Military Review

The fleet was again in stepdaughters

86
On the last day of January, traditionally, the Ministry of Defense of Russia, under the leadership of the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation, Army General Sergei Shoigu, held a single day for the acceptance of military products coming into service with the troops and military and social infrastructure of the Russian Armed Forces. Within the framework of this event, it was announced that during 2017, a total of more than 3,5 thousand “promising weapons and military equipment,” including more than 110 aircraft and helicopters, arrived in various types and branches of the Russian Armed Forces , 2 warships, 3 operational-tactical missile systems (OTRK) Iskander-M, 9 anti-aircraft missile systems and complexes of various classes, 116 cruise missiles of operational and tactical purpose Caliber, as well as more than 400 units of various armored weapons and samples space technology. Engineering and automotive equipment, communications, aviation weapons and ammunition.




In addition, as Colonel Oleg Stepanov, Head of the Office of Military Representations of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, reported in his report, it was only in the fourth quarter that new and repaired samples of weapons and military equipment were received and delivered to the troops, including:

- in the interests of the Ground Forces: 2 brigade sets of the Iskander-M PTRC, 4 set of the Ground Forces anti-aircraft missile systems, 183 units of various armored vehicles and 1183 of various vehicles, and 13 radio electronic station;

- in the interests of the Aerospace Force (XK): 25 new and 78 repaired airplanes, 35 new and 29 repaired helicopters, 2 regimental anti-aircraft missile systems С-400 and 24; combat vehicles of anti-aircraft missile-gun complex “Pantsir-S”, 112 radar stations for various purposes and more than 37 thousand aviation weapons;

- in the interests of the Navy fleet (Navy): the patrol ship of project 11356 Admiral Makarov (the ship became part of the 30th division of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Navy, for more details about it, see Alexander Mozgovoy’s article “Capitation and Testament of Admiral Makarov” in the issue of NVO dated 19.01.18/16/8. 326), two coastal missile systems "Ball" and "Bastion", XNUMX ships and support vessels, XNUMX radars for various purposes and XNUMX anti-submarine missiles;

- in the interests of the Strategic Missile Forces (RVSN): 21 ballistic missile, 19 autonomous launchers, 33 combat duty support vehicles, 7 command posts, as well as 310 other components of the mine and mobile-based missile systems, which are being re-equipped with rocket regiments and divisions of the Strategic Missile Forces.

In general, as was emphasized in a speech by Russian Defense Minister General of the Army Sergei Shoigu, the state defense order of 2017 for the supply of new types of weapons, military and special equipment was executed at 98,5%, and for repair - at 96,7%. At the same time, delivery plans for helicopters, coastal missile systems, space assets, anti-aircraft missile systems and complexes, missile systems of the Ground Forces, armored vehicles and equipment, radar stations, strategic facilities, as well as plans for repair (modernization) by means of ensure the Russian Navy, ship armament and other equipment.

It would seem that all is well in the domestic military department, which many countries in the world can only envy about such large-scale deliveries of weapons, military and special equipment. With regard to the Strategic Missile Forces, the VKS and the Ground Forces, this seems to be the case. However, the situation that has arisen in the sphere of updating the ship composition of the Russian Navy cannot but be alarming. Moreover, I must say bluntly - it is simply depressing. Although to some extent, it was hidden behind the aura of ruptures of powerful warheads of sea-based cruise missiles "Caliber", which became not only a mortal threat to terrorists in Syria, but also a serious argument of Moscow in the foreign policy arena. But after all, “Gauges” and their carriers are not the whole fleet at all and not all that it needs to effectively solve the tasks assigned to it. Yes, and with the carriers of the same “Calibrov” there are also problems: they are unacceptably few, so it’s premature to talk about some kind of “calibration” of the Russian fleet.

Moreover, one of the two ships in the fleet, the corvette “Perfect”, cannot be considered fully operational for several reasons (see “Whether the new Tsushima is waiting for us”, “NVO” from 22.12.17). But even more depressing and disturbing is the fact that the large long-landing 11711 “Ivan Gren” landing ship, which has been under construction for almost 15 years, the 22350 frigate Admiral of the Soviet fleet Gorshkov ”, which 1 marked February 12 year from the date of his bookmark, etc. And both of these ships are the leading in their series, and therefore the delay in their commissioning has the most negative effect on works on all other types of to the ships.

The former commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy, admiral of the fleet, Vladimir Kuroyedov, cited the following figures: the financing of the Russian Navy from the middle of 1990 to the beginning of 2000, that is, more than 10, was about 12 – 14% of the total budget of the Russian Ministry of Defense. And even with such scanty financing, the fleet in the period of 2001 – 2006 did not receive more than 60 billion rubles. planned funds. Taking into account the fact that from two geographic areas the security of our state depends almost entirely on the effective actions of the fleet, such an attitude towards the latter can only be called a mockery or, if you like, genocide. And who today is guilty of disrupting the state defense order in the Navy?

Yes, the navy is not a cheap pleasure. But if the country needs it (and it certainly needs it), then you shouldn’t feel sorry for its development. With today's very poor condition with the naval personnel of the general-purpose naval forces (we are more or less well only with the naval forces of nuclear deterrence), handing over to the fleet two main-class warships for the calendar year is simply unacceptable.

However, there is a positive point in this all. Finally, the figures for the warships handed over to the Navy, given in the report of the military department, coincided with those reported by the authors of the “NVO” in their publications. Earlier in this plan there were permanent either flaws, or postscripts. Well, at least in this order. Now it only remains to increase the pace of the introduction of new warships and auxiliary vessels into the combat strength of the Russian Navy, and in reality, and not on paper. Ultimately, not only the preservation of the status of a sea power for Russia, but also the security of all its citizens depends on this.
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2018-02-09/2_983_red.html
86 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. NEXUS
    NEXUS 10 February 2018 15: 05
    +14
    Yes, a navy is not a cheap pleasure. But if the country needs it (and, of course, it is needed), then efforts and resources for its development should not be spared.

