RTOs of the Buyan-M project have shown the ability to operate in Arctic conditions

Russian small missile ships (MRK) of the Buyan-M project are capable of operating in the North. According to the Russian Ministry of Defense, the Zeleny Dol MRK successfully fired the Kalibr cruise missile in the waters of the White Sea.

MRK project 21631 "Green Dol" arrived at the Northern Fleet in mid-August this year together with MRK project 22800 "Odintsovo". The ship passed through inland waters from the Baltic Sea to the Arctic, crossing the Gulf of Finland, the Neva, Lake Ladoga and the White Sea-Baltic Canal. In the North navy RTOs made calls to Severodvinsk and Severomorsk. In total, the "Green Valley" covered over 3300 nautical miles.

As the Ministry of Defense later reported, the MRK, being at one of the Northern Fleet's sea ranges in the White Sea, successfully launched the Kalibr cruise missile, hitting the coastal target at the Chizha training range. Currently, RTOs are returning to Baltiysk.

As noted, the tests carried out showed the possibility of using, if necessary, small rocket ships in the northern direction. Before that, it was not known whether small-sized MRCs would be able to operate in the Arctic zone.

The ships of the project 21631 "Buyan-M" are the modernization of the project 21630 "Buyan" and belong to the multipurpose ships of the "river-sea" class. Designed to protect the economic zone of the state. The main armament is the Kalibr-NK long-range universal missile system for eight vertical silos.

Displacement 949 tons. Length 74,1 meters, width 11,0 meters, height 6,57 meters, draft 2,6 meters. The maximum speed is 25 knots. Cruising range - 2500 miles, autonomy - 10 days. Crew - 52 people. Installed water jet propulsion.

Comments

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Which, in principle, is correct. Buyans had a deep meaning precisely as a means of bypassing the INF Treaty - a ship capable of navigating our rivers and capable of using long-range missile launchers. Now the INF Treaty is dead, but the use of Buyans as mobile river launchers for "Caliber" is quite actual

[Livonetc]

And how many Buyans have been built to date?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Livonetc

And how many Buyans have been built to date?

8. And 4 more - in different stages of construction / delivery to the fleet

[NEXUS]

Quote from rudolf

This would be relevant if these "river launchers" were built in addition to full-fledged combat units of the fleet, and not to the detriment of them or instead of them. There was no relevance in these RTOs for the Russian fleet either before or now.

Rudolph, friend, don't cut it off your shoulder. Corvettes are under construction, frigates creak too. Here we will not give birth to a PL with VNEU, yes. But at the same time, Karakurt, Buyany are still needed. Europeans should understand that in the case of a big nix, they will be the first to go to the expense. I regard these RTOs as Iskander-K, only more mobile.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote from rudolf

This would be relevant if these "river launchers" were built in addition to full-fledged combat units of the fleet

Brawlers are not about the fleet at all, strictly speaking. It's just a launcher for long-range missiles :)))) That is, they ended up in the fleet simply because the ground forces had no right to create ground launchers, and must act strictly in the interests of the ground forces.

[venik]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

and must act strictly in the interests of the ground forces.

=========
Yah???
".....The apotheosis of rocket shooting was strikes for sea targets cruise missiles "Caliber", which were performed by the frigate "Admiral Grigorovich" project 11356R / M, small missile ship "Orekhovo-Zuevo" project 21631 "Buyan-M" and diesel submarine "Kolpino" of project 06363 "Halibut". All cruise missiles launched by them hit designated targets. For the crew of the Orekhovo-Zuevo MRK, these firing was especially exciting. This ship first used Caliber after entering service in December 2018....... ". (https://oborona.ru/includes/periodics/navy/2020/0229/135728831/detail.shtml).
Shooting "at marine purposes" - it is too "strictly in the interests of the ground forces"???

[Dart2027]

Quote: venik

Shooting "at sea targets" is also "strictly in the interests of the ground forces" ???

Since they exist and can use anti-ship missiles, why should we give up this opportunity?

[venik]

Quote: Dart2027

Since they exist and can use anti-ship missiles, why should we give up this opportunity?

