest-maydaunat, then ANASZASHO will become a familiar word in French speech ...
  2. guleg
    guleg
    -4
    16 September 2021 21: 42
    It’s even interesting what the followers of the “Mistral” sect feel like Russia didn’t need. ”How, from their point of view, France fulfilled the will of fate by“ protecting ”Russia from“ useless ”and“ unnecessary, harmful ”purchases. point of view, traitor or benefactor?
    1. Akuzenka
      Akuzenka
      -2
      16 September 2021 22: 04
      Quote: Phantom
      so who is France from their point of view, a traitor or a benefactor?

      In my opinion, and not the one and not the other. The Russian Federation is not able to build such ships and to this day, 6 years (almost) have passed. And whether the Russian helicopter carriers are needed or not, I don’t know, not a specialist.
      1. guleg
        guleg
        -4
        16 September 2021 22: 15
        Russia at that time was able to build such ships. She is even able to build a normal aircraft carrier. He is trying to build a UDC now (two ships are laid, but flawed in comparison with the Mistral project). It's all about timing and cost. Alas, we have not only been building, modernizing and repairing for a very long time. That is why Rosatom ordered two hulls of future floating nuclear power plants for Chukotka in China - not relying on domestic shipyards. They have a tough deadline - in five years, give me energy. And excuses like "did not have time or" the humanoids are to blame for the fact that Vasya the welder was three months in a binge, and that is why they missed the terms "will not interest anyone. The fine, and very harsh.

        Quote: AKuzenka
        Are helicopter carriers of the Russian Federation needed or not?

        once they decided to build, it means that they considered what they needed. In this regard, the position of many statesmen, who broadcast from the stands, radio and television, about "the uselessness of Russia of the UDC" is also touching. Almost the same people are saying exactly the opposite. Hence my comment - since the tall ones have changed their shoes, what is the audience worth? they will also be foaming at the mouth to prove the need for UDC, with which zeal a couple of years ago they proved their uselessness. And then forgive others ... God is called.
        1. faiver
          faiver
          -3
          17 September 2021 00: 52
          five points, all to the point good
        2. Bakht
          Bakht
          -1
          17 September 2021 08: 05
          What is the need for UDC for the Russian fleet? What tasks will they perform?
          1. 123
            123
            0
            17 September 2021 17: 37
            What is the need for UDC for the Russian fleet? What tasks will they perform?

            There are many interesting places to the south of Syria.
            1. Bakht
              Bakht
              -1
              17 September 2021 19: 27
              Is Israel ....? sad
              1. 123
                123
                0
                17 September 2021 19: 56
                Is Israel ....?

                Well, what are you, it's shallow like that No. The Russian soul requires wide open spaces fellow , for example African. smile


                There, in the list (in the lower left corner), many interesting countries are written, France, which, by the way, is somewhat dissatisfied with the actions of Russian tourists, and there also all sorts of coups happen (for example, Guinea), in general the local people are not happy with the descendants of the colonialists. You never know what will happen in those parts, it may turn out that UDC will be in demand. At the same time, you can say hello for Mistral and, by chance coincidence, the raw materials base of the French nuclear industry in those parts is.
                https://riafan.ru/1522036-serye-kardinaly-chernoi-afriki-kak-franciya-organizovala-nelegalnyi-rynok-urana-i-yadernogo-oruzhiya

                Well, further down the list, we must pay attention to everyone, not forget anyone, especially since this is a rather profitable activity. feel .
                And then there is Asia, Latin America, but you never know ..
                1. Bakht
                  Bakht
                  -1
                  17 September 2021 20: 01
                  How humor goes. Appreciated. As a serious discussion - UDCs are not suitable for these purposes. Between us speaking, the BDK are not suitable. Coming back to the topic in the previous article. Landing operations at a remote theater of operations are not provided. Yes, and in the near theater of operations is problematic.
                  So the question remained - for what purposes can the UDC be used in the Russian Navy? Why are they being built in huge numbers? As many as 2 (two) pieces. On which fleets (out of 4) will they be used? What group?
                  1. 123
                    123
                    +1
                    17 September 2021 20: 12
                    Landing operations at a remote theater of operations are not provided. Yes, and in the near theater of operations is problematic.

                    Why fighting? belay We are peaceful people, but our armored train is ready to stand around the corner.

                    So the question remained - for what purposes can the UDC be used in the Russian Navy? Why are they being built in huge numbers? As many as 2 (two) pieces. On which fleets (out of 4) will they be used? What group?

                    Operational transfer of a "limited contingent", equipment, a temporary floating headquarters and a base in the region where presence is required. Well, a demonstration of the flag. It will suit itself perfectly. By the way, there is nothing written about Turkey in the list on the map, and Erdogan is quite active in Africa (this is in addition to the list).
                    A large grouping is not required, 1-2 frigates or corvettes, well, a submarine is somewhere nearby ... From whom should the squadron be kept there? Surely Emanel will throw the fleet into the attack?
                    1. Bakht
                      Bakht
                      -1
                      17 September 2021 20: 19
                      Even the Wasps don't go it alone. The grouping should be 5-6 ships plus a couple of ships of the floating rear. They are not currently available. There is no supply base either. The American doctrine of amphibious operations requires the mandatory support of the AUG. Which Russia does not have.
                      One more point to "narrow specialists". How many helicopters can a Russian UDC fly at the same time? How many fighters will participate in "vertical reach"? There is no Soviet (Russian) doctrine yet. Therefore, we take the American one. Moreover, they are great specialists in amphibious operations. One third is involved in over-the-horizon landings from the air, two-thirds directly ashore.

                      According to the AkBars leadership, "our helicopter carriers will be able to work in the Arctic." In total, we have 1 UDC for the Northern Fleet, another 1 for the Pacific. FSE.
                      1. 123
                        123
                        +1
                        17 September 2021 20: 51
                        Even the Wasps don't go it alone. The grouping should be 5-6 ships plus a couple of ships of the floating rear. They are not currently available. There is no supply base either.

                        Who said "should"? In fact, it happens even less. For example like this.

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lguZX10jok

                        The British here recently traveled to the Mediterranean, so they had with the Americans and whoever else there (like the Dutch) had even less.

                        Is it a problem with supply vessels? They continue to build. Something tells me that the matter will not be limited to Sudan.

                        The American doctrine of amphibious operations requires the mandatory support of the AUG. Which Russia does not have.

                        Red revolutionary stump on the Americans and their doctrine. Are you talking about a full-fledged amphibious operation against a serious enemy?

                        One more point to "narrow specialists". How many helicopters can a Russian UDC fly at the same time? How many fighters will participate in "vertical reach"?

                        This is still a great mystery, the number of helicopters on board is not known.

                        There is no Soviet (Russian) doctrine yet.

                        Tea admirals are not made with a finger, really will not master this fundamental work?

                        Therefore, we take the American one. Moreover, they are great specialists in amphibious operations. One third is involved in over-the-horizon landings from the air, two-thirds directly ashore.

                        There were specialists 70 years ago, now more and more on evacuation ...

                        According to the AkBars leadership, "our helicopter carriers will be able to work in the Arctic." In total, we have 1 UDC for the Northern Fleet, another 1 for the Pacific. FSE.

                        It makes sense, why do we need ships only for the tropics?
                        Do we need dozens of UDCs? Are we preparing a landing in Normandy?
                      2. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        -2
                        17 September 2021 20: 55
                        Thank you for your answer, but it is not meaningful.
                      3. 123
                        123
                        0
                        17 September 2021 21: 02
                        Thank you for your answer, but it is not meaningful.

                        What exactly am I missing? The fact that according to the American "templates" there should be an aircraft carrier and a certain number of escort ships is a theory, and it is spherical in a vacuum. Ships in escort should be adequate for the conditions. Is there a planned naval battle with a naval power?
                        I believe the Russian admirals are able to plan a landing operation in specific conditions, and somehow they will manage without a doctrine in a pinch.
                      4. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        -2
                        17 September 2021 21: 09
                        Yes, I've read about it. I seem to know the history. This is where we started our communication. On the intrinsic value of large ships. Read at your leisure about planning amphibious operations in WWII by Soviet admirals. This is just a nightmare.

                        And about the intrinsic value of large ships? We have already talked about the High Seas Fleet. In World War II, the worst Japanese commander I. Yamomoto (I was not mistaken, it was the worst one) blew the battle for Midway because of the value of battleships, kept the Hasirsky Fleet at bay, the Black Sea Fleet ceased hostilities in 1943. Many examples can be found.
                      5. 123
                        123
                        0
                        18 September 2021 07: 59
                        Are you all preparing for the past wars? Nobody plans to land divisions and armies on enemy shores. This is for "spot application". This is not transport, brought-unloaded-left. Ships are capable of transporting troops over a long distance, they are waiting for a long time, there is a house and a table. base, headquarters, warehouse, hospital.
                        I assume you are questioning the value of large ships? At the same time, you talk about American doctrine, aircraft carriers, and numerous escorts. Do you want to say only Russia does not need them?
                      6. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        -1
                        18 September 2021 09: 09
                        Russia needs them if there is a doctrine for their application. There is a need and expediency of their application. Currently, there are no such goals and opportunities.
                        Do you know what voluntarism is? This is the naval doctrine of the Russian Federation. It says that by 2030, have a balanced fleet capable of performing any tasks in the far sea zone. For example, China's naval doctrine envisions such a fleet by 2050. This is given a disproportionately more powerful economy.
                        This is both politically and economically justified. China has economic interests in Africa, Southeast Asia and is now creeping into Latin America. In these regions, China's interests are worth tens and hundreds of billions of dollars. And besides ships (including aircraft carriers), China is actively developing naval bases around the world. And trade ports too.
                        The transfer of troops by one UDC, even as part of a small group of ships, is a complete gamble.
                        They do not read Sivkov in vain. One can argue with him, but he reasonably criticizes these ships, but at the same time advocates the construction of large aircraft carriers. But he is a realist and knows that at the present time Russia will not be able to pull them off. Neither economically nor technologically. Therefore, he suggests stretching the legs over the clothes. And build a fleet of the near sea zone. By the way, this is exactly what China is doing. In the Chinese naval doctrine, the goals are designated: first, the fleet of the near zone, then the middle one, and only after 30 years the exit to the big ocean.
                        About the last war. It is instructive and informative. How Soviet admirals planned and carried out amphibious operations. If the commander of the formation transferred the flag to one ship, and left the ciphers and means of communication on the other. Or how the Evpatoria landing was forgotten. Or how a drunken commander moored a cruiser under enemy fire. According to eyewitnesses, the deck was red with blood. I really hope the admirals are a little better now.
                      7. 123
                        123
                        0
                        18 September 2021 10: 42
                        Russia needs them if there is a doctrine for their application. There is a need and expediency of their application. Currently, there are no such goals and opportunities.

