US Navy Officer: Russian Navy Shows Unique Potential

According to the specialist on national security, the US Navy officer Garrett Campbell, the actions of the armed forces of the Russian Federation in Syria have refuted the estimates of Western analysts who underestimate their capabilities.




In particular, the aviation A group of the Russian Aerospace Forces is effectively attacking the positions of militants of armed groups that oppose the Syrian government forces, he notes.

"Almost none of our NATO allies can match what Russia has been doing in the sky so far," quotes the words of the American military RIA "News".

Some Western experts gave low ratings to the potential of the naval fleet Russia, however, ships of the Caspian Navy successfully hit targets at a distance of more than 900 miles with the help of cruise missiles, Campbell emphasizes. At the same time, according to him, similar surface ships of the US Navy can not do anything like this.

“With small, inexpensive, technological, simple and easy-to-manufacture ships, the Russian fleet demonstrates unique potential and underlines the results of modernization efforts,” Campbell said.

Many analysts said that the Russian Federation is weak militarily, but in Syria, Moscow has shown that "it has the ability and potential (...) to attract conventional weapons to achieve limited political goals," so it’s dangerous for NATO to underestimate the Russian army, NATO concludes.
Photos used:
http://tass.ru/
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

109 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. avvg 27 October 2015 07: 55 New
    • 24
    • 0
    +24
    Let Western experts and analysts be surprised at the actions of the Russian Armed Forces in Syria, otherwise they have long buried Russia in their dreams.
    1. Kostyar 27 October 2015 08: 03 New
      • 48
      • 0
      +48
      Our aviation and fleet Well done !!! But you still haven’t seen the rest of the armed forces, and God forbid you to see ..... !!!
      1. Junior, I 27 October 2015 08: 17 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        But you still haven’t seen the rest of the armed forces, and God forbid you to see ..... !!!

        Tooting)))
        1. Uncle lee 27 October 2015 08: 36 New
          • 33
          • 0
          +33
          Quote: Younger, I
          other arms

          I won’t even mention the construction battalion!
          1. soldatt22 27 October 2015 10: 17 New
            • 6
            • 0
            +6
            Yeah .... these animals do not even show weapons ...
            1. G-iv 29 October 2015 16: 15 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Do not be fooled, show. On an oath with a sawn barrel.
              1. shoemaker 29 October 2015 19: 33 New
                • 5
                • 0
                +5
                And as far as we are concerned, one does not have to laugh at us. Yes, they didn’t give us weapons, but we sharpened shovels and shoulder blades very well, and waved crowbars quite well, but to bite off your ear or throat is so simple. And they ate dogs, and rotten cabbage / potatoes, meat 54 years of harvest. Why do you think we were so angry?
                1. green20181 29 October 2015 22: 19 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  20 years ago I tried lard from Lendlis pork of the 43rd. neither of which has changed - the same g ... oh
          2. demo 30 October 2015 07: 01 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            These are the most terrible troops!
            They were not even given weapons!
            Animals!
        2. Arh
          Arh 27 October 2015 08: 37 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          amerikosy chew on your chewing gum further))), and we (Russians) will go further !!!
        3. Constructor1 27 October 2015 10: 51 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          The one who praises pretends to do justice, but in reality he himself wants to get even more!
          Friedrich Nietzsche
      2. diver1977 27 October 2015 09: 40 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: Bone
        Our aviation and fleet Well done !!! But you still haven’t seen the rest of the armed forces, and God forbid you to see ..... !!!

        Especially the Strategic Missile Forces ... God forbid anyone.
        1. Poppy 27 October 2015 09: 45 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          They will not have time to see the Strategic Missile Forces - p ... q sneaks up unnoticed
      3. Poppy 27 October 2015 09: 45 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        for example, a building battalion - there are such animals that they don’t even get weapons laughing
        1. Aposlya 29 October 2015 17: 21 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          I confirm!
          Without weapons, we can do a lot of things ...