========
"Give up the opportunity"? What nonsense you wrote! Those. project 21631 was created only for the task of combating land targets??? And the fight against surface ships is so ... "by the way" ???
Well, okay, "Andrey from Chelyabinsk" - blurted out, in the heat of the moment, without thinking .... But why are you repeating this nonsense?
That is the "trick" of this project (2163), that it can effectively deal with both sea (surface) and coastal (land) targets. Depending on the task at hand (and loaded ammunition)!

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: venik

And the fight against surface ships is so ... "by the way" ???

For once - the correct conclusion, congratulations :))))

Quote: venik

That is the "trick" of this project (2163), that it can effectively deal with both sea (surface) and coastal (land) targets.

Don't talk nonsense, it hurts. A "river-sea" class ship cannot a priori be an effective anti-ship weapon. There are even big questions to the ships of the MRK / corvette class in this regard. But dear Dart2027 wrote you everything correctly

[venik]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Don't talk nonsense, it hurts. A "river-sea" class ship cannot a priori be an effective anti-ship weapon.

=======
That is, following your logic, such a "pot-bellied little thing" like "missile boats" - in general "does not count" and DOES NOT PRESENT any threat to enemy surface ships ??

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Don't talk nonsense, it hurts

Reversus est retro!

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: venik

Ie, following your logic, such a "pot-bellied trifle" like "missile boats" - in general "does not count" and DOES NOT PRESENT any threat to enemy surface ships ??

I am pleased, of course, to open your eyes to such an interesting real world. But generally speaking, you could teach at least a little materiel yourself. Then you might know that:
1) ROK really does not pose a serious threat to large enemy ships and is more or less applicable only to combat fleets of their own kind, or to suppress enemy shipping, if such lies within the radius of action of the ROK. But with the latter task, the ROK is frankly unimportant, as shown by the fighting in the Persian Gulf.
2) The main reasons preventing the Republic of Kazakhstan from realizing its anti-ship potential are:
- low seaworthiness
- rapid drop in speed when worried
- lack of at least some sane air defense
3) MRK pr. 21631 ARE NOT and NEVER ARE missile boats. The seaworthiness of a river-sea class ship is significantly lower than that of the RK, designed for operation in the near sea zone. The Buyan-M's maximum speed - 25 knots - even theoretically does not allow to quickly reach the line of using missile weapons. The ship has almost no air defense.
That is, if we compare Buyan-M with RK, then we will see that precisely those characteristics that prevent RK from being a serious force at sea on Buyan-M are deliberately worsened.
Thus, the maximum that Buyan-M is good for in a naval battle is to serve as a mobile missile battery of coastal defense, but in this case, excitement can prevent him from performing this function.
Here's a Reversus :))))

[venik]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

You could have taught yourself at least a little materiel. Then you might know that:
1) RK really does not pose a serious threat to large enemy ships and is more or less applicable only to combat fleets of their own kind, or to suppress enemy shipping, if such lies within the radius of action of the Republic of Kazakhstan

=======
Of course, it’s very funny for me to read such your maxims (not confirmed by anything, except for your personal confidence in your own rightness). But it looks like you have problems with the "materiel"! For otherwise, you should be aware that in the second half of the last century, sinking and heavy (with failure) damage to large (from the frigate and above) warships fell on:
1) - aviation;
2) - missile boats;
3) - submarines.
4) - sabotage actions.
In that order!
--------

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

3) MRK pr. 21631 ARE NOT and NEVER ARE missile boats.

.
=======
I totally agree! I just don’t understand, but WHY are you telling me this? Like never doubted?
--------

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Seaworthiness of a river-sea class ship much lowerthan that of the RK designed for action in the near sea zone.

=======
What kind of RK? Etc. 183R, 205, 206MR, 1241? You should clarify somehow!
---------

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

The maximum speed of "Buyan-M" - 25 knots - even theoretically does not allow to quickly reach the line of using missile weapons.