                        How did you determine that there are no goals? Will you tell me that Russia is a land power and we need to sit on the shore? With the ability to apply, you are right as long as they are not built difficult to apply.

                        Do you know what voluntarism is? This is the naval doctrine of the Russian Federation. It says that by 2030, have a balanced fleet capable of performing any tasks in the far sea zone.

                        Are you quoting correctly? To be honest, I did not understand what kind of document we are talking about. Share the link?

                        For example, China's naval doctrine envisions such a fleet by 2050. This is with a disproportionately more powerful economy.

                        I don't see anything surprising, it's not just about the economy, you can't buy military technology in a supermarket.

                        This is both politically and economically justified. China has economic interests in Africa, Southeast Asia and is now creeping into Latin America. In these regions, China's interests are worth tens and hundreds of billions of dollars.

                        In these regions, many have interests, do you think Russia does not have them? If Russia has a more modest amount, then it is impossible to climb anywhere? This is not appropriate? What are the Turks doing there, for example? Have they caught up with the Chinese in terms of investment?

                        The transfer of troops by one UDC, even as part of a small group of ships, is a complete gamble.

                        What other gamble? Are you talking about full-scale war all the time?

                        They do not read Sivkov in vain. One can argue with him, but he reasonably criticizes these ships, but at the same time advocates the construction of large aircraft carriers.

                        With all due respect to Sivkova, criticism is mainly reduced to the insufficient displacement of the ship, respectively, the air group and weapons to support the landing. Again, he also looks at the layout of all reflections "judging by the model".
                        What is being built in the end and how much it looks like a model, we do not know. The existing helicopters do not suit him, but the fact that new ones are being developed does not say. At the same time, he offers to convert them into aircraft carriers and does not bother him that the plane does not exist for them. Of course you can add something and turn it into an aircraft carrier or add more to the death star. He views the problem exclusively from the perspective of a global military confrontation with the United States. You can understand, he was taught that way, he has been doing this all his life. But this is similar to Khrushchev's fascination with missiles, artillery was not developed to the detriment of them. The fleet has other tasks (I have already described them) and these ships are suitable for them.

                        Therefore, he suggests stretching the legs over the clothes. And build a fleet of the near sea zone.

                        And how do light aircraft carriers fit into this concept?

                        About the last war. It is instructive and informative. How Soviet admirals planned and carried out amphibious operations.

                        It was not only Soviet admirals and generals who knew how to plan operations "remarkably". As for the Soviets, with experience they were somehow not very good, in the Far East, in my opinion, it turned out not bad. The Anglo-Saxons had been planning them for years, and the landing in Normadia was also "not without remarks," and the balance of forces and means was somewhat different.
                        Whose memories are you referring to? Curious to see. Share the link?
                      8. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        -1
                        18 September 2021 15: 19
                        Then I will answer. Maybe I'll be free by evening. In the meantime, here is the official document.

                        https://www.garant.ru/products/ipo/prime/doc/71625734/
                      9. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        -1
                        18 September 2021 17: 33
                        In the memories of the Great Patriotic War, you will not find anything of this. There is research. Mainly in the Black Sea Fleet. But on the Baltic, too, not all good. I myself am looking for the original source. I have it on paper. But now, due to the mess at home, the books are all in boxes. As I find it, I will give a link.
                        Sivkov not only looks at pictures. He is just looking at the project as a whole. The fact is that light aircraft carriers are not a fountain either. This is the road to nowhere. But the UDC in the form that they are presented is generally ships without a specific purpose.
                        What is a light aircraft carrier in the Arctic?
                        I got to the ship many times by helicopter. I'm not actually a flyer, but I used the helicopter a lot. In young age. MI-8 flew almost 1500 hours. The ship was flown either by Super Puma or Bell. So twice the helicopter flew up to the ship, turned around and went ashore. Sea swell 4 points, wind 15 m / sec. Landing is risky and canceled. In the Barents Sea, this weather is 100 days a year. Under what excitement can the UDC be used? Or a light aircraft carrier?
                        Sivkov is not against a strong fleet. Not against aircraft carriers. He competently considers the capabilities of the country, the goals set for the Navy and the characteristics of the ships.
                        Let's go back to the Surf. 1000 troops. 4 boats with a capacity of 100 personnel each. If you use over-the-horizon landing, how many flights do you need to make to land a trooper? And this is without equipment, only with personal weapons. And how much can you land in one airborne sortie? And the enemy sits and waits ...
                        1000 people on hold? How many days? two, three, a week ... I was at sea in excellent conditions for 6 weeks. Once made three flights in a row - 120 days. By the end of the voyage, they tried to avoid me. And then 1000 young supermen with weapons in their hands. Habitat is not the last thing in the sea.
                        Like Sivkov, I am not against big ships. But this is a lot of money, big resources that must be taken away from the Ground Forces. As training ships and for the purposes of the Ministry of Emergency Situations, they are suitable. In combat conditions, their value is minimal.
                      10. 123
                        123
                        +1
                        18 September 2021 17: 48
                        Sivkov examines the project in the form that it is shown on the layout. What will be built in the end, the question.
                        https://kerch.fm/2021/01/06/novyj-rossijskij-avianosec-proekt-priboj-v-kerchi-na-glazah-pererastaet-v-legkij-shtorm.html

                        The number of boats and helicopters, do you think, how did you bring in, unload everyone and go on the attack?
                        You are again talking about a large-scale war. Nobody is going to repeat the landing in Normandy.
                        Please reread my first comment, it says what they are for. These are landing ships and not aircraft carriers (even if they are light ones); they have completely different tasks, so it makes no sense to compare them. The Navy needs both UDC and aircraft carriers, each with its own tasks.
                      11. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        0
                        18 September 2021 18: 15
                        This is according to the UDC classification (universal amphibious ships). In the last controversy, I was given the appearance that I was confusing UDC and BDK. Perhaps the fleet also needs UDC. But if not for amphibious operations, then what are they for? Maybe it's better to build a pair of military transports for the needs of the Navy?
                        Understand, I am not against big ships. Different and good. But the good ones.

                        I did not find a book in electronic form. The article is called "Crimea and the coastal flank of the Soviet-German front in 1941-1944" Author - Vladislav Goncharenko. Published in Manstein's book "Lost Victories" Appendix 5 "Operational Art in the Battles for Crimea"
                        There is more research. If interested, I can post it as I surf the Internet.
                      12. guleg
                        guleg
                        -1
                        18 September 2021 21: 25
                        Quote: Bakht
                        In the last controversy, I was given the appearance that I was confusing UDC and BDK

                        Well, what can you do if you actually confused?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Perhaps the fleet also needs UDC

                        only UDC (if needed at all), BDK are not needed in any form, it is already a dead species (Only Russia pulled this deceased class of ships to the last, building completely useless in combat "Gren" and "Morgunov". forget this abusive phrase altogether BDK
                      13. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        0
                        18 September 2021 21: 31
                        Yes, I have not confused. I have already explained. For transportation needs, there is no difference between these classes. And for other purposes, neither one nor the other is suitable. UDCs cannot act independently or even as part of a group. They need the support of the AUG. Or base aviation. This is a prerequisite. But the large landing ships are in great demand by the fleet.
                      14. guleg
                        guleg
                        -1
                        18 September 2021 21: 37
                        Quote: Bakht
                        But the large landing ships are in great demand by the fleet.

                        explain. That is, the fleet stands up for landing straight into the forehead of the enemy defense, suffering terrible losses? And against the fact that to make coverage in depth, and part of the forces to strike from the rear? I can't even grasp the logic

                        Quote: Bakht
                        For transport needs

                        for these needs there are transports. Troop supply transports. Civilian fleet. He is also requisitioned at the beginning of the war. Carrying non-military cargo is not the task of the UDC, they are used this way only because there are ships, and there is no real business for them due to the absence of war and the need for an amphibious operation. Fuck someone on the UDC loaded a bag of potatoes, if the real operation was ripe. In the same way as the US aircraft carriers work along the coast of countries that are not quite worthy of the power of the States, because there is simply no enemy at sea for the AUG.
                      15. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        0
                        18 September 2021 21: 54
                        I am credited with what I did not say. They say that I plan operations like the Second World War, that I write about landing operations. The large landing craft for the Syrian express was assembled from three fleets. They were not enough. I had to urgently buy transports.
                        Again. Landing operations, whether head-on or by air, are not welcome in the Russian Navy. There is a big shortage in military transports. A civilian dry cargo ship is fine too, but it has no weapons whatsoever. The BDK is actually an armed transport. That's why I think they are needed. They have air defense and anti-aircraft defense systems and there are people trained to use these systems.
                        For the landing, in addition to the UDC (or BDK), a complex of weapons and ships is needed. First of all, you need air support. In the absence of AUG in the Russian navy, this means that the Russian navy can carry out amphibious operations only under the umbrella of base aviation. The UDC (BDK) has practically no offensive weapons. So we need ships of direct support. Much more is needed. And what will they plant? A reinforced battalion? Well, two UDCs will land two battalions. If you're lucky.
                      16. guleg
                        guleg
                        -1
                        18 September 2021 22: 05
                        Quote: Bakht
                        There is a big shortage in military transports.

                        this is a completely different article. Transport is transport, there is no point (except for the urgent need and lack of transport ships) to use UDC instead. A paratrooper is several times more expensive and with the same displacement will take less cargo - because, in addition to cargo, he is also loaded (I apologize for the tautology) with weapons and other military systems.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        In the absence of AUG in the Russian navy, this means that the Russian navy can carry out amphibious operations only under the umbrella of base aviation.