    Absolutely. Until we understand that the Russian ocean fleet is needed, it will be difficult to name a full-fledged army.
    Our country is washed by 3 oceans, while we are building for the most part a coastal fleet. It is clear that the coastal zone needs to be strengthened, but without real ocean warships, we will not succeed as a great world power.
    1. Northern warrior
      Northern warrior 10 February 2018 16: 46
      +6
      The ocean fleet, of course, is needed, but we should not chase the United States and China. The purpose of the Russian fleet is to give half an hour of life to our SSBNs so that they can shoot ammunition from two hundred ICBMs on enemy territory. If this task is completed, then the sailors did not die in vain ...
      1. seti
        seti 10 February 2018 17: 06
        +10
        A sailor, like a soldier, goes to battle to live and not die. Not my words, but General Panfilov.
        1. Northern warrior
          Northern warrior 10 February 2018 17: 44
          +5
          The crews of surface ships in the great war are 99% suicide bombers, given the enormous gap between the US and Russia in quantity and quality. The crews of submarines of projects 955, 885 and 971 have good chances to survive in a total batch, relying on good stealth. On television, there is much to say about the power of the Russian fleet, but the reality is somewhat different. Of the surface ships, only three 1164 cruisers and one 1144.2 nuclear destroyer (the second for modernization) pose a significant threat to the single destroyers of the USA and Britain, frigates of projects 11356 and 22350 are potentially dangerous for the enemy. The Udaloy BPC, various SKRs and corvettes of the Russian Navy will not be able to do anything with EM "Arleigh Burke" or "Daring," because they do not carry powerful anti-ship weapons, and they are much inferior to enemies in the field of radio electronics.
          1. KaPToC
            KaPToC 10 February 2018 19: 30
            +4
            Quote: Northern warrior
            corvettes of the Russian Navy will not be able to do anything with EM Arleigh Burke or Daring, because do not carry powerful anti-ship weapons

            20380 anti-ship missiles of corvettes are at least as good as those of the Berks and Daring, both in quantity and quality. At the same time, the United States simply does not have anything similar to granites, calibers and onyxes. It is just the opposite - without a carrier-based aircraft, the American fleet is simply defenseless against the Russian and Chinese fleets.
            1. Northern warrior
              Northern warrior 11 February 2018 16: 01
              +3
              SAM Standard can be used as anti-ship missiles. They are enough to destroy the radar and antenna posts on the deck of the cruiser or destroy the corvette. "Granite" and "Volcano" can carry only five cruisers, one of which is for modernization, so it is better to save hats.
              1. KaPToC
                KaPToC 11 February 2018 17: 16
                +2
                Quote: Northern warrior
                SAM Standard can be used as anti-ship missiles.

                That is, you are seriously saying here that the standards against ships are better than onyx and granite?
                Quote: Northern warrior
                "Granite" and "Volcano" can carry only five cruisers, one of which is for modernization, so it is better to save hats.

                Seven submarine cruisers of the Antey project.
            2. 11 black
              11 black 13 February 2018 18: 29
              0
              Quote: KaPToC
              20380 anti-ship missiles of corvettes are at least as good as those of the Berks and Daring, both in quantity and quality. At the same time, the United States simply does not have anything similar to granites, calibers and onyxes. It is just the opposite - without a carrier-based aircraft, the American fleet is simply defenseless against the Russian and Chinese fleets.

              If yes, if only ... this is the whole problem. Amers already have 11 aircraft carriers, 22 cruisers and 70 destroyers ... and this does not take into account their NATO allies.
              IMHO to build an ocean surface fleet is meaningless to us. Arguing:
              Firstly, we still will not build such a fleet as the Yusovites, and building a fleet doomed to destruction in the first days is a crime and a waste of resources.
              Secondly, in the foreseeable future, simply “forces and means” must appear for an asymmetric response to aircraft carriers - to build them now, it's like the Japanese have Yamato.
              Yes - aircraft carriers will always be strong, even very strong, but every year there will be more and more methods and devices to deal with them, and these methods should be emphasized without getting into a crazy, useless race.
              1. KaPToC
                KaPToC 13 February 2018 21: 01
                +2
                Quote: 11 black
                If yes, if only ... this is the whole problem. Amers already have 11 aircraft carriers, 22 cruisers and 70 destroyers ... and this does not take into account their NATO allies.

                Here you are right, the Americans are quite capable of throwing us corpses, the numerical superiority is significant.
      2. ALEA IACTA EST
        ALEA IACTA EST 10 February 2018 22: 26
        +1
        Russia cannot afford to passively look at the division of the world by Americans, Europeans and Chinese, Russia should become the leader and main beneficiary of this section.
        1. KaPToC
          KaPToC 11 February 2018 12: 21
          +1
          Quote: ALEA IACTA EST
          Russia cannot afford to passively look at the division of the world by Americans, Europeans and Chinese, Russia should become the leader and main beneficiary of this section.

          Russia does not have enough human potential for this. Russia lost the struggle for leadership not when the USSR collapsed, but when Russian women decided not to give birth.
      3. yehat
        yehat 14 February 2018 12: 48
        0
        Well, the fleet has other tasks - patrolling the border, protecting maritime communications and resources, the notorious flag display, offensive potential, protecting the coast.
        Even for these traditional tasks pennants are not enough.
    2. Winnie76
      Winnie76 10 February 2018 17: 13
      +8
      Quote: NEXUS
      Until we understand that the Russian ocean fleet is needed, it will be difficult to name a full-fledged army.

      Why is it needed? Occupy Australia? Butting America? We won’t pull it anyway. Depends on maritime trade is not critical. And it’s easy to economize.
      Quote: NEXUS
      Our country is washed by 3 oceans, while we are building for the most part a coastal fleet. It is clear that the coastal zone needs to be strengthened, but without real ocean warships, we will not succeed as a great world power.

      After enchanting campaign Kuzi invest in the ocean fleet? For admirals to show flags around the world. Better an extra real tank on a real front line. It’s better to have a normal body armor for ordinary Ivanov here and now than an aircraft carrier knows how many years for a bunch of yards.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 10 February 2018 17: 19
        +11
        Quote: Winnie76
        Why is it needed?

        Very dumb question. Then, it’s important for us, like any power, to protect our interests in the world, which is what the United States, China and so on do ...
        Quote: Winnie76
        Butting America?

        The second stupid question ... thank God for the time being it is not necessary to butt off the United States (I mean fighting in the oceans). But we need a BALANCED fleet. At the same time, one of the parts of the nuclear triad is located in the Navy. And one of the most effective.
        Quote: Winnie76
        After enchanting campaign Kuzi invest in the ocean fleet?