          By the way, we have not had a construction battalion for a long time, but still in Russia?
      4. meriem1 27 October 2015 10: 22 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Bone
        Our aviation and fleet Well done !!! But you still haven’t seen the rest of the armed forces, and God forbid you to see ..... !!!


        For them it is a nightmare. We are going to the garage on August 2nd. Airborne. Marines and various interesting people)))) God forbid !!!! Nobody wants to shoot. Almost everyone has blood behind a hump. But here Our Mom and Girl are Favorite. Let it just blather !!! Roll out.
      5. BABA SHURA 27 October 2015 15: 26 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Give rotatsyu to the troops !!!
    2. SS68SS 27 October 2015 08: 03 New
      • 18
      • 0
      +18
      underestimating the Russian army is dangerous for NATO, the expert concludes.


      Whatever they did not consider Russia, weak or strong, to a light bulb ... The main thing they they should always know and remember that in any situation they’ll receive not at all small lyuli, if that ....
    3. Finches 27 October 2015 08: 08 New
      • 9
      • 0
      +9
      Here the other day they showed one of their experts - he doesn’t hide the fact that he draws all the information from social networks and forums! laughing
      1. Santa Fe 27 October 2015 08: 32 New
        • -9
        • 0
        -9
        ships of the Caspian Navy successfully hit targets over 900 km with cruise missiles, Campbell emphasizes. Moreover, according to him, similar surface ships of the U.S. Navy can not do anything like this.

        U.S. Navy does not need gatekeepers and MRK

        They have 64 full-fledged destroyers, each of which carries more KR than the entire Caspian flotilla. Apart from the other features that 10-thousand has ton warships - compared to 700 ton shells of the Caspian flotilla

        The article, to put it mildly, is inadequate
        1. Dangerous 27 October 2015 08: 54 New
          • 25
          • 0
          +25
          Sure. But these shells are only located in the inland waters of our country, while they control everything within a radius of 2000 km. And how to get them is a big question. Unlike how and how to get an American destroyer
          1. NEXUS 27 October 2015 09: 28 New
            • 8
            • 0
            +8
            Quote: Dangerous
            Unlike how and how to get an American destroyer

            I have noticed more than once that our destroyers (albeit Soviet-built) were completely disregarded, recalling Arly Berks and Zamvolty. Yes, while we are not building Leaders and Squalls (but we need to scratch ourselves and build a lot of them), but there are still modernization of the old fleet of destroyers and their rearmament. At the same time, it would be quite nice to equip them with Caliber. The same applies to the Atlant series cruisers.
            1. marlin1203 27 October 2015 12: 46 New
              • 7
              • 0
              +7
              I have noticed more than once that our destroyers (albeit Soviet-built) were completely disregarded, recalling Arly Berks and Zamvolty. Yes, while we are not building Leaders and Squalls (but we need to scratch ourselves and build a lot of them), but there are still modernization of the old fleet of destroyers and their rearmament. At the same time, it would be quite nice to equip them with Caliber. The same applies to the Atlant series cruisers.
              I'm wildly sorry. But aren't you talking about 956 project destroyers? So to begin with, look at their presence in the ranks and the technical condition ... The Atlanteans are only 3. The age of all the aforementioned ships is almost 30 years old. The "caliber" missile is good, winged and subsonic. And our existing destroyers and cruisers are armed with supersonic PKR, which are fundamentally different from the "caliber". And to “shove” a new missile system onto a ship, where each cubic centimeter is not easy to plan. Overhaul with modernization will be required, which at a cost may possibly be comparable to the construction of a new MRK. So let's be careful about slogans such as "Cram" caliber "anywhere and more!" soldier
              1. NEXUS 28 October 2015 00: 25 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: marlin1203
                But aren't you talking about 956 project destroyers? So to begin with, look at their presence in the ranks and the technical condition ... The Atlanteans are only 3. The age of all the aforementioned ships is almost 30 years old.