========
Having an anti-ship missile with a range of more than 300 km - "go out" to the line of application? This is where? In the Black Sea? In the Baltic?
Generally the concept in full swing It makes sense to "go to the line of application" for the Republic of Kazakhstan only when the onboard detection equipment is superior in range to the means of destruction. And when - on the contrary ....... When everything that is detected by the radar - maybe immediately attacked then high top speed has special meaning.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: venik

For otherwise, you should be aware that in the second half of the last century, sinking and heavy (with failure) damage to large (from the frigate and above) warships fell on:
1) - aviation;
2) - missile boats;
3) - submarines.
4) - sabotage actions.
In that order!

Very funny. Well, since you are such an expert on materiel, I think it will not be difficult for you to list the victims of missile boats "from the frigate and above"

Quote: venik

I totally agree! I just don’t understand, but WHY are you telling me this?

Then, in order to justify the combat qualities of Buyans against the fleet, you write

Quote: venik

Ie, following your logic, such a "pot-bellied trifle" like "missile boats" - in general "does not count" and DOES NOT PRESENT any threat to enemy surface ships ??

forgot?:)))

Quote: venik

What kind of RK? Etc. 183R, 205, 206MR, 1241? You should clarify somehow!

For example, 1241 has a seaworthiness of 7 or even 8 points. Buyan - up to 5.

Quote: venik

Having an anti-ship missile with a range of more than 300 km - "go out" to the line of application? This is where? In the Black Sea? In the Baltic?

Yes, even where. Both in Black and Baltic

Quote: venik

In general, the concept at full speed "to reach the line of application" for the Republic of Kazakhstan makes sense only when the onboard detection equipment in range exceeds the means of destruction

You obviously have not heard that both the RC and the NK must perform the anti-ship function on the external control center.

[venik]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Very funny. Well, since you are such an expert on materiel, I think it will not be difficult for you to list the victims of missile boats "from the frigate and above"

=========
Will not make it difficult !:
1) - Destroyer "Eilat" (Israeli Navy, October 21, 1967), sunk by missiles P-15 "Termit", launched from boats of type 185-R;
2) - Destroyer "Khaybar" (Pakistani Navy on December 5, 1971), sunk by P-15 "Termit" missiles, launched from type 205 boats;
Is it enough?
-----------

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

You obviously have not heard that both the RC and the NK must perform the anti-ship function on the external control center.

==========
Your conceit, of course, touches, but does not delight at all! Not only heard but also saw "live" Ka-27 with a target designation system (one of the prototypes), at the test site near Feodosia. I'll even tell you more - my father, for many years was one of the leading developers of such systems. helicopter basing (there were also satellite, aircraft, ship, coastal, if you don't know ... ).
It's about something else: External target designation is far from always possible and far from always present ... And when the detection range (by own means) is 120-200 km, and the anti-ship missile launching range is 50-70 km - that's when high speed complete of course is of key importance - it allows you to get into the launch zone as quickly as possible ... And when the detection range is less than the range of on-board anti-ship missiles, the speed complete the move does not make much difference (neither RC nor RTO can hold it for a long time!). It is important here high speed cruising move! And she, by the way, at "Buyans" is quite decent!
I hope at least this is clear ???

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: venik

Will not make it difficult !:

Well, let's see what you wrote here.

Quote: venik

1) - Destroyer "Eilat" (Israeli Navy, October 21, 1967), sunk by missiles P-15 "Termit", launched from boats of type 185-R;

Agas. What is characteristic - the destroyer was sunk as a result of the firing of boats FROM REID, that is, the boats in this case played the role of a mobile coastal defense.

Quote: venik

Destroyer "Khaybar" (Pakistani Navy December 5, 1971), sunk by P-15 "Termit" missiles, launched from type 205 boats;

Yes, it was. The real success of the RK.
Now let's remember the submarines
Cruiser General Belgrano - Falklands Conflict.
Frigate Kukri (built in Britain as a frigate, in India classified as TFR) - 1971
So I don't see the superiority of the Republic of Kazakhstan yet

Quote: venik

Is it enough?

Not yet.

Quote: venik

Not only heard but also saw "live" Ka-27

Yes, even at the helm sat. To the point ...

Quote: venik

External target designation is far from always possible and far from always present ...