        The third stupid question ... where does Kuzya, dear? It worked out techniques and new systems on the MIG-29K and on the SU-33. Or do you think with your own little mind that creating a fighter is like opening kinstons in your toilet?
        1. max702
          max702 10 February 2018 18: 37
          +2
          Quote: NEXUS
          The second stupid question ... thank God for the time being it is not necessary to butt butts (I mean fighting in the oceans).

          And with someone else? In addition to the United States at sea, only China .. But there is no sea contradiction with it from the word at all ..
          The rest either lie under the mattresses, or are absolutely not interested ...

          Quote: NEXUS
          But we need a balanced fleet. At the same time, one of the parts of the nuclear triad is located in the Navy. And one of the most effective.

          And ktozh against it? Small submarines do little, the ships of the coastal zone do the same ... why the hell are the ocean fleet? Carriers and other escorts, what interests will they promote? At least one sane target? That’s real boots and mahre walkie-talkies will be much more needed than sea leviathans that have never been used for their intended purpose ..
          Quote: NEXUS
          The third stupid question ... where does Kuzya, dear? It worked out techniques and new systems on the MIG-29K and on the SU-33.

          And why did they practice all this? What are these tasks? What kind of conflict is it that it’s straight without them?
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 10 February 2018 18: 50
            +7
            Quote: max702
            And with someone else?

            Do you think there are few candidates for whom the USA, as allies, simply will not intervene? Japan, Turkey is the same Germany with France ... or do you firmly believe that everything will continue to be as it is now? All of them had their own interests, and Peter was not at all an idiot, making outlets to the seas and building a fleet. But since the second person in the thread asks a very stupid question, either without really understanding why, or just pretending to explain simple things ... well, what's the point? This question was not asked to discuss, and then, to show how clever I am, and the leaders of the country and Moscow Region in particular, well, just a crowd of not frightened idiots.
            Quote: max702
            Carriers and other escorts, what interests will they promote?

            I will explain clearly ... during the USSR there was such a 5 squadron, which was in the Mediterranean. And throughout the existence of the alliance, not a single NATO N.D.A. climbed with that aircraft carrier and destroyer into that region. They didn’t bomb Iraq with Libya and Syria ... and when our 5th squadron left, the place was filled immediately with NATO ships led by the USA and Iraq began, then again Iraq, Libya, Syria and who is next? If you don’t understand the meaning of why the Russian Federation has a strong ocean fleet, read our commanders-in-chief of the times of the USSR and maybe it will reach you over time.
            Quote: max702
            And why did they practice all this? What are these tasks? What kind of conflict is it that it’s straight without them?

            Why do you need an aircraft carrier? To cover it with the wing of the strike group of their ships in the ocean. For this, decks are tested so as not to lose the school of naval aviation.
            1. max702
              max702 10 February 2018 20: 30
              +1
              On the first point, I said who other than the United States? All this shelupon like Finns, Koreans and others does not count ... With whom to fight our fleet? Do not measure pussy and fight!
              the second 5th squadron was not on its own. and as part of the USSR, and hence the GSVG, and much more, but by no means not only the 5th fleet ..
              now for the third one .. the aircraft carrier only needs to stomp the Zulus .. everything .. for everything else it’s expensive useless garbage .. The school of naval aviation was good in the era of the Second World War .. Today it is expensive and useless ..
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 10 February 2018 20: 40
                +7
                Quote: max702
                On the first point, I said who other than the United States? All this shelupon like Finns, Koreans and others does not count ... With whom to fight our fleet? Do not measure pussy and fight!

                Seriously, for example, with the Japanese, who have the youngest fleet at the TF, have we all resolved territorial disputes? What does the Finns have to do with it?
                Quote: max702
                the second 5th squadron was not on its own. and as part of the USSR, and hence the GSVG, and much more, but by no means not only the 5th fleet ..

                So what? We had to get into Syria now, because otherwise everything would have spread further to our Caucasus. And our squadron would have stood there, and none of this would have had to be done from the word at all. Were there no needles, nusra, torn Syria, Libya, Iraq ... or do you not understand that everything that is happening in the world will somehow affect our lives too? For this, the ocean fleet is needed to defend its interests anywhere in the world.
                Quote: max702
                now in the third .. the aircraft carrier needs only to stomp the Zulus ..

                A big stupid thing is probably about the fact that we don’t need an ocean fleet. An aircraft carrier is needed to cover from the air our strike group of ships, as well as to support the ground component if necessary. And here are the Zulus, dear. What are you doing with cliches?
                Quote: max702
                Today it is expensive and useless ..

                What are you saying ... straight here is expensive and straight is useless? Answer me one simple question - did you serve?
                1. max702
                  max702 10 February 2018 21: 27
                  +3
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  Seriously, for example, with the Japanese, who have the youngest fleet at the TF, have we all resolved territorial disputes?

                  I am writing to you in direct text Japan is the USA !! What is not clear here? Or do you think that the conflict with the Japanese Navy will remain the type between Japan and Russia?
                  You are a fool for pretending to be?
                  We go further into Syria when Sadad deigned for a little bit and all the fate of Gaddafi ..
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  An aircraft carrier is needed to cover from the air our strike group of ships, as well as to support the ground component, if necessary

                  You have already been told about Kuznetsov’s campaign in Syria and why? Who did he cover up there? where did you get the idea that anywhere else on earth would be better? It seems that everything would be much worse .. Otherwise, the US holds so many bases around the world, and they already have 11 aircraft carriers .. We don’t need this stuff today in a war with an equal or superior enemy .. And we actually don’t have others ..
                  On the third point .. served, and quite successfully ...
                  1. NEXUS
                    NEXUS 10 February 2018 21: 56
                    +7
                    Quote: max702
                    I am writing to you in direct text Japan is the USA !!

                    Hmm ... a clinical case ...
                    Quote: max702
                    Or do you think that the conflict with the Japanese Navy will remain the type between Japan and Russia?

                    We take and remember the history of the SU-24 shot down by the Turks, namely the part where the United States very technically disowned Turkey, although the Turks are a NATO member, saying that this is a showdown between the Turks and the Russian Federation. Are you really so naive that you believe that the United States will harness for someone in case of conflict? Moreover, Japan is not even a member of NATO.