                But am I not talking about that? OUR Fleet is getting old! The flagship of the Black Sea Fleet Moscow will soon hit 40. And so I will focus on the topic of building the ships of the Leader and Flurry project.
                Quote: marlin1203
                And our existing destroyers and cruisers are armed with supersonic PKR, which are fundamentally different from the "caliber". And to “shove” a new missile system onto a ship, where each cubic centimeter is not easy to plan.

                Say everything correctly. But let's look at this not from the point of pragmatism, but from the point of today's realities. There are not so many carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic Caliber today, and the adversary has equipped many of his ships and submarines with harpoons.
                And the second point. There was raised the theme of the construction of the first Russian aircraft carrier (not an aircraft carrier cruiser, namely an aircraft carrier) ... and how to protect it then? Security, support and so on ...
                Quote: marlin1203
                So let's be careful about slogans such as "Cram" caliber "anywhere and more!"

                I can’t stand the slogans in principle. And about “we’re cramming the Caliber anywhere,” excuse me, the same Americans put their Tomahawks thicker and bigger. Or, if you think Caliber-NK should be based only on the Caspian Sea and the Russian Sea?
                Best regards hi
          2. meriem1 27 October 2015 10: 25 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Dangerous
            Sure. But these shells are only located in the inland waters of our country, while they control everything within a radius of 2000 km. And how to get them is a big question. Unlike how and how to get an American destroyer


            And they know that one shot of BASTION is enough ....
        2. Manager 27 October 2015 08: 54 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          I completely agree. Their potential allows much more than I and you would like. In terms of the fleet, we will not be able to catch them in the next 10 years. And if we add the fleet of that de Japan, the second most powerful in the world, then we don’t even have anything to measure. Fortunately, there is nuclear potential.
          1. soldatt22 27 October 2015 10: 51 New
            • -3
            • 0
            -3
            Strange, I probably can’t read, according to official data (Western media and military experts): 1 USA, 2 RF, 3 Japan, 4 England, 5 France.
            1. Santa Fe 27 October 2015 10: 59 New
              • -4
              • 0
              -4
              Quote: soldatt22
              according to official data (Western media and military experts

              give a link?

              And yes, you forgot India and China, what a trifle
        3. gispanec 27 October 2015 09: 00 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          They have 64 full-fledged destroyers, each of which carries more missiles than the entire Caspian flotilla.

          for you, Oleg ... it says ... I quote ...
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          are similarе US Navy surface ships

          see the highlighted? .... do you think that the destroyer is similar to a small missile boat ?? wassat laughing I quote you further
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          The article, to put it mildly, is inadequate
          ... so who is not adequate ??
          1. Santa Fe 27 October 2015 09: 29 New
            • -5
            • 0
            -5
            Quote: gispanec
            small missile boat?

            Do you seriously consider this a reason for pride?
            1. gispanec 27 October 2015 09: 36 New
              • 9
              • 0
              +9
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Do you seriously consider this a reason for pride?

              no, I don’t think, but I don’t spread rot in all the articles and comments of our Fleet like you ... after all, only submarines delight you and, moreover, Yusovskie ones ... and in fact, why not compare the comparable? ... then be consistent and compare all!!!! from the cost of EM Burke = how many RTOs ?? the cost of exploitation? ... the cost of the coastal infrastructure ... combat component ... only then do YOUR conclusions
              1. Santa Fe 27 October 2015 09: 49 New
                • -9
                • 0
                -9
                Quote: gispanec
                but in fact, why not compare the comparable

                ask the author of this article

                why bother the Russian fleet with Yusovsky if there is nothing that can be compared
                1. gispanec 27 October 2015 09: 59 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  why bother the Russian fleet with Yusovsky if there is nothing that can be compared

                  so there’s nothing? ... but what about submarines ?? ... or is there immediately instead of quality a quantity comparison? ... although here you are right ... it makes no sense to compare our fleets .... we have no AUGs at all. ..and the KUGs no longer exist .. that means during the formation of the Russian Navy .... the bet will be placed on the Naval Aviation + ... ?? tell me plizz ..... but the fleet is slowly being reborn? or not? ... your opinion ?? .... or reborn but not right (are we building it?)
                  1. NEXUS 27 October 2015 10: 05 New
                    • 5
                    • 0
                    +5
                    Quote: gispanec
                    .or reborn but not right (are we building it?)