In modern warfare, the use of the RK without external target designation is an enchanting stupidity, which no commander will agree to. The tactics of using the ROK in the USSR implied covert concentration and massive use for previously reconnoitered targets. Independently, the ROK can fight only with the same "blind" Navy, but there are no such among our potential enemies.

[venik]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Huh. What is characteristic - the destroyer was sunk as a result of the firing of boats from REID, that is, the boats in this case played the role of a mobile coastal defense.

========
Ooh! Probably from "Wikipedia" information ???
Anyway! As the Ukrainians say: Hai Bude!
--------

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Yes, even at the helm sat. To the point ...

==========
And the point is this then - what unlike you - although I understand SOMETHING in this !!!
-----------

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

In modern warfare, the use of RK without external target designation is enchanting stupidity,

==========
This is again your PERSONAL opinion!
-----------

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Independently, the ROK can fight only with the same "blind" Navy, but there are no such among our potential enemies.

============
And here, you, dear and MISTAKE !!! And VERY SERIOUS !!!
It is the ability of the RK (meaning military unit 1241) to attack the enemy, and WITHOUT "external" guidance (target designation) of anti-ship missiles and is their MAIN advantage!
The principle is simple - "found - attacked" !!!

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: venik

Ooh! Probably from "Wikipedia" information ???

Actually, this is common knowledge :))))

Quote: venik

And the point is that, unlike you, I understand SOMETHING !!!

It seems so to you :))))

Quote: venik

This is again your PERSONAL opinion!

This is a fact, not an opinion.
"Foreign naval experts note that the large firing ranges of missile systems allow boats to select salvo positions outside the range of artillery fire of enemy ships. At the same time, they believe that the use of missiles from maximum firing ranges is difficult due to the limited range of detection equipment. Therefore, it is considered expedient that in the fight against enemy surface ships, missile boats should be used in conjunction with other forces of the fleet - destroyers, frigates, artillery and torpedo boats, aircraft and helicopters .... "
"One of the important conditions for the successful operations of missile boats, according to foreign military experts, is also to ensure their covert deployment and rapid appearance in the target area ...."
"The massive use of missile boats in solving the entire complex of tasks at sea, in the opinion of foreign military experts, is possible due to their high combat readiness, significant maneuverability and autonomy, which allows redeployment to new areas in the shortest possible time ..."
And - the cherry on the cake:
Foreign experts include reconnaissance and camouflage, electronic countermeasures, control and communications, the organization of all types of defense, and material and technical supplies to the main measures to support the combat operations of missile boats. The high combat capabilities of missile boats, they believe, can be more effectively implemented if information about the enemy is obtained continuously at any time of the day and in any weather condition, and the strike groups of missile boats are timely provided with reconnaissance data on the location and nature of actions of enemy ships and reliably aimed at the objects of impact.
ZVO "Principles of using missile boats"
Against this background, your statement

Quote: venik

It is the ability of the RK (meaning military unit 1241) to attack the enemy, and WITHOUT "external" guidance (target designation) of anti-ship missiles and is their MAIN advantage!

It is a pretty funny kind of bullshit ...

[venik]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

It seems so to you :))))

=========
Yah! What education do you have? It seems - economic? Or I'm wrong?
------------

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

This is a fact, not an opinion.
"Foreign naval specialists

=========
Oops-pa-na! And you too "foreign"specialist?
----------

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Therefore, it is considered expedient that in the fight against enemy surface ships, missile boats should be used in conjunction with other forces of the fleet - destroyers, frigates, artillery and torpedo boats, aircraft and helicopters .... "

=========
Lord! Who can argue that ??? This is exactly how they are used! That's just for ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS of ships with drums possibilities - 2 (two!) modes of "operation" are provided:
1) - by external target designation
2) - according to data from its own reconnaissance and detection equipment.
What's incomprehensible then?
-----------

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

And - the cherry on the cake:

=========
Just keep it for yourself ("for a snack")!
------------

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

It is a pretty funny kind of bullshit ...

==========
Are you talking about your "opus" ??? (so as not to repeat Latin quotes!)

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: venik

Yah! What education do you have? It seems - economic? Or I'm wrong?