                    Quote: max702
                    We go further into Syria when Sadad deigned for a little bit and all the fate of Gaddafi ..

                    That is, if we didn’t want to, we would continue to contemplate smartly what is being done in Syria? Despite the fact that at that time there was our base in Tartus.
                    Quote: max702
                    You have already been told about Kuznetsov’s campaign in Syria and why? Who did he cover up there?

                    Dear, you don’t need to spray saliva into the monitor ... Kuzya was not for this in Syria! I already explained to you why he was there, which is incomprehensible? Do not attract one to the other. I am talking about a full-fledged aircraft carrier, and not about an aircraft carrier cruiser with 40 years of age.
                    Quote: max702
                    Otherwise, What the US holds so many bases around the world for, and they have as many as 11 aircraft carriers ..

                    You read the doctrine of the United States, you see it comes to why they need so many bases and aircraft carriers ...
                    Quote: max702
                    This trash is not needed today in a war with an equal or superior opponent ..

                    I repeat for those who are in a tank-Without a balanced fleet (I'm not talking about a fleet the size of the United States), our army is lame on both legs. What will you do if they begin to shoot us with the same axes at a distance of 2000 km (and do not talk about the use of nuclear weapons)? What can our RTOs oppose to destroyers and adversary cruisers in the ocean without covering coastal air defense and missile defense? You carry the heresy to the fullest and do not even hesitate.
                    Quote: max702
                    On the third point .. served, and quite successfully ...

                    Apparently in a warehouse or clerk at headquarters judging by your posts.
                    1. KaPToC
                      KaPToC 11 February 2018 12: 22
                      +3
                      Quote: NEXUS
                      Dear, you do not need to spray saliva into the monitor ...

                      Already dear Nexus - why such attacks?
                      1. KaPToC
                        KaPToC 11 February 2018 12: 24
                        +3
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        What will you do if they begin to shoot us with the same axes at a distance of 2000 km (and do not talk about the use of nuclear weapons)?

                        At such a distance from the coast, coastal aviation will work perfectly, besides - what is there to bomb on the coast?
                  2. pacific
                    pacific 10 February 2018 22: 35
                    +3
                    This trash is not needed today in a war with an equal or superior opponent ..

                    Junk is really not needed. Even in a war with a knowingly weaker one.
                    But aircraft carriers and other ships of the far sea zone should not be called rubbish.
                    Each ship has its own purpose. And if you have little idea why this or that type of ship is needed, then read it! Understand at least the basics of military construction and tactics of the Navy, and then begin to publish your categorical judgments.
                    By the way, not one of the commanders-in-chief of the Navy of the USSR claimed as categorically as you allow yourself, about what types of ships we need and which ones "to scare the Zulus." But all of them - and Kuznetsov, and Gorshkov and IV Stalin wrote about the need to create balanced (!) fleet.
                    An aircraft carrier today, whether you like it or not, is objectively the most important type of warship. Why so - I will not explain, there is a lot of information on the Internet. There is, of course, a right to it. But without it, it is impossible to create a balanced fleet in modern realities.
                    PS And to drive the "Zulus", as well as various Somalis, Nigerians, Malays and other lovers of easy money - the sweetest thing! I am in every way for. Only for this there are other types of ships. And they also need to be built.
                    1. KaPToC
                      KaPToC 11 February 2018 12: 25
                      +2
                      Quote: pacific
                      An aircraft carrier today, whether you like it or not, is objectively the most important type of warship.

                      You were stuck in the last century, in the modern fleet, the most important is a missile ship.
                      1. pacific
                        pacific 15 February 2018 11: 25
                        +1
                        Judging by the efforts of staff, the most important is the destroyer.
                    2. max702
                      max702 14 February 2018 22: 47
                      0
                      Quote: pacific
                      By the way, not one of the commanders-in-chief of the Navy of the USSR claimed as categorically as you allow yourself, about what types of ships we need and which ones "to scare the Zulus." But all of them - both Kuznetsov, and Gorshkov and IV Stalin wrote about the need to create a balanced (!) Fleet

                      I’m embarrassed to ask, when did all these worthy people live? how many decades ago? Has nothing changed in science and technology since those years? Then let's remember the tsarist admirals and following their words we will argue that the Armadillos we need most! And all sorts of newfangled submarines there are terrible and harmful heresy !!
                      1. pacific
                        pacific 15 February 2018 11: 22
                        +1
                        The fact of the matter is that these, as well as other worthy people have always stood for a balanced fleet. And it doesn’t matter which ships were then the main class; galleons, squadron battleships, battleships or aircraft carriers.
        2. Evgeniy667b
          Evgeniy667b 11 February 2018 04: 44
          +2
          It seems that Russia will soon have no interests other than trading, for the sake of the coveted dough. Hindus have already been encouraged by leasing of the second submarine of 971project, Chemezov is yelling that the S-400 will be striped to sell. You look and get to the living goods. (Population), and therefore do not need to fight with anyone, only with their displeased. Here is the Russian Guard and swells like dough on a shiver.
      2. pacific
        pacific 10 February 2018 22: 06
        +4
        Better an extra real tank on a real front line. Better normal body armor to ordinary Ivanov here and now

        If there is a normal fleet, then perhaps there will be no “real advanced” one. Or do you really want the war to start?
        For admirals to show flags around the world.

        Including to demonstrate the flag. Only not the "flags of the admirals", but the state flag.
        Americans are doing just that. Take a look at their "successes" in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq ... Nevertheless, you yourself declare
        Butting America? We won’t pull anyway.

        This is what is called a "flag demonstration." And the fleet is best suited for this.
        1. max702
          max702 14 February 2018 22: 51
          0
          Quote: pacific
          Take a look at their “successes” in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq ...