                    We are building something, but small and mostly submarines and small ships of the coastal zone. And we should already start updating the fleet of ships of the first rank, such as TARKs, ARKs, destroyers. But we must understand that the construction of such ships is very expensive pleasure. And I suppose that until Leaders and Squalls go into series (and in good), it’s too early to talk about an aircraft carrier. It makes no sense to build an aircraft carrier and not have support and defense ships for it. hi
                    1. mark2 27 October 2015 20: 10 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      And why do we all think in terms of parity in similar weapons to the enemy? If submarines are being built, then there are some tactical and strategic plans for their use. So they will carry not only torpedoes and ballistic missiles on board, but also cruise missiles. We do not know the whole plan of the Supreme and the General Staff. We can judge what is visible on the surface. And on the surface you can see that they will build defense ships. Not a very large radius of action. Well, if you look from the other side? If all the oceanic warships fight somewhere out there .. who will remain to defend their homeland?
                      NF is not as scary as it seems, for the simple reason that this is the lot of the weak. Anyone who does not know how to fight with fists will always try to get a gun. because with a gun he is stronger. The use of nuclear weapons is the last argument. After this argument, the winners will not be happy with their victory.
                      So, we are strengthening the defense of our country. And we will build ships of influence later. It is also necessary to gain experience of sinking somewhere. And where to get it, as in the construction of smaller ships?
                  2. Santa Fe 27 October 2015 10: 07 New
                    • 4
                    • 0
                    +4
                    Quote: gispanec
                    . But what about submarines?

                    one ash vs xnumx virginia
                    Quote: gispanec
                    fleet is slowly reborn? or not? ... your opinion?

                    No

                    The Russian Navy continues to degrade over the past 15 years, there are no new ships and are not expected

                    Calibers' starts impressed only housewives
                    the Yankees have been launching their axes for 30 for years in a row, fired 2000 missiles (100 times more than we do) and realized in practice that the combat value of the Kyrgyz Republic is small. at least significantly less than they say on Channel One. all this fuss around 26 Gauges - from my own powerlessness.

                    The USSR Navy could demolish half the world without nuclear weapons, but never talked about its military successes. Just as the US Navy is silent about them. Real power needs no words
                    1. gispanec 27 October 2015 10: 22 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      one ash vs xnumx virginia

                      Well, not only ash ... more boreas ... and Warsaw women at the Black Sea Fleet just right ... the barracudas were put into modif and repair ... there will be that boat too, we’ll get rid of it ... well, pike-b can still do a lot. .. the truth is the number is not enough ... well, for a serious mess, we have an ICBM ... well, Oleg ... you can write in your article about what you would do in the place of the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation with our Navy? ? ... how do you see the development strategy ?? ... which shipyards to sharpen under which ships? .... suppose we put 98% of governors and mayors of the whole Russian Federation, well, almost all the loot was confiscated .... and your treasury full))) !!! Your actions?..
                      1. Santa Fe 27 October 2015 10: 54 New
                        • 3
                        • 0
                        +3
                        Quote: gispanec
                        Your actions?..