                        Not certainly in that way. The UDC air group may have some impact. Especially in the presence of VTOL aircraft in its composition. Another disadvantage of the domestic concept is that we do not have not only VTOL aircraft, but also sane helicopters - except for the strike "Katrans", but they cannot throw the landing force.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        There is practically no offensive weaponry on the UDC (BDK)

                        it is not necessary. The escort ships must cover the UDC and work on PDO, the UDC in this regard can only help with aviation. Although this is also not a little, and sometimes it is generally a decisive factor. By the way, the Soviet BDK could provide maximum support with a couple of salvos from sea Grad or AK-630 (and then coming close to the shore and themselves received a portion of lead), and send one or two semi-assault Ka-29 helicopters.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        And what will they plant? A reinforced battalion?

                        on a sane in size UDC can no longer be placed. Although, someone can call 1000 people, exhausted by the transition, a regiment. And so it turns out - a company on turntables makes coverage, the other three or four companies storm the already thoroughly battered coast. But the Marines are the elite.
                      17. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        0
                        18 September 2021 22: 13
                        This is all theory. But nevertheless it turns out that a group is needed for the landing. 5-6 ships at least. They are? The UDC air group will be able to deliver only the first blow, then it will be neutralized by the enemy. It doesn't even have the strength of a small aircraft carrier.
                        We are discussing what the military should test in practice. The ships are laid. Commissioning is scheduled for 2028. Then the sailors will test the theoretical concepts. In any case, it is unlikely that it will be possible to create balanced groupings in all 4 fleets by 2030.
                        I think that they will try to hold Kuznetsov until 2028, then they will work on these two UDCs and only then decide which ships are needed. So the role of these ships, as I did before, is to practice theory, develop shipbuilding skills and train deck aircraft.
                      18. guleg
                        guleg
                        -1
                        18 September 2021 22: 20
                        Quote: Bakht
                        it is unlikely that it will be possible to create balanced groupings in all 4 fleets by 2030

                        on all 4 fleets it is not necessary. Already decided - only at Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet... Ideally - 2 ships each, one under repair and preparation, the second in service.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        I think that they will try to hold Kuznetsov until 2028,

                        I'm afraid that this is only as an educational one. It's not patriotic to say that, but "Kuznetsov" is dead. Like a battleship. But it will still work, as long as the hull resource allows, it can be used as a training one - deck-based aviation pilots should be trained not only at NITK.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        This is all theory.

                        Well, any concepts are not built on theories. Do you have any practical experience? Yes, no one has. even with aircraft carriers - because since their last real use against the enemy fleet (for which they were created) so much water has flowed under the bridge. But the theory is not based on empty space either. I gave my calculations. In general, God forbid that they do not have to be tested in practice.
                      19. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        0
                        18 September 2021 22: 23
                        The presidential decree says in all strategic directions

                        45. It is planned to create a naval aircraft carrier complex, promising combat surface ships and submarines (combat platforms), deep-sea systems of a new generation, the deployment of marine robotic systems to perform a large range of combat and support tasks.

                        46. By 2030, the Russian Federation should have powerful balanced fleets in all strategic directions, consisting of ships designed to perform missions in near and distant sea zones and oceanic regions., as well as from naval aviation and coastal troops, equipped with effective high-precision strike weapons, with a developed system of basing and support.
                      20. guleg
                        guleg
                        -1
                        18 September 2021 22: 53
                        Quote: Bakht
                        The presidential decree says in all strategic directions

                        the decree does not say about the Black Sea Fleet and the Baltic Sea Fleet. It is foolish to argue that ships of the UDC type are not needed there - they are just suicide bombers. And the president is bad for you, forgive me. I didn't expect just such an idiotic comment.
                        Py Si Why the Americans have never started, and will not start their surfactants in the Black Sea Fleet? And yes, they don't care about Montreux. Just because the tma crew of the AB will be wearing hot clothes - not like batsyki about Cook, but in fact. It is clear to everyone even in the slightest degree familiar with military affairs that in the Black Sea Fleet AV is just a PURPOSE, and there is something for American sailors to shit from. They are not sent there - for it is SENSE! In the same way, it makes no sense for Russia to have aircraft carriers (and large ships in general) on the Black Sea Fleet and the Baltic Sea Fleet.
                      21. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        -2
                        18 September 2021 22: 56
                        Didn't expect just such an idiotic comment

                        Where did you see the comment? Or do you think that the Black Sea and Baltic directions are not strategic?
                        I thought we were talking and not insulting each other. Apparently he was wrong.
                      22. guleg
                        guleg
                        -1
                        18 September 2021 23: 58
                        Quote: Bakht
                        I thought we were talking and not insulting each other

                        did not have to offend you in the least. Not even offend. You see, although the Black Sea Fleet and the Baltic Fleet are undoubtedly important, this is not the theater of operations, but which has a place for aircraft carriers and, in general, for expensive and large ships. There, DBKs and coastal aviation are doing quite well - just the case for which adherents stand up against aircraft carriers and in general everything that is carried by planes or helicopters. But on the Pacific Fleet and the Northern Fleet, it is a completely different matter .. then the strategic areas, and there is where the fleet is deployed. At the Pacific Fleet, the Americans with the Yaps are waiting for us, the Northern Fleet has the opportunity to enter the strategic space, and provide it with the main work to cover the SSBNs. Why is there no SSBN on the BF or Black Sea Fleet? Well, the same is obvious - that there they are only goals. These seas are puddles.
                      23. guleg
                        guleg
                        -1
                        18 September 2021 21: 27
                        Quote: Bakht
                        But the good ones

                        here I fully support it. Therefore, my yesterday's criticism of project 23900
                      24. 123
                        123
                        +1
                        19 September 2021 09: 14
                        This is according to the UDC classification (universal amphibious ships). In the last controversy, I was given the appearance that I was confusing UDC and BDK.

                        I don’t pretend to be academic. Let's just say that the ride is more important than the checkers. What's the difference what we call it? We understand what this is about.

                        Perhaps the fleet also needs UDC. But if not for amphibious operations, then what are they for?

                        Do you consider landing operations exclusively in full-scale war with a technologically advanced enemy? In Syria, they would have been very useful a few years ago. It is difficult to predict how events will develop in Africa, for example. In “low intensity” conflicts, it can be very useful without the need for significant security.
                        If you want to know what they are for, see how they are used in other countries, USA, England, France, Spain and so on. Tellingly, no one is going to give them up, on the contrary they are building.

                        Maybe it's better to build a pair of military transports for the needs of the Navy?

                        Tell this to Erdogan, hasn't Anadol been completed there yet? This is how the world works, if the "potential partners" have some kind of weapons, then they try to get the same for themselves. This is not an imitation, just a new weapon (in this case, the UDC), which gives certain opportunities and, therefore, advantages. Accordingly, they try to keep up and balance the potential.

                        Understand, I am not against big ships. Different and good. But the good ones.

                        I understand. It seems that many countries do not consider them to be bad.

                        Thanks for the title of the article, I'll try to look later. hi
                      25. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        0
                        19 September 2021 09: 58
                        Erdogan has a completely different situation. He really needs landing forces. Conflict with Greece, North Cyprus, a bunch of islands and everything within the reach of base aircraft. So Turkey may well use landing ships even without strong support from other classes of ships. Unlike Russia.

                        Russia may need UDC only if there is a strong ocean-going fleet. Have you read about the base in Somalia? Will she be gone? It is probably necessary to build them, but only as a reserve for the future. At present, the Russian Navy will not be able to conduct amphibious operations either in the Black or Baltic Seas, or in the Pacific Ocean. Limited tactical assault forces only. And risk a large ship over a tactical landing? Have you read about the raid operation of the Black Sea Fleet in October 1943? Losing three modern ships because of the desire to sink a couple of enemy schooners ... The result was a trial personally by Stalin and the withdrawal of all ships of the Black Sea Fleet into reserve. The war for the Black Sea Fleet of the USSR ended in October 1943. There is a book by Shigin (I don’t remember the initials) "Sea Disasters of the Second World War". Everything is detailed there.
                        And in the Northern Fleet against whom to carry out landings? Against Norway?

                        In the event of a crisis, Russian surface ships will not be able to enter the North Atlantic or land on the Japanese islands. This is completely ruled out.

                        Much has been said about the performance characteristics of ships. But there was no concrete answer to the question of what is the PRACTICAL value of these ships in WAR TIME. There are common words - transportation, landing, helicopters ... etc, etc. In peacetime, civilian transports handle transportation. But they must also be included in the Navy. The BDK may well go to problem areas (no war, no peace) (as shown by the Syrian Express). In wartime, the main task is to defend its borders. What can UDC do? Only by practicing tactical techniques in exercises and training deck aviation pilots. Testing of new samples of naval aviation.
                      26. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        0
                        19 September 2021 10: 06
                        For information.
                        The cost of one large landing craft of the "Ivan Grenn" type is 5 billion rubles.
                        The cost of one UDC of the "Ivan Rogov" type is 50 billion rubles
                      27. 123
                        123
                        +1
                        19 September 2021 11: 08
                        Well, of course it's different. Everyone can do whatever they want and everyone has their own interests, some Russians have to sit at home until they set up more ships than the Americans. Insidious Erdogan preparing for war with NATO ally? Greeks Papuans, Turks will provide air superiority and cover from the sea? Can the Turks carry out amphibious operations or are they only capable of tactical amphibious assault? Is it worth risking a large ship because of this?
                        Erdogan is not interested in anything more? Libya, for example, and further down the list? Is he engaged in tourism?


                        The binding of the UDC to use in your region is rather strange. They are designed specifically for long range applications. Naturally, the construction of ships is a groundwork for the future. After all, if they are not built, opportunities by themselves will not appear from anywhere.
                        And all of you are preparing us for a global war. With NATO or with the United States? I have to disappoint, these are the two elusive Joes. If they want, let the Chinese, along with the Turks, land in Texas or Normandy. Russia has more mundane pragmatic goals.

                        In the event of a crisis, Russian surface ships will not be able to enter the North Atlantic or land on the Japanese islands. This is completely ruled out.

                        Why should they go there in a crisis situation? You stubbornly view everything only from the angle of a global war with NATO and say that Russia does not need a fleet for anything else.

