Still, I'm a good predictor. And one of the best predictors of my themes — our dear airborne helicopter. Expensive our ship dock, sometimes even amphibious assault ship.
Well, yes, of course — "Mistral".
It is not so long ago, I wrote triumphantly that of the second pair of "Mistral", which were to be built in our country, our leaders have refused. Not that I have it right foreshadowed, but all the pathos of my mistralnoy series called for. At least for this.
And now even more important happened coincidence.
It turned out that in Russia there are no lubricants, which are necessary for the operation of "Mistral". And the fuel (fuel) and lubricants — they say, even wrote about it in his fellow Rogozin tweeted. About the fuel I really did not write — failed to think of itself. But about lube — practically wrote. Wish — read here. And for those who are too lazy, I quote:
In fact, a complete coincidence that the Interfax report now!
And clarifies that
I'm in one of its own series, said: guys, I've been saying just what comes to mind. In head units come problematic positions, and not actually be hundreds of them! Interfax confirms this claim, citing those things which I did not have:
And eventually they hit upon the idea of what I warned almost three years (!) Back:
Citizens! I maintain that this is not the last! You need to look for the press, and we'll see how many more will come up from among those issues.
Cursed questions of our time. "Mistral"
"Mistral" in St. Petersburg … In the first time, I just did not believe in the seriousness of the discussions about buying it.
What we have on this subject on TV?
1. French steamer propaganda advantages: they say, such a sharp, functional ship not even the States. And he will teach us to modern technology.
2. Doubts Type A: why the Russian Federation itself ship? Where to plant landings? I suppose, once again deal with "corruption component"?
3. Doubts Type B: Why give money over the limit, would give better by our shipbuilders. And generally, lewd us — us! — To take the ships, Russian Alliance was able to do it all himself. And yet — scare away buyers, what we have at the moment so the ships boats take. I suppose, once again deal … see point 2.
4. Hypothesis: the purchase of these docks, helicopter — it does not matter soon equip the Navy (ships, which are not clear for what needed) and not getting zabugornyh technologies. A political issue: France will give us for the support of the EU, a lot of things, and even before you know it, recognize Abkhazia.
5. Announced unprecedented example of trust between Russia and the state of NATO. Like, right now all of us pulled.
6. In such a doubt: how will give us the French their new technology! Give a piece of metal, empty trough. We'll stay with the nose … Well, obviously deal … (p.2)
I have the mood to talk about Fri 6.
In general, why not start from the beginning, even though her short?
According pp 1 and 2. Steamer, really, cool. In particular, if the right to use. In other words, in the vast compound of diverse forces, would be nice, and the aircraft carrier. It is — in full-scale combat.
Surely we only have gathered to conduct full-scale war actions on marine areas? And we go to the place of landing, swim, then they?
And for any humanitarian deliveries, rescues "Mistral" is very steep. I would have said, more than a good deal. Boasted in 2008 in the Gulf of Guinea seized 5.7 tons of drugs already! And for this you need a monster displacement of more than 20 tons? While yes, our "Peter the Great" is also famous for the fight against Somali pirates …
According to claim 3. There is a doubt. If we assume that we "Mistral" are needed quickly, it really is better to purchase. Our half-dead plants — absolutely not clear when they will build it, and no guarantee that will ever be built.
It must be said that the Russian alliance, post-war, really all he could do, if anything, and gave to the side, then from the political imagination, and only allies. But before the war, even under Stalin — no. Favorite of "Tashkent" — Italian, cruiser "Kirov" — you can say, half Italian. Even Hitler had acquired in 1939, the heavy cruiser "Lützow", though unfinished. It was never completed before the "destroyer" state, but standing on the hitching post, it's great to shoot at the Germans …
Our homeland and take, especially en masse — in anticipation of Russian-Japanese war. In France and took armadillos, and cruisers, and destroyers.
Battleship "Crown Prince". Built in France. Was entirely a good ship. On the basis of his project has already been built in Russia five battleships. Four of which are lost in the Tsushima … And about the fifth — read "Moonzund" V. Pikul
So, again: according to claim third nothing really terrible, and on a theoretical level, with recognized criteria would probably justified. In this case explain, why we need the ships of the "Mistral" and specifically swiftly.
There is another option for paragraph 3: Defense deliberately does not want to give our plants means. Drank and did not do it. More precisely, drank, will make the third part of what should have been, will request the same amount, drank again … and so on, until, at a cost four times as many years and the funds do not roll out something that 10 years 100 billion will need to bring to the brain. And with all this cut will be people who are not close to the Defense Ministry, and maybe even aggressive.
And here — this is the Ministry of Defense itself have to saw off, but — 1) is much smaller, and 2) to those who need, and 3) and will have a live and quite a good result, and quite rapidly, one floating ship and lic
Another thing: but if we can get something useful from the licensing of construction of French ships, even the most superultranailuchshih. But this issue intersects Fri 6, so come back to this later.
According pp 4, 5 reluctance to act, do not know. I can only say that it is clear of the most common statements: zadruzhatsya now, tomorrow razdruzhatsya. All such, we, too, are not displeased with that here. For example, in discussing this variability: is it worth powder and shot?
Well, now talk about the latest developments that we or the French will, or will not give. Scamper to step 6.
How to read one of my boss, in this issue — two questions. Even more.
Let's start with, so to speak, predtehnologicheskogo. Is it so simple with basing our technology on the French ship?
About the weapon will not even read. I hope to such idiocy as installing French missiles and guns, no one is going to come. This, by the way, the ordinary practice. For more than a century steamboats came back to Kronstadt from France, Germany, America without guns and torpedo tubes, what is already established here, in Russia.