                        exercises every month.
                        with the involvement of diverse forces, the search for submarines, mines and firing at low-flying targets

                        atomic ash - 6-8 pieces
                        non-nuclear non-nuclear powered boats
                        Poseidon marine patrol / anti-submarine aircraft
                        heavy patrol drone
                        SU-34 / Su-30 with small-sized anti-ship missiles (type X-55 uranium)
                      2. gispanec 27 October 2015 11: 04 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        atomic ash - 6-8 pieces

                        Well, where is the logic .... you wrote -
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        one ash vs xnumx virginia

                        Well, there will be 8 versus 14 .... again we give way in quantity ... and where is the surface fleet ?? ... you are only talking about submarines and aviation ..... and corvettes frigates cruiser destroyers landing ships? ... are not needed? ?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Poseidon marine patrol / anti-submarine aircraft

                        but what is bad about our IL ?? .. what is it so much inferior to? .. especially modernized by the novel?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        heavy patrol drone

                        I agree completely
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        SU-34 / Su-30 with small-sized anti-ship missiles (type X-55 uranium)

                        I agree the same, but they already exist .. they are just few, but gradually come
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        exercises every month.

                        practically it is today
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        non-nuclear non-nuclear powered boats

                        while the ambush is complete ... but there is already hope
                  3. Das Boot 27 October 2015 11: 06 New
                    • 5
                    • 0
                    +5
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Calibers' starts impressed only housewives

                    Well, why are you so rude?))) Yesterday Comrade Kamenev wrote that the demonstration launches of the Caliber shocked the American generals. I have no doubt that he himself believes in this. Do not deprive housewives of their dreams. For some reason, no one says that 26 Caliber is less than a third of a salvo of axes from one, say, the odious Donald Cook. The demonstration, of course, was successful both in its goals, both literally and figuratively, and the eventual adversary restrainedly drew conclusions. All with their own. The Pentagon, of course, has no shock and awe, panic and wave of suicides.
                  4. SPACE 27 October 2015 12: 12 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Calibers' starts impressed only housewives

                    You called the American military housewives, maybe your words are not far from the truth)))
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    the Yankees have launched their axes for 30 years in a row, fired 2000 missiles (100 times more than we do) and realized in practice that the combat value of the Kyrgyz Republic is small

                    For 2000 rockets and 30 years, realized))) what a "wise" conclusion. And they are also building aircraft carriers, Zumwalt, Aegis missile defense, F-35, of course we already know everything, but we also expect from them conclusions on 500 of billions of dollars a year)))
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    The USSR Navy could demolish half the world without nuclear weapons, but never talked about its military successes. Just as the US Navy is silent about them. Real power needs no words