                        Much has been said about the performance characteristics of ships.

                        Moreover, we do not know them. request and we continue to say "smash" the layout, which apparently has little to do with the ships under construction.

                        But there was no concrete answer to the question of what is the PRACTICAL value of these ships in WAR TIME.

                        What is the value of American, French, Spanish and others? Will they be able to land near Arkhangelsk or Vladivostok or Sevastopol? What is not? Note, no one says that they need to abandon the UDC and be content with transport workers. Doesn't this approach seem biased to you, and the arguments far-fetched?
                        The "Syrian Express" showed that they used everything that was and the UDC would not be superfluous, especially at the initial stage of the operation.
                      28. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        0
                        19 September 2021 12: 32
                        Again the same thing. At the very beginning, I wrote that in Syria the Mistrals would not be superfluous. Are you considering a peacetime fleet only?
                        About American and others. They have bases and an air umbrella. And all the same, I consider large ships a valuable thing in themselves and no one will risk them.
                        Turkey is really different. They have islands close by.
                        It's the same song about the need for aircraft carriers. All of them, both American and Russian, will represent a major target.
                      29. 123
                        123
                        +2
                        19 September 2021 14: 27
                        Again the same thing. At the very beginning, I wrote that in Syria the Mistrals would not be superfluous. Are you considering a peacetime fleet only?

                        Of course not. But you put forward requirements for stability in a large-scale conflict only to the Russian UDC. If this is a universal argument, let's apply it to everyone and compare.

                        About American and others. They have bases and an air umbrella.

                        An umbrella is needed where it is raining, not in a closet. You are considering a Russian landing somewhere in Europe, do I understand correctly? Want to see how the "umbrella" and the presence of bases, say, in the Middle East, when landing in the Crimea, will help the Americans. How do you like this prospect? Or are they planning to land troops near their bases? Where is it more convenient?
                        It is pointless not to build ships arguing that there are no bases. If there are no ships, for whom to build bases? Or do they first need to be built and only then start thinking about creating a fleet?

                        And all the same, I consider large ships a valuable thing in themselves and no one will risk them.

                        Done right. I don’t understand why we are discussing a "throw across the English Channel."

                        Turkey is really different. They have islands at their side.
                        It's the same song about the need for aircraft carriers. All of them, both American and Russian, will represent a major target.

                        That's exactly what's close at hand. If Erdogan sharpens the yatogan exclusively against his Greek allies, why does he need the UDC? Isn't it easier and more practical to build several analogues of our large landing craft? From Izmir to Athens 280 km. You can get from Cyprus to the Turkish coast by kayak.
                        By the way, if anything, NATO looks less and less threatening. It is more and more difficult to imagine a Turkish-French squadron (well, it's over with the Greeks) heading against the Black Sea Fleet. The French, by the way, and the British are somehow not very good. And what about the bases, if the Saudis in the SCO have moved as observers, and the Americans are withdrawing their air defense from them. I do not exclude the further withdrawal of the Americans from there. The world is changing rapidly.

                        All of them, both American and Russian, will represent a major target.

                        And nevertheless, we are offered to build them and not the UDC. laughing
                        Here are just "darts" for aircraft carrier darts, we fly a little faster, the Americans in this regard, the possibilities are somewhat more modest (in terms of technical characteristics).
                        In fact, both are needed. Comparing and choosing one thing to the detriment of the other is not reasonable. By the time of completion, Kuznetsov will be repaired (if I am not mistaken within a month or two), the construction of the dock is being completed, the modernization of Nakhimov is also not endless, there will be eight frigates 22650. If necessary, the "expedition" will have something to cover. Or first you need to finish all of the above and then start building the UDC and wait 5 years?
                      30. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        0
                        19 September 2021 14: 33
                        You are considering a Russian landing somewhere in Europe, do I understand correctly?

                        You are misunderstanding. I have already filled my fingers with a corn, proving that there are no landing operations in the far sea zone and cannot be.
                        Hence all the misunderstanding. I'm not against big ships. But the conditions for their creation must mature. By the way, Mr. Marzhetsky posted a new article. It is more interesting, but I also have my own criticisms of it.
                      31. 123
                        123
                        +2
                        19 September 2021 14: 54
                        You are misunderstanding. I have already filled my fingers with a corn, proving that there are no landing operations in the far sea zone and cannot be.

                        Probably under the "landing operations" we understand a little differently. You give me a grandiose "landing in Normandy", and I tell you about conflicts of low intensity laughing

                        Hence all the misunderstanding. I'm not against big ships. But the conditions for their creation must mature.

                        Are you talking about the bases and the ocean fleet "no worse than the others"? The process should be synchronized in time and not first one, then another. hi
                      32. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        0
                        19 September 2021 15: 01
                        I have never spoken about the "grandiose landing in Normandy". Quite the opposite. All my comments refer to the fact that there will be no amphibious operations.
                        What is meant by "conflicts of low intensity" I do not know. And at high and low intensity, the rocket can arrive quite specific. I wonder why the Black Sea Fleet was practically not involved in the 08.08.08 war? There was something with two Georgian boats. But very, very indistinct
                      33. 123
                        123
                        +2
                        19 September 2021 15: 12
                        I have never spoken about the "grandiose landing in Normandy". Quite the opposite. All my comments refer to the fact that there will be no amphibious operations.

                        Then why are they building landing ships? Is Russia repeating other people's mistakes?

                        What is meant by "conflicts of low intensity" I do not know. And at high and low intensity, the rocket can arrive quite specific.

                        Probably the Syrian company can be attributed to them. I doubt that the Barmaley have such missiles.

                        I wonder why the Black Sea Fleet was practically not involved in the 08.08.08 war? There was something with two Georgian boats. But very, very indistinct

                        Probably because he did not have an enemy, but the fact that he was ... well, you know. So there was no reason to count on naval battles. What is incomprehensible to me is not entirely clear, one was sunk, the second escaped. For persuasiveness it was necessary to finish them off with rifle butts? If you mean the landing operation ... was it necessary? Nobody was going to capture Batumi, you can get to Abkhazia by land, in Ossetia the sea coast is not suitable smile
                      34. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        0
                        19 September 2021 15: 15
                        For the Syrian campaign, transports were needed. They were bought urgently all over the world. Including in Ukraine. About Georgia ... There is a war going on, and the whole fleet did not even move. I will look for naval battles of that war. Yes, and with boats there it seems not everything is so clear.
                      35. 123
                        123
                        0
                        19 September 2021 16: 05
                        For the Syrian campaign, transports were needed. They were bought urgently all over the world. Including in Ukraine.

                        Quite right. The ship, among other things, is able to bring a lot of useful things, and without any restrictions with insurance and inspections like civilian ships. Again, the headquarters, the hospital. At first, this would be very helpful.

                        About Georgia ... There is a war going on, and the whole fleet did not even move. I will look for naval battles of that war. Yes, and not everything seems so clear there with scatters.

                        It would be interesting to know new details. good
                      36. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        -1
                        19 September 2021 17: 55
                        It turns out that the Black Sea Fleet was landing troops! Either 2 or 3 BDK landed the 7th airborne assault division. But it seems to be in its rear. I don’t know the details. I had official reports on the course of hostilities somewhere, but I have to look for them.

                        In a naval battle. It is full of ambiguities. In particular, the "Tbilisi" boat, allegedly sunk in that battle, was later discovered by Russian paratroopers in Poti. Details here

                        https://flot.com/blog/katastrofa/strannosti-morskogo-boya-10-avgusta-2008-goda.php
                      37. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        -1
                        19 September 2021 19: 00
                        The Russian leadership decided to urgently send additional Russian troops, mainly airborne troops, to Abkhazia. On the morning of August 8, the 7th Airborne Assault Division (mountain), stationed in Novorossiysk, was ordered to form three battalion tactical groups and send them to Abkhazia. It was decided to transfer part of her forces by sea.

                        By evening, in the port of Novorossiysk, the battalion tactical group of the division's 108th airborne assault regiment began loading onto the landing ships of the Black Sea Fleet. The first to be loaded was the large landing ship "Caesar Kunikov". Quickly accepting 150 people and 20 pieces of equipment of the regiment, by 19.00 he moved away from the coast. By 20.30, the main part of the battalion group, which had returned from the Ramenskoye training ground, was concentrated in the port. By evening, a large landing ship "Saratov" entered the port, which at the time the division received the order was making a transition with cargo to Sevastopol. After unloading it, from 23.00 a large landing ship took over the rest of the battalion tactical group - 450 servicemen and more than 100 pieces of equipment in a few hours.

                        Towards night, to ensure the security of Abkhazia from the sea and cover the landing of the amphibious assault, several small warships from the fleet forces based there left the Novorossiysk naval base to the shores of Abkhazia. In Sevastopol, the flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, the missile cruiser Moskva, began to prepare for an urgent sailing out to sea.

                        August 9 By 5.30 am, a detachment of Russian ships arrived in the Ochamchire region, consisting of the large landing ships Caesar Kunikov and Saratov, the small missile ship Mirage, the small anti-submarine ship Suzdalets, and the sea minesweepers Zheleznyakov and Turbinist. On the landing ships was the battalion tactical group of the 108th airborne assault regiment of the 7th airborne assault division, loaded in Novorossiysk - a total of over 500 servicemen and about 100 pieces of equipment. Until the order to disembark was received, the ships remained in the roadstead of Ochamchira.