Right. And the fact that I still understand such matters better should alert you ... but where is there

Quote: venik

Oops-pa-na! Are you also a "foreign" specialist?

Yes, even an alien. Can you reasonably argue?

Quote: venik

That's just for ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION of ships with shock capabilities - there are 2 (two!) "Operation" modes:
1) - by external target designation
2) - according to data from its own reconnaissance and detection equipment.
What's incomprehensible then?

Yes, you do not need to play with a snake in a frying pan. What did you write?

Quote: venik

It is the ability of the RK (meaning military unit 1241) to attack the enemy, and WITHOUT "external" guidance (target designation) of anti-ship missiles and is their MAIN advantage!

Please be responsible for your words. However, I do not expect this - the courage to admit my own mistakes (as well as the mind so that, based on the results of 100500 discussions with me, to realize that I just do not "blurt out" anything) you have not and did not have

[venik]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Yah! What education do you have? It seems - economic? Or I'm wrong?
Right. And the fact that I still understand such matters better should alert you ... but where is there

===========
Yah? Directly BETTER ??? Your bragging just the same has no boundaries!!!
-----------

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Yes, you do not need to play with a snake in a frying pan. What did you write?
Quote: venik
It is the ability of the RK (meaning military unit 1241) to attack the enemy, and WITHOUT "external" guidance (target designation) of anti-ship missiles and is their MAIN advantage!
Please be responsible for your words.

=========
ANSWER! Actually, all my life I have been accustomed to RESPOND for my words!
And about "wagging a snake" - for this "in the face" it would be necessary! But "... taking into account my frail breasts, I don't answer! ....... "
For this - I have the honor! Although for you, my dear - this will be too much! To everyone ........ "give honor" ......

[Dart2027]

Quote: venik

That is the "trick" of this project (2163), that it can effectively deal with both sea (surface) and coastal (land) targets. Depending on the task at hand (and loaded ammunition)!

He really can do it (I don’t argue with this), but this ship is rather poorly adapted to the tasks of MRK, so its main specialization is still the role of a floating battery, and the area of ​​action is the Caspian Sea or the river. Well, we didn't plan to use it at sea. Here "Karakurt" is the ships originally designed for the fleet and intended for the sea zone. That is why there will be only 12 "Buyanov", and instead of the development of the series, a series of "Karakurt" was launched.

[NEXUS]

Quote from rudolf

The fact of the matter is that it's not about the fleet. As well as the Patrol series.

Rudolph, friend, Buyany is definitely not about the fleet. In fact, this is a mobile battery, which on day H can hit ground targets, like Iskander-K. The only difference is that Buyan has more BC than Macedonian.
All that is against naval targets is from the corvette and further up the rank higher.
And loading into the RTO Calibers of the antiarable version is idiocy because ...
a) RTOs have neither PLO nor ABM.
b) As long as these small cars reach the launch point of the missiles, they will be safely drowned, and this is a fact.
d) Such RTOs are effective only in one case - a strike from the depths of the territory, when covered both from the air and from land.
Buyans and Karakurt are not about the navy, but more about tactical ground attack means. Eat the rivers and reservoirs on the Immense, including those adjacent to the borders with the EU. That is why they are needed.

[NEXUS]

Quote from rudolf

It is problematic to move them to the forefront at sea due to their low seaworthiness and low combat stability.

Who's talking about cutting edge? This is a FIRST hit. In essence, I see these RTOs as a kind of disposable version of Iskander. They fired from all the trunks, and then it will deduce like a curve.

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: NEXUS

Karakurt is not about the fleet,

Karakurt is all the same different, a consequence of flat thinking, with a Gorbachev accent, using a naval ilk. By adding one hundred to one hundred and fifty tons, in / and it was possible to get a completely adequate coastal corvette.

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

there they got to the fleet simply because the landowners had no right to create

Strictly speaking, such a water-floating launcher can be made an order of magnitude cheaper, and in principle there are not enough missiles, for such a V / and you need at least 16 .. I suspect it looked like this. The General Staff brought it up to the naval ones, they are required to have 96 launchers of the KR on coastal ships with the possibility of river maneuver - the Commander-in-Chief happily rolled up his paws in tackling a mountain of dough and ordered this cheap railway station ... That's why such a wonderful device appeared.
Well, what, but A-190 + Bagheera are definitely not needed there ...