                    Why these hypothetical comparisons, the level of children from the sandbox, in the first USSR this did not save, secondly, the defense of the state should be based on the desire for peace and within the framework of a reasonable and sufficient to protect its territory, but with the possibility of quick and without troubles destruction of the aggressor. Thirdly, any direct conflict will potentially have a tendency to develop into a total nuclear war, but the danger of which, in turn, will deter the parties from taking radical measures and which results in the fourth, all of which are quantitative and expensive, high-tech non-nuclear military advantages of the states the possibility of limited use of tactical nuclear weapons in neutral waters. After which it is possible, but not the fact that the reaction of the states will follow in the form of an attack by strategic nuclear forces.
              2. Xergey 27 October 2015 14: 46 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                The main efficiency and ability to use, and the Americans did not show either one, the question then what to be proud of ?, the second question, what will happen in five or ten years when the dollar will not be as liquid as it is now, and how will they serve it all then? Well, the third question is whether the vessels already have a long service life, the moment of replacement will come, and if they are not used to fighting on them, but practice does not work for them to build improved analogues (example f35), then after a couple of decades they will have to kayak to swim.
          2. Per se. 27 October 2015 11: 09 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Unfortunately, Oleg, if an American reasonably says that everything must be taken into account when evaluating his opponent, then for some this is a reason to completely disregard the real assessment of the threat to us from the US Navy. There is no particular praise from the "national security specialist, US Navy officer Garrett Campbell," there is only a statement, both in assessing the threat of the enemy (that the Yankees will undoubtedly take into account) and in the fact that they really do not small missile ships that they simply don’t need. Even if we were praised by Anglo-Saxon, it would be useful to remember the words of August Bebel (as well as many close world quotes), "If the enemy praises you, think ...". The article is only information from which, probably, the most adequate conclusion is - one should always take his opponent seriously, which was voiced by the US Navy officer. Still, our cheers-patriots somehow somehow for themselves, finally understood.
      2. Karayakupovo 27 October 2015 09: 06 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Not 900 km had to be written, but 900 miles. The error is almost 2 times.
        1. andranick 27 October 2015 09: 43 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Yes, what little things, miles-kilometers back and forth. After all, the purpose of the article is not to report the news / fact, with provoking “urya” commentators, at the same time the rating will work. Shouting "Urya" and throwing hats safely, easily and damn nice, I do not argue.
      3. Poppy 27 October 2015 09: 49 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        You didn’t understand the essence of the question a bit: 700-ton babies are:
        - cheapness and mass production - for the cost of this destroyer, you can build an MRC fleet that will carry more missiles
        - the possibility of quick production, including if necessary in a threatening period, but you can’t build a destroyer right away
        - decentralization of these same launchers, because the destroyer can be covered with one, two or three missiles, and dispersed 10-15 MRCs are very difficult to hit at the same time
      4. soldatt22 27 October 2015 10: 29 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Heard the saying: -mall yes daring? In addition, the larger the cabinet (target), the louder it falls.
      5. aleks 62 next 27 October 2015 10: 40 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        .... The United States Navy does not need gatekeepers and RTOs .... An article, to put it mildly, is inadequate ...

        ..... Well, yes !!!!! ..... Need battleships !!!!! .... wassat .... They have a different doctrine, therefore they are not needed .... They are fighting far from their country .... In general, the attitude towards RTOs and the Republic of Kazakhstan was in the mid-60s contemptuous of the "big" countries .... They called - the weapons of the poor .... Everything suddenly changed in the 67th, when the old Soviet-built RK was drowned by the Israeli destroyer Eilat .... This showed that the size is not the main thing .... After that, ships began to actively build ships in the fleets with missile weapons .... And at the price of the Republic of Kazakhstan much less than the destroyer ..... And the efficiency, if not more, then no less in some cases .... hi
      6. Gall_st 27 October 2015 10: 55 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        "If your opponent praises you, think about it, then you are doing something wrong." And I would add that we (the military-industrial complex) still have to work and work ...
      7. GSH-18 27 October 2015 11: 46 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        10 thousand ton warships - compared to 700 ton shells of the Caspian flotilla

        It is inadequate on your part to compare the American destroyers of the ocean zone and the ships of the Caspian flotilla, the most modest of all our Navy, where even normal storms do not exist. Compare at least with the Black Sea Fleet where 82 warships. And it is not worth talking about the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet, especially the Northern Fleet!
        1. Nosgoth 27 October 2015 17: 53 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Can you list the 82 “warships”? It just got really interesting.

          Our caliber missile boats are a headache for Europe and the Middle East, but not for the United States. Until war comes to their territory, they will act with impunity "from across the ocean."
  2. venzim 27 October 2015 08: 23 New
    • 14
    • 0
    +14
    Yes, yes, we all know and remember about the colossus on clay feet, but do our "partners" remember?
  3. Tor5
    Tor5 27 October 2015 09: 02 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    It is glorious that even our so-called "partners" recognize the power of our Army!
    1. Nosgoth 27 October 2015 18: 04 New
      • -2
      • 0
      -2
      This is just another horror story for "taxpayers" and an occasion to increase the military budget.

      Although I hate the Yankees, but with the fleet (not in separate directions, but in most) they are doing fine.