                        At 16.00:16.40 pm, the Russian side officially announced the start of patrolling the Abkhazian shores and the establishment of a safety zone prohibited from navigation. At 19.12:4 pm, the flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, the cruiser Moskva, left Sevastopol. At 85, several Georgian military boats that had moved out of Poti, headed towards Ochamchira and violated the security zone, were attacked by the Mirage and Suzdalts, who were covering the ships with the landing, while the Russian side fired two 9K33 anti-ship missiles of the Malakhit complex and two missiles 2M2MXNUMX of the Osa-MAXNUMX complex. After that, the Georgian boats turned away and left in the direction of Poti. Later, the Russian command announced the sinking of one Georgian boat in this collision, but there is no confirmation of this, and the Georgian side did not admit losses. The circumstances of this episode are still unclear. In the evening, Russian ships began unloading troops near Ochamchira.
                      38. guleg
                        guleg
                        -1
                        18 September 2021 21: 09
                        Quote: Bakht
                        The fact is that light aircraft carriers are not a fountain either. This is a road to nowhere

                        don't tell. In World War II, it was they (otherwise - escort aircraft carriers) who carried the burden of escorting convoys. Not every convoy can be equipped with an expensive "normal" aircraft carrier, and often one does not need one. A light escort with 10-15 planes coped with the task. But, they could be built in batches (which they did) and given in 1-2-3 and more every convoy... light AVs are certainly needed - but not to the detriment of heavy ships. They are an addition, not a replacement, just like MRKs are not a replacement for a destroyer.
                      39. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        0
                        18 September 2021 21: 27
                        Yes, of course, escort aircraft carriers were very much in demand in the Second World War. They completely closed the "black hole" in the Atlantic. And their presence in the convoys was useful. Although their seaworthiness and left much to be desired. Although not a document, but A. McLean's book "The Ship of His Majesty Ulysses" (although in my opinion the correct translation would be "The Ship of Her Majesty Ulysses" briefly shows how in the North Atlantic convoy aircraft carriers had to leave the escort group. Due to bad weather ...
                        But what convoys is Russia going to conduct?
                      40. guleg
                        guleg
                        -1
                        18 September 2021 21: 15
                        Quote: Bakht
                        Under what excitement can the UDC be used? Or a light aircraft carrier?

                        Honestly, not a practitioner in this topic, but I will try to convey. what I know from practitioners. Most of all, it was not the weather itself that strained and influenced the readiness for departure, but the latitude. an aircraft carrier, as a large ship (even a light one pulls 20-25 thousand tons) is not very prone to excitement and rolling. points up to 5 with this you can work, almost 100 thousand Nimitzs work with 7 points. Those. Although this is a red degree, it is still quite possible to fly (for example, in such weather, missiles from NK are not launched already). In the north, this is the priest. Preparing the aircraft for departure, checking the equipment, blowing it (from condensate), breaking ice from the glider and blowing it again, etc. numerous and routine operations that are not in the norms. climate, led to an eerie figure at par for the preparation of the aircraft. And then - more post-flight procedures. This is not counting the fact that they clean the deck,
                      41. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        0
                        18 September 2021 21: 37
                        I can not say exactly. But 5 points neither light aircraft carriers nor UDC will be able to work. 7 points for them is already a complete ass. We need to look at the characteristics. Perhaps the Nimitz will be able to work, but it is not a fact that it will be good. 7 points is a wave height up to 6 meters. I will not envy. I only once got into such a storm in the Pacific Ocean. Our helicopter went under the water. True, it was not an aircraft carrier wink
                      42. guleg
                        guleg
                        -1
                        18 September 2021 21: 17
                        Quote: Bakht
                        twice the helicopter flew up to the ship, turned around and went ashore. Sea swell 4 points, wind 15 m per sec. Landing is risky and canceled

                        military and civilians have different norms. And how large the ship is and how it is equipped - also has a great effect.
                      43. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        0
                        18 September 2021 21: 38
                        When the deck walks 2-3 meters, there is no difference for both military and civilians.
                      44. guleg
                        guleg
                        -1
                        18 September 2021 21: 45
                        Warships in this regard are equipped more seriously. In peacetime, naturally, no one will risk it, and the aircraft will simply be sent to a land airfield (if available, of course). In a combat situation, they will both raise and plant. There is at least a system of forced landing by a cable (which drops the helicopter and for which it is literally pulled to the deck) - at least on maid-in ships behind a puddle.
                      45. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        0
                        18 September 2021 21: 46
                        I have not seen, I can not say anything.
                      46. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        0
                        18 September 2021 22: 20
                        Looked briefly at the characteristics of Nimitz. The maximum sea state is 7 Beaufort points. Acceptance and release of aircraft only at full speed against the wind. It means pitching. Don't eat gud.
                      47. guleg
                        guleg
                        -2
                        18 September 2021 22: 30
                        Yes, 7 points is when the scribe is already scary, but you can still fly. According to the regulations. Outside the time limit - I don't know. An aircraft carrier is so good that it can go so as to land an aircraft with minimal risk - i.e. stand up to the wave and wind. For a full move - I bet. I saw a real video when the C-2 Greyhound takes off - they had such a transport-mail plane - at the minimum speed upwind, like Storch almost - started the engines and already in the sky. This is without a catapult. And with the help of a catapult, the movement of the ship is not at all important. For jet engines, yes - they try to gain speed, 30 knots (55) are not superfluous, at a lift-off speed of 250 - almost a fifth of the ship provides a "free" move, which means that you can fill the tanks in full and hang bombs. They take off - even from the "stop" (I have such pictures - the takeoff of the "Phantom" with AB at anchor in the port). Wind - yes, but I always orientate AB against the wind, it helps to take off. And oddly enough - to sit down too.
                      48. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        0
                        18 September 2021 22: 50
                        Storm in the Barents Sea. Not very strong. But we couldn't turn around


                        Work Boat hurries home. Speed ​​14 knots (approximately) Almost complete calm

                      49. guleg
                        guleg
                        -1
                        18 September 2021 22: 54
                        Nice pictures. They just don't prove anything. Good luck)
                      50. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        -1
                        18 September 2021 22: 57
                        The discussion is over because of your inability to behave like a well-mannered person.
                      51. guleg
                        guleg
                        -1
                        19 September 2021 00: 00
                        Quote: Bakht
                        prove nothing

                        Indeed, in fact, they do not prove that under such weather conditions the operation of carrier-based aircraft is impossible. Where is it filmed?
                      52. guleg
                        guleg
                        -1
                        18 September 2021 21: 20
                        Quote: Bakht
                        1000 people on hold? How many days?

                        full load of UDC - no more than 3-4 days. Otherwise, this whole crowd will simply have nothing to feed. Max. landing - only for short distances.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        And the enemy sits and waits ...

                        so the fact of the matter is that the landing from the UDC is not under the PDO trunks (as in the BDK), but a girth in depth is possible.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        how much can you land in one airborne sortie?

                        but this is an interesting question. You can count. What are your estimates?
                      53. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        0
                        18 September 2021 21: 41
                        Sivkov has already calculated. The article has it. Only 4 helicopters.

                        To drop marines by helicopters, our UDC will be able to use only the main transport and combat helicopter of Russian naval aviation - the Ka-29, which has a carrying capacity of up to 4 tons and is capable of taking on board up to 16 fighters. This means that it is impossible to transfer armored vehicles by air. Only manpower and a limited range of weapons, at best, light vehicles. Everything else - only by airborne landing craft (boats) on the coast.
                      54. guleg
                        guleg
                        -1
                        18 September 2021 21: 49
                        Armored vehicles - of course not. Only paratroopers with their personal weapons, mortars and anti-tank systems. This is also not a little, especially since they will beat in the rear of the defense (PDO). Diverting strength to themselves, and having done a lot of miracles themselves. While the leading edge should be treated with missiles and cannon artillery support ships, as well as attack helicopters (aircraft) with UDC, and then high-speed landing craft should go.
                      55. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        0
                        18 September 2021 21: 57
                        Removing 30 miles? It seems so you wrote. Our fastest FRC achieved 30 knots in good weather. The landing boat gives the same amount. An hour there, an hour back.
                      56. guleg
                        guleg
                        -1
                        18 September 2021 22: 14
                        30-50 miles (that's 50-90 km). Yes, an hour or two. Until they reach, they will process the shore and the group abandoned to the rear of the PDO will have time to complete the task. In sight of the surviving PDO, they will be at most 10 minutes at most - and it is not a fact that they are not covered by the turntables that have refueled and replenished the BC
                      57. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        0
                        18 September 2021 22: 18
                        Theory ... Well, this can only be verified by practice.

                        We had firefighting drills every week. Every last detail knew what to do. But when smoke started in the engine room at a dock in Malta, half of the fire brigade ended up on the shore instead of their place on the staffing table.
                        There are no ravines on the sea, but it is still difficult to walk on it
                      58. guleg
                        guleg
                        -1
                        18 September 2021 21: 53
                        10 Ka-27 helicopters will take about a hundred fighters with light weapons (mortars and ATGMs) - a company.
                      59. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        0
                        18 September 2021 22: 02
                        Not special, but the Ka-27 does not seem to be a transport one. Ka-29 will take 16 soldiers with personal weapons. Without mortars and anti-tank systems. There are only 16 helicopters at the UDC. There should be both shock and anti-submarine and transport. So 10 Ka-29s may not exist. They talk about 4 helicopters with 16 fighters each. In total, one sortie is 72 fighters. A lot. But it may not be enough
                      60. guleg
                        guleg
                        -1
                        18 September 2021 22: 08
                        I think in my own way, and I think they will do something like that. the first wave - a maximum of transport, on average 10-12 people on board (some will carry purely troops, some - weapons) 10 helicopters - it is quite possible. Some of the devices are located just on the deck, and - with a one-way flight. War. Percussion - 6 pieces, no more. There are no PLO helicopters in the strike operation at all. This is the task of the escort.
                      61. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        0
                        18 September 2021 22: 14
                        It's still risky. The air group will have helicopters of different types. But this is for the operation planners.
                  2. guleg
                    guleg
                    -1
                    18 September 2021 21: 06
                    Quote: Bakht
                    Why are they being built in huge numbers? As many as 2 (two) pieces

                    go crazy - as many as two (!) pieces, a huge amount!