          And what is wrong with them? Everything is perfect there! In Afghanistan there is a training ground and drug control, in Iraq there is a mess that supplies meat to the Arab spring. there are minor problems in Syria but it’s not a fact yet what will come of it .. So everything is going according to THEIR plan .. Look more broadly at the events ..
          1. pacific
            pacific 15 February 2018 11: 06
            +1
            I completely agree with you.
            But so many countries can “show the flag” as the States do in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. And what Russia has demonstrated in Syria - not everyone can. Turkey, for example, does not succeed at all, even with almost completely defeated barmales. True, the Turks there are mainly trying to fight the Kurds ... But I'm not talking about that.
            By their actions in Central Asia and the Middle East, the USA did not show unconditional military superiority over its potential adversary (Russia and China).
            Almost any of the European states, as well as China, India, Pakistan, with sufficient funding and moral unprincipled will be able to show comparable results.
            Rђ RІRѕS,
            Butting America? We won’t pull it anyway.
            - This is a consequence of the demonstration of the flag.
            And so many people think, the rest (including me) are sure that we will “pull”, but there will be no easy victory. But neither the Russian Empire nor the USSR had direct military clashes with the United States, except for a few cases of "frendly fire" in April-May 1945. After the end of WWII, the States never fought against an equal enemy. And even in these wars, the result is not impressive; Korea, Vietnam are overt losses, and you can’t call them unconditional success in the Persian Gulf either.
            Nevertheless, the constant aggressive shyness around the world of squadrons under the mattress flag created confidence in everyone in their strength. This is the "demonstration of the flag."
            The USSR also successfully dealt with this. And not a single pirate even had a shadow of thought about a possible attack of a ship flying the Soviet flag. The only memorable occasion was in the film, "Pirates of the XNUMXth Century," shot again in the Soviet Union.
  2. _Jack_
    _Jack_ 10 February 2018 15: 12
    +4
    the ocean fleet is a very expensive weapon, and if you look at the map, it becomes clear how much we need it, there is only one problem - Russia is not the USSR and our military budget will not pull such a fleet
    1. Mar.Tirah
      Mar.Tirah 10 February 2018 15: 31
      +11
      Come on, you won’t pull! Russian oligarchs are pulling yachts with the cost of an aircraft carrier. Where is the money from? Yes, stolen by "overwhelming" labor. But the Kremlin does not have the courage to return them to Russia. That's the whole story.
      1. Chertt
        Chertt 10 February 2018 15: 47
        +3
        Quote: Mar. Tira
        ! Russian oligarchs pull yachts costing with an aircraft carrier

        Yah??. Give a link.
        Quote: Mar. Tira
        Where did the money come from?

        Captain evidence smokes nervously
        Quote: Mar. Tira
        But the Kremlin does not have the courage to return them to Russia.

        Well you are clever and courageous only scribble posts. To the barricades, my friend
        1. albert
          albert 11 February 2018 01: 11
          +2
          Quote: Chertt
          Yah??. Give a link.

          Please. Yacht "Ocean Victor" of the oligarch Viktor Rashnikov. Displacement of 8000 tons. The rest google yourself
          1. Chertt
            Chertt 11 February 2018 05: 01
            +1
            Nothing so pretty. There would be extra money, I would have myself something less, and took it under sail. In general, I’m more taiga, I like to wander the land more
        2. Mar.Tirah
          Mar.Tirah 11 February 2018 06: 24
          +4
          A giant yacht worth more than $ 400 million, the largest ship in the history of the sailing fleet, is undergoing sea trials. She will also be the most impressive in the collection of yachts of the Russian industrialist Andrei Melnichenko, whose fortune is estimated at about $ 10 billion.
          Source: https://fishki.net/2107575-dlja-rossijskogo-milli
          ardera-postroili-samuju-bolyshuju-v-mire-jahtu.ht
          ml © Fishki.net List of yachts of Russian billionaires.https: //advenc.ru/post/top-11-foto-l
          uchshikh-yakht-rossijskikh-milliarderov. I just don’t need barricades. I have everything, and I am happy with everything in life. Unlike thousands of people in need. Yes, and you seem to have some problems, since you are trying to get me away everywhere. Not necessary.
          1. Chertt
            Chertt 11 February 2018 06: 30
            +1
            Quote: Mar. Tira
            I have everything, and I am satisfied with everything in life.

            It is not true. All your posts are oozing with dissatisfaction. A man whose everything is good is kinder, smarter or something
            1. Mar.Tirah
              Mar.Tirah 11 February 2018 06: 37
              +3
              But this is not true! Not all. And only those where I think you can do better by learning from the examples of foreigners and your mistakes. And shouting cheers is not for me, there is too much unjust in our country and in the world. taiga? Strange? Me too, and I live in the taiga, 100 meters from me the urman starts. Well, I understand your position. Thank you.
              1. Chertt
                Chertt 11 February 2018 06: 46
                +1
                Quote: Mar. Tira
                I live in the taiga, 100 meters from me urman begins

                I have somewhere the same (Irkutsk region) hi
        3. Archon
          Archon 12 February 2018 18: 20
          +1
          The most expensive yacht in the world belongs to an anonymous Malaysian businessman. The thirty-meter yacht of the History Supreme series was built over three years, and it is claimed that the ship took about 100 thousand kilograms of pure precious metals - gold and platinum. Precious metals were used in the decoration of the base of the vessel, for the deck, dining room, railings and anchors. The wall of one of the bedrooms is decorated with meteorites and real bones of the largest carnivorous dinosaur of the end of the Cretaceous, Tyrannosaurus rex.

          Yacht price Baia 100 Supreme malaysian entrepreneur - 4,85 billion. For comparison: the cost of the Eclipse yacht of the Russian businessman Roman Abramovich is, according to various estimates, in 500-800 million dollars and now rented by the owner for 2 million dollars a week. The length of the largest motor yacht and the most expensive yacht charter in the world is 162,5 meters.

          In February 2016, the fleet of the army USA received the most expensive ship in history. Cost of new aircraft carrier Gerald Ford is, according to some reports, 13 billion.

          our billionaires are beggars.
      2. _Jack_
        _Jack_ 10 February 2018 16: 10
        +5
        Well, first you return all the money that they are pulling, and then say that there is something to build the fleet on, because you are outraged about the oligarchs, the budget has not increased a single ruble and the fleet will not appear from your Wishlist
      3. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 10 February 2018 16: 35
        +3
        Quote: Mar. Tira
        Russian oligarchs are pulling yachts with the cost of an aircraft carrier. Where did the money come from? They stole it with "overwhelming" labor. But the Kremlin does not have the courage to return it to Russia. That's the whole story.