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Anything can be - especially in our God-saved Fatherland ...

Quote: Cyril G ...

Well, what, but A-190 + Bagheera are definitely not needed there ...

How can I say? Purely theoretically, since we are building, it really made sense to provide these ships with all questions in the Caspian Sea, that is, if necessary, to support the landing there, etc. I am not saying that all this is correct, but it is necessary to understand it. River flotillas - they are also useful. So art doesn't bother me.
And about the ammunition ... the UVP seems to be an expensive thing, and if they came up with a loader that can quickly deliver new missiles to the UVP from the river bank - then, in principle, it is quite possible to do with one UVP - reload, and that's all

[Piramidon]

Quote from rudolf

This would be relevant if these "river launchers" were built in addition to full-fledged combat units of the fleet, and not to the detriment of them or instead of them. There was no relevance in these RTOs for the Russian fleet either before or now.

They are built at different shipyards and do not interfere with each other. What, larger than RTOs, can be built in Zelenodolsk?

[Cyril G ...]

Exactly. However, there it was necessary to introduce instead of DGTU, DEU

[svp67]

In the summer, in the absence of ice cover, why not. So, I understand that they do not plan to operate them there in the cold.

[NEXUS]

Quote: svp67

In the summer, in the absence of ice cover, why not. So, I understand that they do not plan to operate them there in the cold.

Why are we building icebreakers of different tonnage and capabilities? Let me remind you that we have the largest icebreaker fleet in the world. At the same time, an additional long-range battery will not interfere with any of our icebreakers.

[Bez 310]

We checked the possibility of rebasing along internal paths.
Of course, we are talking about using these "boats" in winter.
does not go, although the news is presented in this vein.

[Connor MacLeod]

And how much does one 21631 cost? Or 22800? Or 22160? And for comparison, how much does 20380 and 22350 cost? Have a price list?

[mvg]

And for comparison, how much does 20380 and 22350 cost?

Here is an article on this topic
https://topwar.ru/155697-korvet-20386-prodolzhenie-afery.html

[Leha667]

Quote from rudolf

“Maybe it would make sense to leave it there for the winter to get an idea of ​​whether the ship will retain at least some of its functions in the Arctic?

And thereby get rid of it?)))

[Dikson]

Well, why are you so ... It will freeze when, it will be partially chipped from below, so that it will hang on the jumpers until spring, they will throw the electric cable from the shore, and winter yourself .. The crew ashore, watch on the ship ..))) There will be a coastal missile system )))

[Pavel57]

In the summer in the north, and then flew south.

[KVU-NSVD]

Any ship of any class can operate in the Arctic. Only, most importantly, do not fall into the ice .... They made fun of the title .. Chess word.

[7,62x54]

It is necessary to install air defense systems along inland waterways to cover the movement of RTOs.

[Tests]

rudolff (rudolff), dear, bravo! Seigod in us was warm in August and the entire first decade of September - in the afternoon - summer. In the forests near Severodvinsk, porcini mushrooms are still growing, it has not been freezing at night yet. Flashes, however, the green ones were already running across the sky ... These ships, like the patrolman, would have walked along the White Sea in December-March, then the "political officer" title to the material WOULD be appropriate, and so ...

[petrol cutter]

Actions of "Buyanov M" in the Arctic! ... This is powerful, of course.
But the feeling does not leave about too loud a statement.

[Escobar]

Ok, they can operate in the Arctic:
1) From what to what month? Obviously in the ice they will be tight
2) What should they do there? As I understand it, in those latitudes the main opponents are submarines and aircraft. They have neither weapons nor adequate air defense.
Or keep Europe at gunpoint?
8 cruise missiles? I think this is not a very frightening argument for at least the slightest bit of a developed country.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Eskobar

From what month to what month?

All 12 months of the year. Only most of the time you will have to roll them on the ice with your hands.

[Givi_49]

I think that our hovercraft are in the Arctic: they have speed and no ice is terrible.