                    Quote: Bakht
                    On which fleets (out of 4) will they be used?

                    there is no need to graduate from the academy to understand that only two - the North and the Pacific. On the BF and Black Sea Fleet, large ships are not residents at all, these puddles are shot through. The most important thing for the Pacific Fleet, in general, everything is sad with the fleet there. I would have taken both of them there at once. As the flagship of the fleet and the core of the strike forces (in the absence of other suitable ships)

                    Quote: Bakht
                    for what purposes can the UDC be used in the Russian Navy?

                    for many. Firstly, it is a ship capable of operating in the oceanic zone. And it is not necessary to sing songs that Russia is a land power and a fleet it does not need. Needed, and how. The United States was also a continental power, and it is only thanks to the navy that they are what they are today. The strongest power. The arguments are printed a hundred times and beaten, I see no reason to do it 1001 times.
                    1. Bakht
                      Bakht
                      0
                      18 September 2021 21: 45
                      I don't need arguments. I didn’t say that the Russian Fleet is not needed. The fleet is absolutely necessary. It depends on which one.
                      At the Pacific Fleet, that's good. Both. The Japanese have two Izumas.
          2. Archon
            Archon
            0
            17 September 2021 21: 07
            If about UDC of the type of helicopter carriers, then it can be used not only for landing, but also to search for enemy submarines with the help of helicopters. And this is a very important task.
        3. 123
          123
          0
          17 September 2021 17: 36
          He is trying to build a UDC now (two ships are laid, but flawed in comparison with the Mistral project).

          And why are they flawed?

          In this regard, the position of many statesmen, who broadcast from the stands, radio and television, about "the uselessness of Russia of the UDC" is also touching. Almost the same people are saying exactly the opposite. Hence my comment - since the tall ones have changed their shoes, then what is the audience worth? they will also be foaming at the mouth to prove the need for UDC, with which zeal a couple of years ago they proved their uselessness. And then forgive others ... God is called.

          The position of the "statesmen" on the UDC may differ, however, as well as the "audience". Do you blame someone specifically for changing shoes, or are you just throwing it on the fan?
          1. guleg
            guleg
            -1
            17 September 2021 19: 40
            Quote: 123
            He is trying to build a UDC now (two ships are laid, but flawed in comparison with the Mistral project).

            And why are they flawed?

            Look closely at the model. Doesn't it bother you?


            1. 123
              123
              0
              17 September 2021 20: 03
              Look closely at the model. Doesn't it bother you?

              Does the scale or color of the model annoy you?
              1. guleg
                guleg
                -1
                17 September 2021 20: 12
                Quote: 123
                Does the scale or color of the model annoy you?

                Are you a clown? The circus is on the other side.
                If you are going to grimace, then do not make a serious expression on your face and like "I ask smart questions." What is the question - this is the answer
                1. 123
                  123
                  +1
                  17 September 2021 20: 20
                  Are you a clown? The circus is on the other side.
                  If you are going to grimace, then do not make a serious expression on your face and like "I ask smart questions." What is the question - this is the answer

                  You're all so mysterious winked Something seems flawed to you, so share it with the public, do not keep it to yourself. smile
                  1. guleg
                    guleg
                    -1
                    17 September 2021 20: 23
                    Those. Does nothing bother you in the model of the future of the Russian UDC? Is everyone gut? Who are you by education and specialty? Does this mean how much you are generally versed in technology, especially naval and military? For if not in the tooth with a foot, then if they themselves did not notice anything, then the explanations, I'm afraid, will not help, especially if the frame is not initially set up to perceive them.

                    If you want to grimace, they showed you the way to the circus. And if you think that you look insanely witty, I will disappoint. You look like a clown, nothing more.
                    1. 123
                      123
                      0
                      17 September 2021 20: 25
                      Is everyone gut? Who are you by education and specialty? Does this mean how much you are generally versed in technology, especially naval and military? For if not in the tooth with a foot, then if they themselves did not notice anything, then the explanations, I'm afraid, will not help, especially if the frame is not initially set up to perceive them.
                      If you want to grimace, they showed you the way to the circus.

                      Well, share with amateurs that the eye of an experienced shipbuilder in the third generation of a flawed one saw?
                      1. guleg
                        guleg
                        -1
                        17 September 2021 20: 26
                        The dilettante in the tenth generation will deign to answer the question,

                        Quote: Phantom
                        Who are you by education and specialty?
                      2. 123
                        123
                        +1
                        17 September 2021 20: 29
                        Who are you by education and specialty?

                        Are you still a human resources department?
                        Is there anything to say in essence or are we going to pose as a sea wolf and be mysteriously silent?
                      3. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        -2
                        17 September 2021 20: 35
                        Sorry to interfere. But you will not be answered.

                        https://vpk-news.ru/articles/57981

                        The specialist apparently does not like the "island" on the deck. But its width is only 8 meters.
                      4. 123
                        123
                        +1
                        17 September 2021 20: 40
                        Sorry to interfere. But you will not be answered.

                        And I'm just composing an answer for you in fits and starts ...
                        What a shame and what to do now? I won't be able to sleep until Admiral Bohm gives his valuable opinion. winked

                        The specialist apparently does not like the "island" on the deck. But its width is only 8 meters.

                        Who knows what they are actually building. The information is contradictory. They laid like one thing, then the displacement increased, the project changed. What will a real ship have in common with this layout besides the name is a riddle.
                      5. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        0
                        17 September 2021 20: 47
                        I know that Sivkov is not very favored on this site. I cited the link to his article because everything that concerns these ships has been accumulated in it.
                        I still believe that these ships are needed in limited quantities for one reason only. Only as a groundwork for the future, not to lose technology, to try out new methods and concepts, to train crews and marines. Also for the creation and testing of new sea-based aircraft (airplanes and helicopters). Well, and conducting rescue operations in peacetime.
                        In an interview with the general director of AkBars, it is said that the question of turning them into hospital ships is also being considered. In any case, such a possibility is provided.
                      6. 123
                        123
                        +1
                        17 September 2021 20: 56
                        I know that Sivkov is not very favored on this site. I cited the link to his article because everything that concerns these ships has been accumulated in it.

                        It is not yet clear what exactly is being built, I see no reason to discuss the details.

                        I still believe that these ships are needed in limited quantities for one reason only.

                        And I'm not saying that their sleepyheads are required. I suppose they will not be limited to two, they will lay down a couple more.

                        In an interview with the general director of AkBars, it is said that the question of turning them into hospital ships is also being considered. In any case, such a possibility is provided.

                        As far as I remember, the hospital is already provided there. This is at once a floating base and headquarters, and a helipad and a hospital. If something happens, people can be evacuated to them.
                      7. guleg
                        guleg
                        -1
                        17 September 2021 21: 34
                        Quote: 123
                        As far as I remember, the hospital is already there.

                        The initial hospital there is not provided, with the exception of medical rooms available on all ships. On UDC can be deployed in a short time a floating hospital, it can also be used as a transport - having huge internal volumes, they can be used in different ways. Transport Marines, refugees, tanks or humanitarian aid containers, or supply medical equipment and bunks for the wounded.
                        Headquarters - yes, the UDC can act in this capacity, thanks to the availability of free premises and communication equipment
                      8. 123
                        123
                        0
                        18 September 2021 08: 03
                        The initial hospital there is not provided, with the exception of medical rooms available on all ships. A floating hospital can be deployed at the UDC in a short time

                        And how do you think you can deploy in a short time something that is not on the ship far from home? The hospital is a ward for patients, operating rooms, rooms with medical equipment.
                        The premises are being transformed, today the warehouse, tomorrow the "boxes" have been removed, the beds have been arranged, the equipment has been arranged.
                      9. guleg
                        guleg
                        0
                        18 September 2021 09: 35
                        Quote: 123
                        And how do you think you can deploy in a short time something that is not on the ship far from home?

                        how is a field hospital set up?

                        Or are you piously sure that in addition to decks for accommodating a thousand marines, fifty tanks, hangars for two dozen helicopters and cabins and crew quarters of three hundred, there is also a hospital for 200-300 beds on the ship? No, just the ship's infirmary. The UDC is a combat ship (like any ship - not a rubber one), its main and main task is to ensure the delivery and disembarkation of an assault force and provide it with fire support from the air. All other functions are secondary, they can be implemented at the expense of the main one. Unload the Marines, and set up the hospital on those decks. Or load boxes with humanitarian aid there. How much you load depends on the internal volumes.

                        As an example to you - the German frigates of the Baden-Württemberg class.



                        Many criticize them for being oversized (displacement like that of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers) and huge superstructures. The Germans explain this simply - they hope that their ships will not have to take part in the war, but it is more convenient for a peaceful life, and the ship can also be used for humanitarian missions, helping victims of disasters, even deploying a hospital on board.
                      10. 123
                        123
                        0
                        18 September 2021 10: 46
                        Or are you piously sure that in addition to decks for accommodating a thousand marines, fifty tanks, hangars for two dozen helicopters and cabins and crew quarters of three hundred, there is also a hospital for 200-300 beds on the ship? No, just the ship's infirmary. The UDC is a combat ship (like any ship - not a rubber one), its main and main task is to ensure the delivery and disembarkation of an assault force and provide it with fire support from the air.

                        I am "firmly convinced" that the ship's premises can be used in different ways, depending on the task. They will set the task to fill up the eyeballs with tanks, if the tanks are lucky, the hospital will be deployed until the end, deployed in the same premises. Someone claims that it will be at the same time?
                      11. guleg
                        guleg
                        -1
                        18 September 2021 11: 37
                        Quote: 123
                        They will set the task to fill up the eyeballs with tanks, if the tanks are lucky, the hospital will be deployed until the end, deployed in the same premises. Someone claims that it will be at the same time?

                        What are we talking about
                      12. guleg
                        guleg
                        0
                        17 September 2021 21: 25
                        Quote: Bakht
                        Sorry to interfere. But You will not be answered.

                        Always be responsible only for yourself, so as not to get into a mess hi
                      13. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        -1
                        17 September 2021 21: 34
                        So I didn't seem to get it.
                        We both seem to have come to the conclusion that the project is flawed. You just concentrate on the technical parameters. And I am considering the very concept of using the UDC for the Russian Navy. They have no place in solving specific problems.
                        The only justification for such a decision can only be the intention to develop technologies and principles of use.
                      14. guleg
                        guleg
                        -1
                        17 September 2021 21: 37
                        Quote: Bakht
                        So I didn't seem to get it

                        Truth? I hope the author of the quote is familiar to you

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Sorry to interfere. But You will not be answered
                      15. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        -2
                        17 September 2021 21: 38
                        Answered. I admit. But I had to wait so long for an answer.
                      16. guleg
                        guleg
                        -2
                        17 September 2021 21: 47
                        Quote: Bakht
                        But it took so long to wait for an answer

                        Haven't turned gray, grandchildren have not grown? Somewhere there is a limited time for a reply, like a retaliatory move in chess? Or am I obliged to stick around the site inseparably - did they answer or did not answer? Why, you have to write the answer faster! Do not care other things and so on - here such important gentlemen are waiting!