        I have talked about this more than once yes
      4. KaPToC
        KaPToC 10 February 2018 19: 35
        +2
        Quote: Mar. Tira
        Come on, you won’t pull! Russian oligarchs pull yachts with the cost of an aircraft carrier. Where does the money come from?

        You exaggerate a little, about a hundred times, the yachts of the oligarchs barely pull on the corvette.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 February 2018 15: 53
      +6
      What does the ocean have to do with it? For starters, let's at least defend our own SSBNs at deployment sites - there at least a third of our total nuclear potential
      1. Chertt
        Chertt 10 February 2018 16: 03
        +1
        Good day hi
        As usual, desires struggle with reality, this is normal. It’s bad when they begin to accuse (not from a great mind) MO of the impossibility of carrying out their “Wishlist”, the government, the darkest (underline necessary)
      2. Olezhek
        Olezhek 10 February 2018 16: 13
        +2
        For starters, let's at least defend our own SSBNs at deployment sites - there at least a third of our total nuclear potential


        Or at least we’ll launch a “nuclear missile engine” inland
      3. antivirus
        antivirus 10 February 2018 16: 38
        0
        any fleet is the courage of the Foreign Ministry.
        "aggression" of Russians in every ocean ship.
        so they judge our peace-loving policies.
        we don’t have commercial interests across the seas — there is no fleet. supply and demand balance
      4. NEXUS
        NEXUS 10 February 2018 19: 18
        +4
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        What does the ocean have to do with it? For starters, let's at least defend our own SSBNs at deployment sites - there at least a third of our total nuclear potential

        And Pike-B, Ash, and in the future, Husky is not part of the ocean fleet, which should cover our SSBN?
      5. Evgeniy667b
        Evgeniy667b 11 February 2018 07: 09
        0

        Here is such a "yacht" with an immersion depth of at least 200 meters straight according to the project of the Austrian design firm for a wealthy client. Interesting moment ??? I don’t remember exactly, but there are a couple of lards in it. Doesn’t resemble anything?
    3. NEXUS
      NEXUS 10 February 2018 19: 15
      +7
      Quote: _Jack_
      the ocean fleet is a very expensive weapon, and if you look at the map, it becomes clear how much we need it, there is only one problem - Russia is not the USSR and our military budget will not pull such a fleet

      For such a heresy under the USSR, you would have easily gotten about 15 years and it would have been a deed. When was the last time you looked at a map of Russia, and especially at the length of our maritime borders, as well as at contentious issues with neighboring states? What budget does not pull then? You think what nonsense you write without even being shy! Russia is the richest country in the world with its fossil resources, water, deposits of gold, platinum, precious stones, etc. ... And you are sitting here with a smart look broadcasting that the budget will not pull? If our budget is so miserable, where does the corruption fraud for lard dollars come from with bullish constancy?
      1. _Jack_
        _Jack_ 10 February 2018 20: 46
        +4
        yes, calm down, save your nerves, they will not steal from the budget all your okhs and akhs and there wasn’t any money for the fleet and why "look at the map of Russia" and say that "Russia is the richest country in the world with it "fossil resources, water, deposits of gold, platinum, precious stones, etc." Think about it yourself - did all of your keyboard pounding make money for the fleet come from? That, as it was not and is not, and then what are your ahs and oohs? There are your Wishlist and there is reality, go down to earth
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 10 February 2018 20: 49
          +4
          Quote: _Jack_
          Think about it yourself - did all of your keyboard pounding make money for the fleet come from? That, as it was not and is not, and then what are your ahs and oohs?

          Dear, I expressed my opinion ... where does the knock on the keyboard? And your cry that there is no money, but what are you holding on to? What did he give you while you were tapping the keyboard? And in the end, I’m sure that Putin is to blame for everything.
          1. _Jack_
            _Jack_ 10 February 2018 20: 52
            +4
            so I knocked on the keyboard that there was no money for the fleet, it really wasn’t, and you were indignant about this, you pounded a whole poem, like they are, and what did they appear? as it was not and no, therefore I knocked on the clave about our reality and you about your Wishlist that's the whole difference
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 10 February 2018 20: 54
              +5
              Quote: _Jack_
              so I knocked on the keyboard that there was no money for the fleet, it really wasn’t, and you were indignant about this, you pounded a whole poem, like they are, and what did they appear? as it was not and no, therefore I knocked on the clave about our reality and you about your Wishlist that's the whole difference

              Definitely not? Then answer me the question: WHERE DO CORRUPTION AFFAIRS BILLION DOLLARS ON BURNING BUDGET MONEY? Or corrupt themselves print banknotes?
              1. _Jack_
                _Jack_ 10 February 2018 20: 57
                +3
                there are corruption cases, there is corruption, as a result, there is no money in the budget for the fleet in the budget, this is reality
                from the fact that you were outraged about corruption, what has changed? nothing, how they stole and will continue to steal, so where does the money for the fleet come from?
    4. max702
      max702 10 February 2018 20: 38
      +1
      Quote: _Jack_
      the ocean fleet is a very expensive weapon, and if you look at the map, it becomes clear how much we need it, there is only one problem - Russia is not the USSR and our military budget will not pull such a fleet

      Stupidly the fleet will not pay for itself .. And why such a commercial solution? If it does not pay for itself not from the commercial and, accordingly, from the political side? It’s easier for mattresses. They’ve been controlling sea routes for a couple of hundred years and it makes sense to invest in it because everything is in their hands .. we can’t climb on mattresses not with our hands, we don’t have any experience or knowledge .. We must look for our own way, asymmetric the answer is how GDP likes to say ..
  3. Sonet
    Sonet 10 February 2018 15: 43
    +4
    Almost 30 years have passed since the collapse of the Great USSR, but Russia has not degenerated by any large warship. Only projects, if not to say, projects,. For another 10 years this can be tolerated, but then the people will see clearly and will understand that Putin's Russia was not able to build a fleet worthy of the Great Power.
    1. _Jack_
      _Jack_ 10 February 2018 16: 19
      +4
      20 years ago, Russia's public debt was of such a size that it was not enough to build a fleet, there wasn’t enough money even to pay interest on this debt, people had nothing to do, they lived in summer cottages and gardens, so don’t tell how the people live and what it is suffers from the last forces, most of your "Great Power worthy fleet" put with the device
      1. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 11 February 2018 05: 50
        +3
        Quote: _Jack_
        20 years ago, Russia's public debt was of such a size that it’s not like building a fleet, there wasn’t enough money even to pay interest on this debt, people had nothing to eat,

        The total US government debt in 2017 is 19.9 trillion dollars. -Not a country but Auschwitz! all hungry and poor ... eat grass from the lawns! laughing
        1. _Jack_
          _Jack_ 11 February 2018 10: 33
          +1
          do not compare, the whole planet feeds them, they can afford (for now), they arranged such a system for themselves and everyone agrees, no one except us will feed us
  4. Sonet
    Sonet 10 February 2018 15: 46
    +3
    Quote: Mar. Tira
    Come on, you won’t pull! Russian oligarchs are pulling yachts with the cost of an aircraft carrier. Where is the money from? Yes, stolen by "overwhelming" labor. But the Kremlin does not have the courage to return them to Russia. That's the whole story.