      And we have brakes with the construction of the fleet. New items are encouraging, but they either:

      1. Small. It’s great, of course, that 4 missile boats shot almost all of their ammunition, but one god knows how long it will take to replenish it, and whether there are missiles in storage so that at least a couple of times it’s such a “fuss” :-(
      2. Or long-term long-term construction, which finally in single copies reached / will reach the fleet (even 1 unit for each of the fleets is a problem)

      There is reason to be proud that "we can still", but looking at the picture from a height, understanding comes ... "of course we bite, but we will not last long" :-(
  4. Gormenghast 27 October 2015 09: 10 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    We live in some kind of parallel reality.

    Everyone, like, should understand that terrorism is not good. There are no right and wrong terrorists. When the towers of the World Trade Center were destroyed, Russia was nearby. And here. am
  5. vyinemeynen 27 October 2015 09: 16 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Well in Syria, the Anglo-Saxons brains "calibrated"
  6. GSH-18 27 October 2015 12: 17 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    therefore, underestimating the Russian army is dangerous for NATO, the expert concludes.

    This is the key phrase to start knocking out and the subsequent rich drank! That is why all US operations are tens (or even hundreds) times more expensive than ours in Syria.
    Have a good drink gentlemen Americans good
  7. Simon 27 October 2015 14: 58 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    There is nothing to bury Russia! Russia, like a phoenix, is always reborn from the ashes, to the evil of its enemies.
  8. Serafim-k 29 October 2015 16: 50 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: avvg
    Let Western experts and analysts be surprised at the actions of the Russian Armed Forces in Syria ...

    Well, this means that our SVR .. "sang" them a good lullaby .. bully
  • Same lech 27 October 2015 07: 57 New
    • 10
    • 0
    +10
    Some Western experts gave low ratings to the potential of the Russian Navy, but the ships of the Caspian fleet successfully hit targets at a distance of more than 900 km with the help of cruise missiles.


    I read articles by these experts .... pure propaganda ... and all the time there are praises addressed to the US Navy .... their fleet is invincible and indestructible ... well, just like the 1941 German Army .... also until the first serious clashes with the RED ARMY which is then not in the best position.
    1. hydrox 27 October 2015 08: 11 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: The same Lech
      .... their fleet is invincible and indestructible ...


      But let them present their fleet (at least one ship!) In the radius of destruction by the Caliber - no!
      Everyone hid like cockroaches in the crevices, even in the Persian Gulf, which the States turned into a "private lake of their fleet" - nobody!
      Only the lone destroyer URO Porter, rushed mercilessly, flies off at the exit from the Dardanelles to the full power of his engines somewhere far away ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Gray 43 27 October 2015 07: 59 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    And what are we ?! And we got it right!))))
  • Wiruz 27 October 2015 07: 59 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    US Navy Officer: Russian Navy Shows Unique Potential

    Hmm, but a couple of decades ago, the Americans did not see any point in creating MRK / IPC. laughing
    1. hydrox 27 October 2015 08: 18 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Wiruz
      Hmm, but a couple of decades ago, the Americans did not see any point in creating MRK / IPC.


      So now there is no special meaning, they are suitable only for confined and extended water areas (rivers), however, the ocean fleet needs URO frigates, and Russia, maybe even a URO cruiser, carrying a full range of missile weapons.
    2. Poppy 27 October 2015 09: 52 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      they have a naval and aggressive fleet, and we have coastal and defensive - these are different approaches to construction
      they are forced to build and maintain large, expensive and gluttonous ships
      and we can fend off them with inexpensive, massive and efficient small ships
  • Altona 27 October 2015 08: 00 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Two weeks have passed, and they are still in shock ...
    1. arane 27 October 2015 08: 03 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Altona
      Two weeks have passed, and they are still in shock ...