                        Slow down the CSV, and people will be drawn to you. hi
                      17. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        -1
                        17 September 2021 21: 49
                        No, there is no time limit for an answer. But you responded with three or more posts with no real answer. Therefore, I wrote that you will not answer.
                        You did not answer on the merits, but started a discussion about the specialty and clowning.
                      18. guleg
                        guleg
                        -1
                        17 September 2021 21: 56
                        Quote: Bakht
                        No, there is no time limit for an answer

                        then why

                        Quote: Bakht
                        But it took so long to wait for an answer

                        ??

                        Quote: Bakht
                        started a discussion about specialty and clowning

                        What are you saying! wassat in fact, this is my counterpart, in response to a completely correct question, he deigned to show his clown abilities. So it became interesting to what extent he can perceive information at all. Moreover, the question does not belong to the category of indecent. So what about clownery - to the wrong address. hi
                      19. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        -1
                        17 September 2021 21: 59
                        Do we have to leave the last word for ourselves?
                        There was time for an answer, there was no answer. I got into someone else's discussion. And he apologized in advance. Your sarcasm is clearly inappropriate.
                      20. guleg
                        guleg
                        -2
                        17 September 2021 22: 02
                        You didn’t just fit in, you began to answer for me behind my back. It is to this reaction. Speak on the topic, be responsible for yourself, and no one will express a complaint. However, this is already offtopic
                      21. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        -1
                        17 September 2021 22: 06
                        I gave a link to the article. That's all. And then I was already responsible for myself. Basically, your subsequent answer is the same article. So I do not accept your claims.
                        The Forum assumes the open participation of any participant. If you don't want to hear someone else's opinion, use your personal mail. Write in an open forum - be prepared that anyone can answer.
                        So I spoke on the topic and was responsible for myself. Your claims are irrelevant.
                      22. guleg
                        guleg
                        -1
                        17 September 2021 21: 41
                        Quote: Bakht
                        And I am considering the very concept of using the UDC for the Russian Navy. They have no place in solving specific problems

                        you just get stuck on one task of the fleet

                        Quote: Bakht
                        the main task of the surface fleet of the Russian Federation (at least of the Northern and Pacific fleets) is to support the deployment area of ​​strategic missile carriers

                        but this task is not the only one. For if we proceed only from it, we generally "do not need" a lot of things, up to whole classes of ships
                      23. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        -2
                        17 September 2021 21: 43
                        I didn't say "the only one". I said basic.
                      24. guleg
                        guleg
                        0
                        17 September 2021 20: 50
                        Ok, let's assume that we graduated from a circus school and a clown in the 10th generation. But it’s not clear what you’re doing here, does the circus school say something about ships?

                        Now we put on glasses and look. You are especially attentive

                        First. it deck... Damaged deck for UDC. It is not clear why they deliberately reduced its size and area, besides having narrowed it in the nose. For all normal UDCs, it is as large as possible in size, from bow to stern, from side to side - almost a rectangle in plan. Not only was the area useful for aircraft placement at 23900 simply "thrown overboard", but with such a deck configuration, without reworking the ship, it would be impossible to ensure the launch of the SKVP with a short range. Yes, we do not have vertical units yet, but it was worth counting on, the ship should not serve for 10-15 years.


                        Second. Hypertrophied "island"... It occupies up to half the width of the deck, again "eating up" the deck space so precious on an aircraft-carrying ship. The start of the same SKVP with such an "island" seems to be very problematic. In general, the architecture of the superstructure is one solid question, and on the placement of posts, and on the placement of antennas and other things.


                        This is how the deck and the "island" of the "normal" UDC look like


                        Further, I think it is not worth continuing, although there will be a dozen more positions on the list. You will not understand and appreciate. Why is the project like this? Look at the designer. This is KB (Zelenodolsk Design Bureau) never designed not like landing ships, in general ships of large displacement. It would be like instructing a helicopter design bureau to design an aircraft, and a locomotive plant to design a tank. The fact that a non-core design bureau is engaged in the project. and even in such a short time (think - only three (!) months), it will not lead to anything good. We will see more than one blunder on the UDC of this project.
                        There is either some interesting relationship between representatives in the Ministry of Defense and the performer, or a certain Frankenstein is deliberately made from the project. But why?

                        In general, the project is very strange. You could spend a little of your "precious" time and not wipe your pants here, but be a little enlightened about this project and its designers.
                      25. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        -2
                        17 September 2021 21: 04
                        "Surf" is almost half the size of "Mistrals". The dimensions are also much smaller. The width of the superstructure is 8 meters. The shape was chosen taking into account the reduction of reflective surfaces. So to say "stealth in our style".
                        The size of the helicopter fleet is also limited. Contours - this is really for specialists. It is already necessary to study seaworthiness.
                        Once I talked with real specialists. In absentia, of course. In their opinion, the main task of the surface fleet of the Russian Federation (at least of the Northern and Pacific fleets) is to provide for the deployment area of ​​strategic missile carriers. This is the task of a namber van for the surface fleet. From this point of view, Sivkov is probably right. It would be better to convert them into light submarine aircraft carriers.
                        They are useless for amphibious operations in the existing fleet.
                      26. guleg
                        guleg
                        0
                        17 September 2021 21: 15
                        Quote: Bakht
                        "Surf" is almost half the size of "Mistrals"

                        On the contrary, the Project 23900 UDC is larger than the Mistral. Displacement 40 thousand / 22 thousand tons, length 230/199, width 38/32 meters. You, apparently, operate with old information - since then, the domestic UDC has grown considerably. Moreover, despite its large size, it has a more modest air group (16 versus 30). If there were a normal deck on 23900, it would be possible to shove in another five or a dozen "extra" turntables and somehow ensure parity.
                        The Mistral has a significantly smaller crew (160 versus 300) - this can only be correlated with a higher level of automation

                        However, this does not in the least remove the questions and does not explain the oddities in the architecture of the 23900 project.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        It would be better to convert them into light submarine aircraft carriers.

                        I'm afraid they will have to be taken apart on the slipway and re-mortgaged. Above, I have already noted the extreme inability of the ship to basing aircraft on it.
                      27. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        -2
                        17 September 2021 21: 18
                        Really. I remember that their displacement was about 16-20 thousand tons. Now I looked at Wikipedia. Valid under 40. The first project was 000 tons, the second was 14 tons. This is a completely different project.
                        40 tons is already a small aircraft carrier. Moreover, it will stand idle.
      2. yada1111yandex.ru
        yada1111yandex.ru
        0
        18 September 2021 11: 43
        I think that they are needed only as a means of filing the dough. Previously - Storetkin, now Kozhuget
  3. shiva
    shiva
    +4
    16 September 2021 21: 54
    And the most interesting thing is that the Australopithecus French submarines could begin to be commissioned one by one in a couple of years, gradually removing outdated troughs from the composition, and their nuclear ones at American reactors - only in 36 ... (article at a glance) And on what will they (especially say - not walk) swim for 10 years? During this time, the "sleepy joe" will become very sleepy, and who will be there to steer in the Pentagon in 15 years and whether he will throw the inhabitants of the country a kangaroo is a big question.
    And of course, I was glad for the French - how they stepped on their throats with 2 lard bucks without selling us the mistrals, at the American behest, and now their partners with the same Americans have thrown 50 lard ... beauty! So trust people after that, I gave myself to him in the moonlight, and he took my young breasts - and tied them in a knot on my back!
    And in general it turns out very interestingly - the Australopithecines were dragged into this alliance, clearly against China. And who will they be in the planned war against the Celestial Empire, even with nuclear submarines? I don’t want to say a word about cannon fodder, but this whole situation smells badly because the Chinese’s new missile silos clearly want to retarget the kangaroo a little. Only those do not know about it.
    1. guleg
      guleg
      -2
      16 September 2021 23: 42
      Quote: shiva
      Australopithecus sucked in

      yes they came in themselves! back in the "coalition" QUAD - an international strategic dialogue implemented by the United States, Japan, Australia and India. They have long been bogged down, and not only with their paws.

      Quote: shiva
      Only those do not know about it

      in the light of the above - hardly

      But they are not afraid. For what is Australia - this is the former dominion of Great Britain. they will fit in for them, and their own Armed Forces are not so bad (here in Russia they do not know anything about this and do not write about it - Ukraine and the United States are more interesting).
      The fact is that the AVMS will receive the boats that they wanted, and not that were offered by the arrogant French (non-nuclear and only built in France, without any technology transfer), and not the fact that within the time frame you agreed. I think much earlier - from the British and US Navy, first, and then they will build something themselves, such as "Elk". Which a priori for another 20 years will be better than the best Chinese submarine.