    The fact of the matter is that, apparently, the Russian authorities today have the priority of the yachts of the oligarchs, and not a strong fleet. And those who say that like Russia’s land country, we don’t need an ocean fleet, river boats are enough for us — at least not distant people, but maximum provocateurs, trolls.
  5. Lexus
    Lexus 10 February 2018 16: 17
    +1
    Re-equipment is everything? request
  6. Vladivostok1969
    Vladivostok1969 10 February 2018 16: 22
    +5
    And in Vladivostok there is S-56 and the Red Pennant. They are much younger than Aurora. I propose to include them in the Pacific Fleet.
    The cruiser Varyag (flagship TF) is standing by the wall, tied. Otherwise, it can drown. Do not think I'm joking.
    1. KaPToC
      KaPToC 10 February 2018 19: 38
      +1
      Quote: Vladivostok1969
      The cruiser Varyag (flagship TF) is standing by the wall, tied. Otherwise, it can drown. Do not think I'm joking.

      Did he go camping recently? Somewhere you wandered!
  7. Square
    Square 10 February 2018 16: 30
    +1
    Only a few periods in history thought of fleet development.
    For real
    The rest of the time - stepson
  8. seos
    seos 10 February 2018 16: 44
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    What does the ocean have to do with it? For starters, let's at least defend our own SSBNs at deployment sites - there at least a third of our total nuclear potential

    Hi Andrey from Chelyabinsk!
    How is the writing of the continuation of your series about the Russian Navy going ... as far as I remember, the topic of corvettes has not yet been disclosed? laughing
  9. Wildfox
    Wildfox 10 February 2018 16: 50
    0
    And what are the engines all about? run in and go to the series? The point of investing in the fleet without a streamlined engine building? They do the right thing that they don’t lay ships in vain so that they begin to rot on the slipways. A hole has formed in the fleet, and until it is plugged by RTOs, this is the maximum that can be expected. hi
  10. Northern warrior
    Northern warrior 10 February 2018 16: 53
    0
    Our sword is the Strategic Missile Forces, not the fleet. The most destructive arsenal of ICBMs is located on land in a silo, reliably covered from a sudden strike by an SPRN. I see no reason to spend money on ships if the calculations in command posts successfully cope with the task of destroying the enemy during the 3MV.
    1. Vladivostok1969
      Vladivostok1969 10 February 2018 17: 07
      +5
      Dear transmission, on Saturday, almost crying,
      The whole Kanatchik dacha to the TV was torn,
      Sorry, there are no other words for you.
    2. Every
      Every 10 February 2018 18: 40
      +1
      Quote: Northern warrior
      Our sword is the Strategic Missile Forces, not the fleet.


      So after all, the fleet is an integral part of the nuclear triad. And the most effective.
      The location of ground-based launchers has long been known to "sworn" friends, and the first blow will be inflicted on them in order to prevent a retaliatory strike.
      But try to find an underwater cruiser with ballistic missiles.
      The Pacific Ocean is huge, if you do not know where the submarines are, you can search for them until they turn blue. I’m silent about Severny; there ice creates strong extraneous noise.
      You can spot an underwater cruiser when it leaves the base for patrolling, where a “friends” boat can land on its tail. And just here we need anti-submarine ships (or patrol boats with the necessary weapons) that can detect such a tail and deal with it.
      I repeat, if the underwater cruiser freely goes on patrol, it is very difficult to find it. And they provide the inevitability of a retaliatory strike.
      Ground and air carriers of nuclear weapons are much easier to detect.
      1. KaPToC
        KaPToC 10 February 2018 19: 40
        +2
        Quote: Every
        I repeat, if the underwater cruiser freely goes on patrol, it is very difficult to find it. And they provide the inevitability of a retaliatory strike.

        You are greatly exaggerating, it is impossible to suddenly destroy missiles in the mines, in addition there are mobile complexes.
        1. Every
          Every 10 February 2018 21: 29
          0
          Maybe so, I won’t argue. But the missile shaft does not have to be destroyed. It is enough to damage or block the lid (for example, debris after a shock wave), and the launch of the rocket will become impossible, although the rocket is intact.
          1. KaPToC
            KaPToC 11 February 2018 12: 18
            +1
            Quote: Every
            But the missile shaft does not have to be destroyed. It is enough to damage or block the cover (for example, debris after a shock wave),

            Yeah, the lid will be blocked by a ruble plastic bag, aren't you funny? Where is the garbage from?
            1. Every
              Every 11 February 2018 21: 31
              +1
              Quote: KaPToC
              Yeah, the lid will be blocked by a ruble plastic bag, aren't you funny? Where is the garbage from?

              In your garbage is only a plastic bag? Mdya
              Fragments of trees, stones, fragments of buildings (if there are any nearby), earth deposits in the end.
              Or do you think that the power of a nuclear explosion can only move plastic bags and bottles?
      2. Northern warrior
        Northern warrior 10 February 2018 19: 50
        0
        Silos are very well protected from PFYAV. They can be destroyed only by a close explosion of nuclear weapons and not otherwise, and should not be discounted from the PGRK. The ground component of the strategic nuclear forces is armed with heavy ICBMs Voevoda and Stilet, capable of causing catastrophic destruction of enemy territory. Strategic Missile Forces, unlike submarines, are capable of instantly launching all available missiles upon receipt of an order, which makes it possible to realize a retaliatory strike.
        The submarine fleet requires constant repair and modernization, carries less powerful ICBMs and is extremely vulnerable in places of basing. At KOH = 0.2-0.3, most of the time the SSBNs stand at the pier, i.e. are a much lighter target than missiles in silos. If it turns out to provide KOH > 0.5 and reliable communication with the nuclear submarines in the underwater position, then I will reconsider my position.
        1. Every
          Every 10 February 2018 21: 37
          0
          "Voivode" and "Stiletto", capable of causing catastrophic destruction of enemy territory. Strategic Missile Forces, unlike submarines, are capable of instantly launching all available missiles upon receipt of an order, which makes it possible to realize a retaliatory strike.