Although here, too, is not without hitch. They say the French have begun to investigate the ability of the installation of our missiles. Means we have to give them some information. And if you take into account that now the "set" — is far not only the overall and mounting dimensions (where and how to drill holes in the deck), and all servicing systems, ammunition from the shops to the keys on the remote command Fri — so anyone with who will share technology? Earlier than getting "mistralnye" technology, we will publish your French? Locators, band communication protocols of interaction between information ("the pick") systems, command, control, performance, launchers? Here, because it comes to the implementation of the ideology of military weapons. Will tell, explain, give documentation? Well, well …
But let's say I have to go too, somehow decided. And then?
Next you need to put our helicopters. But they are very different! Even if you have enough of, say, the height of the hangar — is this the only hitch?
A storage of ammunition — they are for us and for them quite different! And do not think about that storage — it's just shelving and Kondyukov. There still checking apparatus, preparation for use. Our depth charges, as you are aware, completely checked on other consoles than the French. And the rockets and torpedoes, and sonobuoys. And all of this is hard-coded in the regulations and guidelines. Who will it be put? French in France, or they just took off and his — in Kronstadt?
A system of storage and filling, which is not a trifle, when the ship is based half to two 10-ka devices? Our French and requirements may differ fundamentally. Why are there some complicated requirements! Will flood our hydraulic fluid (that fills the hydraulic system of the helicopter, all kinds of booster drives, analogue — the brake fluid in the car) will fill our hydraulic fluid in the French storage capacity, which is somewhere in the Partitions helicopter hangar. And fall the French installation — not as bad, and as calculated on the hydraulic fluid contact with the French, not Russian. And our helicopters, as luck would have it, on the contrary, can only work with the Russian and the French can not.
Well, do not fly pads, and will start to burst, aging 10 times faster than on the passport, since it does not have that chemical composition of hydraulic fluid … and after 18 months of serviceable pipelines will flow. Who is it inspected? Who will check it? because time is necessary, the technique, equipment, facilities.
Grommets — I like it, of course. With all of these particular gaskets are likely to be fine. I wish to show how things are not as simple as on the first cursory glance. Clearly the same place where the devil — he in the details …
Heck, even the brackets on the deck, which strengthens extensions stranded helicopter to the wind has not blown off — they have their own, their design is worked out for half a century our helicopters landing on our ships. On the flight deck, "Mistral" such staples are, only they — the result of a half-century French practice. I'm not saying that the hooks on our cables can simply walk up to the French brackets. And after landing helicopters repeatedly harder than just — catch ropes with hooks for the brackets on the deck. Her technique, technical support — the fruit of many years of experience, for sure, clouded by the tragedies and disasters. Deck helicopters manufactured and are made specifically with her, endured. And that, turn away from this? But the system has been certified, rationed gostirovana, described in the instructions and recommendations of the … well, it can be considered constant refrain, it's all about.
There are tools and equipment Mission Control, procedures and techniques to prepare themselves aircraft, development and real repair software on board … is aware of any exploitation of technology — it is a very highly complex task, and it can be solved on the basis of some concepts of operation and combat deployment. The differences in this concept may lead to a fundamentally incompatible abilities "operational environment" with the maintenance requirements of the object. If you make a joke: we have spelled out in the abstract acetylene welding, and in the hangar "Mistral" at her cut one sprinkler system. This is a joke, the reality may be even more difficult for non-obvious and dramatic consequences.
I will not let us read the same thing about the tanks and armored vehicles? It is clear that there can be any, since the instability of French coatings to our vehicle emissions and ending with electrical incompatibility, "they are even" internal ship telephone communication with our tank stations. And who can say where am I kidding? I can not …
Can you imagine how many of these now submerged stones, which those who see solutions, and has no idea? And for those who have a thing like do not give a, well, will not listen.
But there are also another layer. Landing craft made for the Marine Corps. Every country that has morpehota, has its share ideas about its use, of which derive not only the requirements for the weapons, and the organization and establishment of units and parts. And the militant organization, that is to say all sorts of options for fighting the assembly of structural units.
For instance, there is is such a thing as a battalion battle group (do not know how it is called here, but something that we certainly have). This is some squad-based morpehotnogo battalion, which includes a means of strengthening that part of the battalion are not included. Well, let's say, a mortar company, an engineer platoon, a platoon of anti-aircraft missile and artillery systems, special communications department … I improvise, but you understand what I'm saying.
I remember that in 1980 the number of such battalion group in the U.S. Marine Corps was about 1500 when the number of people actually battalion, for sure, 600.
This is what I? In addition, the French hoped
"Mistral", fitting it to combat the company's own army. And we have, then it's different, maybe very, very different. Maybe the "Mistral" for our morpehoty would "neither two nor one and a half": For many companies, the battalion … and not put on the line to put two and a half companies and poluvzvod MANPADS? What to do with them later? These "groups" of any tactical elaboration or in the field (battle?) No statute.
Either we change the strategy and structure of a "Mistral"?
I hope I was able to show at least a hazy outline of a hefty tangle of thousands of problems. Problems about which we'll even have no idea about which even ask not come to mind. This tangle in general neither separately taken person to provide for themselves can not, hundreds of professionals required to have at least put a question, make a list of possible problems and trivial.
And it's just not necessary if a political decision. Buy one, and the other will suffer. And something else is worthless and suffer, if you still find that VMFu "Mistral" is needed, as the cancer suit …