      By the way, during the Second World War, the Australians sometimes gave the Japanese a good shit. This is for inept warriors. This is because in our country this page of history is not covered as "not interesting"
      1. Vladislav N.
        Vladislav N.
        +4
        17 September 2021 06: 39
        Quote: Phantom
        This is for the inept warriors

        We remember who was exiled to the "Green Continent".
        The descendants of convicts, perverts, homosexuals and serial killers showed special skills in Vietnam, where they served syshya, and not so long ago in Afghanistan, these same polupokers flashed their military skills.
        1. guleg
          guleg
          -1
          17 September 2021 19: 31
          Quote: Vladislav N.
          these same poker players flashed their military skills.

          what can you say about WWII?
          1. Vladislav N.
            Vladislav N.
            -1
            17 September 2021 22: 38
            She, of course, the Australopithecines were the main striking force of the anti-Hitler coalition, which endured the main hardships of the war on its shoulders. So? Her? laughing
            1. guleg
              guleg
              0
              17 September 2021 22: 58
              sarcasm as a substitute for knowledge? Well, well ... Who will compensate for their absence with what.
              1. Vladislav N.
                Vladislav N.
                -1
                17 September 2021 23: 01
                You have that knowledge, that sarcasm is lame on all 4 limbs. Was it worth it for you to publicly declare this?
                1. guleg
                  guleg
                  0
                  17 September 2021 23: 08
                  I see the tricks of a homebrew "historian" - to pull out a couple of convenient facts and concoct a theory on this. According to your logic, the Japanese did nothing but bend Russia - after all, the RYAV won it.
                  1. Vladislav N.
                    Vladislav N.
                    -2
                    18 September 2021 06: 54
                    The slanting Yegorka has a very sharp-sighted eye - one misfortune, he looks in the wrong direction. The first GSS foreigners were ... the Czechs, and deservedly so, but this is not a reason to broadcast that they made a tangible contribution to the Victory.
                    Against the background of those who really won this even near-zero ... And among the Australian brakes of which whoever did not play, there were those who fought with dignity ... in homeopathic quantities ...
                    1. guleg
                      guleg
                      0
                      18 September 2021 09: 23
                      Quote: Vladislav N.
                      The slanting Yegorka has a very sharp-sighted eye - one trouble, he does not look there

                      Correctly wrote here, only the addressee was mistaken - you need to pronounce this phrase in front of the mirror. And as often as possible)

                      Quote: Vladislav N.
                      The special skills of the descendants of convicts, perverts, homosexuals and serial killers have shown

                      Convicts were not exiled to Japan, but the Yapas in the Second World War "showed" themselves in all their glory ... So that sometimes Hitler's SSmen seem like boys. In China, too, convicts and murderers were not taken, how did they show themselves?
                      Your logic is brilliant, it is a pity that it is not wassat
                      1. The comment was deleted.
                      2. The comment was deleted.
                      3. The comment was deleted.
                      4. The comment was deleted.
      2. 123
        123
        0
        17 September 2021 17: 41
        Their Armed Forces are not so bad (here in Russia they do not know anything about this and do not write about it - Ukraine and the United States are more interesting).
        ...
        I think much earlier - from the British and US Navy, at first,

        It looks like we don't write about England either ... winked Do you remember how many submarines they have? Got something to transfer? smile
        1. guleg
          guleg
          0
          17 September 2021 19: 37
          Quote: 123
          Got something to transfer?

          The British may hand over one, two, or all three of the remaining Trafalgar. The boats are far from new, in the KVMS they are being replaced by "Astyuts", but the Australians will get off (to master what a nuclear-powered ship is) until new nuclear submarines are built. This is the more likely type, since Australia is not going to have nuclear weapons, so they do not need boats with SLBMs, and Trafalgars are multi-purpose torpedo-missile (for cruise missiles)
          1. 123
            123
            0
            17 September 2021 20: 01
            The British may hand over one, two, or all three of the remaining Trafalgar. The boats are far from new, in the KVMS they are being replaced by "Astyuts", but the Australians will get off (to master what a nuclear-powered ship is) until new nuclear submarines are built.

            And do not tell me why they are being withdrawn from the fleet? Not otherwise due to obsolescence? smile Before transferring this, at least repairs will be required, and then there are reactors. In general, the pleasure is not cheap and will require a decent amount of time.
            Are Australians ready to wait and pay for the repair of decommissioned outdated "longboats"? Don't they want new ones?
            1. guleg
              guleg
              0
              17 September 2021 20: 10
              To my mind, I clearly wrote that the boats are far from new and KVMS are especially unnecessary, they are being replaced by more advanced and modern ones. But the Australians, who did not have nuclear-powered ships at all, will get off for now - until new nuclear submarines are built for them (or they themselves). What's not clear here?
              The USSR also passed on nothing new to the Indians, and they were glad. Their first nuclear submarine is the Soviet lead nuclear submarine K-43 of project 670, the submarine at the time of transfer was 20 years old.

              Quote: 123
              Don't they want new ones?

              New 10 years will have to wait. The project on which they will be built has not even been approved yet. Therefore, for now, the old British ones will be exploited.
              1. 123
                123
                -1
                17 September 2021 20: 18
                In my opinion, I clearly wrote that the boats are far from new and the KVMS is especially unnecessary, they are being replaced by more advanced and modern ones.

                And where did you get the idea that the Australians need them?

                But the Australians, who did not have nuclear-powered ships at all, will get off for now - until new nuclear submarines are built for them (or they themselves). What's not clear here?

                Is it burning to them? Is China preparing to land on the Australian coast on Monday?

                New 10 years will have to wait. The project on which they will be built has not even been approved yet. Therefore, for now, the old British ones will be exploited.

                How long will they have to wait for British junk? Five years? Is it so much money to put in so that the remaining 5 years of waiting are not so boring? By the way, while the repairs are going on, there can be no talk of laying new ones, there are not many suitable shipyards in England. And as a rule, lead ships are not built in a new place.
                1. guleg
                  guleg
                  0
                  17 September 2021 20: 20
                  Quote: 123
                  there are not many suitable shipyards in England

                  where did you get the idea that the boats will be built in the UK?
                  1. 123
                    123
                    0
                    17 September 2021 20: 21
                    where did you get the idea that the boats will be built in the UK?

                    I guess. Otherwise, what is Britain's participation in the project?
                    1. guleg
                      guleg
                      0
                      17 September 2021 20: 25
                      Guess further. The boats will most likely be built according to a British project.
                      1. 123
                        123
                        0
                        17 September 2021 20: 28
                        Guess further. The boats will most likely be built according to a British project.

                        What am I talking about? As a rule, lead ships are built at home, with a phased transfer of production to a new location.
                        This was the example with the Mistrals, tankers are built on Zvezda that way.
    2. guleg
      guleg
      -5
      16 September 2021 23: 43
      Quote: shiva
      And of course, I was glad for the French

      there is a poll comment above. Leave your opinion as a comment? There are already enough ordinary nameless cowardly miners, but not all cowards here and without their own opinion?
    3. faiver
      faiver
      -1
      17 September 2021 00: 51
      And what will they (especially say - not walk) swim on for 10 years?

      - will be rented from staff, as Indians take from us, or as Britons rent tridens for submarines
      1. Marzhecki
        Marzhecki
        +1
        17 September 2021 08: 11
        Indians do not lease from us, but on lease. the difference is that the leased object does not pass into the ownership of the lessee, but the lease does not.
        in other words, Indians buy a submarine on an installment plan. but for some reason they call it "rent"
        1. faiver
          faiver
          +1
          17 September 2021 09: 04
          Thank you, we are aware of the fact that leasing is a long-term lease with subsequent redemption, the ownership is transferred to the tenant only after all payments have been paid, a financier by education, when he wrote a lease term paper ... hi
          1. Marzhecki
            Marzhecki
            +1
            19 September 2021 11: 43
            then why are you writing

            - will be rented from staff, as Indians take from us

            smile
            1. faiver
              faiver
              0
              19 September 2021 16: 34
              Because leasing is a type of lease, and until you buy out the property, the owner is the lessor, and the user is the lessee ...
  4. Vladislav N.
    Vladislav N.
    -4
    17 September 2021 06: 28
    For the first time, Marie Le Zahar said on the case .....
    Biologists say that monkeys sometimes manage to put together meaningful phrases from cubes with letters ... Not often, however ...
    1. 123
      123
      -2
      17 September 2021 17: 47
      For the first time, Marie Le Zahar said on the case .....
      Biologists say that monkeys sometimes manage to put together meaningful phrases from cubes with letters ... Not often, however ...

      Have you already put together that word happiness from cubes? smile

      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
  5. Khaertdinov Radik
    Khaertdinov Radik
    +1
    17 September 2021 07: 42
    Dance further to the tune of the USA, or you'll see it!)
  6. Igor Berg
    Igor Berg
    -6
    17 September 2021 08: 22
    mocked Zakharova, reminding the French functionary that in 2015 it was Paris that terminated the agreement with Moscow

    And Zakharova does not want to remember the root cause of the termination of the agreement?
    1. faiver
      faiver
      0
      17 September 2021 09: 05
      Do you think she forgot her?
  7. Ivan Vetrov
    Ivan Vetrov
    +2
    17 September 2021 08: 31
    Well, how in the shoes of a thrown ????
    1. Then
      Then
      0
      17 September 2021 14: 38
      Quote: Ivan Vetrov
      Well, how in the shoes of a thrown ????

      Here the question is not just a "kid". Then the Franks made it clear that in this situation they are not Jupiters, but simply bulls. Australia and the United States are part of a kind of super-alliance of the Anglo-Saxons with the highest level of internal trust and a supranational system of supervision over everything living in the world (FVEY), for which the francs are second class. It hurts the French the most to be second class.
  8. boriz
    boriz
    +1
    17 September 2021 11: 07
    God Rogue marks.
  9. gregor6549
    gregor6549
    +1
    17 September 2021 11: 29
    Actually, this story with submarines for Australia is rather murky. The boats were to be purchased through a competition between German, French and Japanese shipbuilding companies. And although in terms of proven technologies and compliance with the conditions of the competition, the Japanese and Germans were clearly ahead of the French, the construction of the boats was given to the French. After that, the Australian Ministry of Defense official in charge of the competition resigned from the ranks of the Australian armed forces and took a very large post on the board of directors of the French company. This feint seemed to be silently swallowed, but then a lot of other problems fell down, which in the end led Australia to the decision to refuse the services of the French, despite the very serious compensation that Australia would have to pay to France for breaking the contract.
    True, Australia may also have problems with new partners, because China immediately announced that Australia's nuclear submarines could seriously complicate relations between these countries and began to threaten to impose restrictions on Australia's trade with China. And China, whatever one may say, is still the largest consumer of Australian natural resources.
  10. Igor Berg
    Igor Berg
    -3
    17 September 2021 15: 23
    Quote: faiver
    Do you think she forgot her?

    Well, why didn't you voice it? Not 100 years have passed. Its irony is completely empty here. And then it will be right to say that Russia is deliberately distorting the facts, and only voices what is beneficial to it.
    1. 123
      123
      0
      17 September 2021 17: 50
      Well, why didn't you voice it? Not 100 years have passed. Its irony is completely empty here. And then it will be right to say that Russia is deliberately distorting the facts, and only voices what is beneficial to it.

      What you think is the reason is actually the reason. And it will be right to say that you distort the information.
  11. ali58
    ali58
    -1
    17 September 2021 17: 28
    Well, the paddling pools, on the cunning ... there is ... with a bolt, you will not jump off.
  12. The comment was deleted.