          "Governor" instantly? After all, a rocket is fueled with liquid fuel, it must first be filled with heptyl and an oxidizing agent.
          1. Northern warrior
            Northern warrior 11 February 2018 01: 11
            +1
            There is no need to refuel anything before starting! “Voevoda” and “Stiletto” can be in a state of fuel for years, and then go on target one minute after receiving an order.
  11. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 10 February 2018 17: 31
    +4
    Um what
    Duc tuta aspects many yes I remember, in the 90s, our liberal leaders guessed to leave the world that our SSBNs are so powerful that they can shoot directly from the bases. What simplified the task of the adversary in the destruction of virtually a third of nuclear carriers. Business then - a couple of missiles in Vilyuchinsk with Western Lyceum and voila. But after all, these weapons (SSBNs) were created in order to be in an ambush to launch a retaliatory missile strike. This is the advantage of submarines carrying nuclear weapons. But the trouble is that such a region must also be protected from the enemy. Therefore, I completely agree with Andrei Chelyabinsk that relying on our virtually one weapon that keeps the West from destroying us, we need to provide cover for the SSBN patrol areas. And this is MAPL, and PLO ships, and even the aircraft necessary for this with its carriers. Because not everything is so simple here!
  12. VeteranVSSSR
    VeteranVSSSR 10 February 2018 17: 59
    +1
    Quote: Rurikovich
    Quote: Mar. Tira
    Russian oligarchs are pulling yachts with the cost of an aircraft carrier. Where did the money come from? They stole it with "overwhelming" labor. But the Kremlin does not have the courage to return it to Russia. That's the whole story.

    I have talked about this more than once yes

    land, and you're right at 100% !!!
    I’ve been to VO not so long ago, but reading comments sometimes my hair stands on end.
    Read and
    `` Something like a MO zaets, then the VKS (read the Air Force) can’t fly, then ,, ... grenades of the wrong caliber. ''
    And, what’s stopping me by the name of the Revolution ... and ... sorry, move in, you weren’t standing here ...
  13. VeteranVSSSR
    VeteranVSSSR 10 February 2018 18: 03
    0
    Quote: Vladivostok1969
    Dear transmission, on Saturday, almost crying,
    The whole Kanatchik dacha to the TV was torn,
    Sorry, there are no other words for you.

    Wise words and after 50 years are relevant ...
    I take off my hat, and for VO - ,, ... mentally applaud ... '' (Bogomolov)
  14. BAI
    BAI 10 February 2018 21: 27
    +2
    And why be surprised?
    Ash-type submarines cost in excess of 200 billion rubles.
    The cost of the T-90 tank in 2010 amounted to an astronomical figure of 70 million rubles, in 2011. - already 118 million rubles Currently, T-90 shipments to the RF Armed Forces are not conducted. It is estimated that the price of a combat vehicle will now start at 120 million rubles.
    T-72BA (2000) - a variant of the modernization of T-72B tanks. The cost of upgrading one tank is 28 million rubles (2009).
    So count as you want. Which is better - several hundred tanks or one nuclear submarine. Of course, this is a comparison of wet with yellow, but where to go.
  15. ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 10 February 2018 22: 17
    +2
    A state that has an army has one arm, and a state that has an army and navy has both arms.

    Peter the Great.
  16. pacific
    pacific 10 February 2018 22: 41
    +1
    Quote: pacific
    Better an extra real tank on a real front line. Better normal body armor to ordinary Ivanov here and now

    If there is a normal fleet, then perhaps there will be no “real advanced” one. Or do you really want the war to start?
    For admirals to show flags around the world.

    Including to demonstrate the flag. Only not the "flags of the admirals", but the state flag.
    Americans are doing just that. Take a look at their "successes" in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq ... Nevertheless, you yourself declare
    Butting America? We won’t pull anyway.

    This is called the "demonstration of the flag." In this case, the American. And we need to show our flag so that all sorts of John Bully and Uncle Sam write similar things about us on their sites. And the fleet is best suited for this.
  17. shuravi
    shuravi 11 February 2018 11: 29
    +1
    First of all, you need to understand which fleet is needed.
  18. sleeve
    sleeve 15 February 2018 07: 21
    0
    Russia was strong on land. Sea power, rather forced. Pugnacious neighbors on the shores of the Black and Baltic Sea in the 18-19th century forced Russia to become a sea power. And hereinafter ... Further, theoretically, it is not necessary. A mobile aviation component in 1 or in a good situation 2 aircraft carriers (on the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet for logistics reasons) for local options and a “flagrant” display of the flag, two shock naval groups, preferably nuclear for baseless autonomy to cover maneuvering areas of SSBNs all global components. Well, in addition to this, serious "local" fleets of approximately the same configuration (6-9 frigates, 6-9 corvettes, 6 submarines). This is a "living" model for decades. Yes, I really want everything new and right away. But when you have a brigade on the brigade almost on the border like mushrooms climb, and when you need to cover one seventh of land with air defense, and when the Su-24 begins to crumble from old age, and ICBMs “get old”, and you live not rich, “but proudly” .. . Here's the wallet. Yes, in fact, the fleet of the near zone as a natural necessity and now performs a task well in conjunction with the coastal component. And it will be built in a rational manner as far as possible. On the strategic component, the perspective is the same real. The fleet is built not in a week and not in ten years. And the process of "carousel" when the series ends with the construction along with the decommissioning of the first ships is the same thing familiar. No need to jumble. We do not need to measure the number of keels with anyone. The situation when they are not at home within the range of their Tomahawks "simply does not require huge squadrons from our shore. Everything will be nishtyak. True, with the cry of" We have nothing to aircraft carriers near Argentina to do, "nothing can be done ... never.