      Nothing, let Snickers gobble up ..... according to his ad
  • bronik 27 October 2015 08: 01 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Russian fleet demonstrates unique potential and highlights results of modernization efforts

    Myths about Russia's weakness created by US propaganda are crumbling.
  • kos2910 27 October 2015 08: 02 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    it’s dangerous for everyone to underestimate the enemy, and so do we. But the asymmetric response as inexpensive small missile cruisers with cruise missiles, the Varshavyanka with the potential of nuclear missile carriers - is impressive :)
  • Oznob 27 October 2015 08: 02 New
    • -4
    • 0
    -4
    Kopetan Evidence. yes
  • wandlitz 27 October 2015 08: 03 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    “With small, inexpensive, technological, simple and easy-to-manufacture ships, the Russian fleet demonstrates unique potential and underlines the results of modernization efforts,” Campbell said.This is our asymmetric response to the militant challenges of the West.
  • ImPerts 27 October 2015 08: 04 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Sung to the motive of the song "Suliko"
    (Dedicated to Donald Cook and lost childhood dreams)
    The song of a military American general who did not get into Syria and regrets the lost beautiful photographs
    I've been looking for him everywhere
    I appealed to his conscience.
    But I can’t find it for a long time.
    Where are you, my libido?

    I ate tons of nuts,
    I sat in the women's locker room
    I applied cold, and still -
    Where are you, my libido?

    I drank potions in liters,
    The psychic treated him for me,
    I snuggled a week to the UFO.
    Where are you, my libido?

    There is no libido under the sofa
    And there is no libido in the kitchen.
    And I saw in the closet, it lies -
    But this is not my libido!

    Libido drove someone else's
    I lost interest in the ladies.
    It’s a hassle and nothing else -
    I don’t need it anymore!

    It’s a hassle and nothing else -
    Where are you, my yo-mine!
    (c) Cooperit Group, Libido
    (in the Internet you can find and listen)))
  • rf xnumx 27 October 2015 08: 05 New
    • 34
    • 0
    +34
    therefore, underestimating the Russian army is dangerous for NATO, the expert concludes
    Yeah don't worry so
  • 3 Gorynych 27 October 2015 08: 13 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    According to the specialist on national security, the US Navy officer Garrett Campbell, the actions of the armed forces of the Russian Federation in Syria have refuted the estimates of Western analysts who underestimate their capabilities.
    Briefly - be afraid of the Russians! Yankees ...!
    1. Vladimir Pozlnyakov 27 October 2015 09: 45 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      "The total number of aircraft and helicopters aboard the Nimitz class aircraft carrier can reach 90 units."

      I imagined a "picture in oil" - a flock of planes and helicopters from a sinking aircraft carrier rushing closer to the shore, a horde of helicopter pilots in horror catapult from useless expensive cars. In the best case, under the "Hoch Hoh" some will land at the nearest "enemy" airfield!
      1. viktorrymar 27 October 2015 11: 28 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The total number of aircraft and helicopters aboard a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier can reach 90 units


        It can reach, but only for transportation, with such a quantity on one ship, except helicopters can take off from it)))
  • ivan bogomolov 27 October 2015 08: 22 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    And how they underestimate the spirit and solidarity (at critical moments) of our people, kamikaze are just children compared to us. soldier
  • iliitchitch 27 October 2015 08: 27 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Another expert. From rusty to unique spelled. Does he know the word "effective"? Yo, studying at Harvard, probably BALL. But in Baumanka they did not give concessions ... All the equations are hand-to-hand, a calculator for calculating scholarships, perhaps. Approximately 77 rubles. It always turned out.
    Also, the "limited political goals" (!) Of Russia are somehow mentioned by the body. That’s all, brother, you won’t send the US fleet to the shores of Belarus anymore, as Jenny threatened. This is dangerous. At distant approaches, a nail will fly with a hammer into the deck. "... over 900 km away ...". Medium-range missiles up to 5000 fly sometimes with a nuclear warhead, what would you know is a self-propelled westpoint.
  • BOB044 27 October 2015 08: 34 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Do not tease the bear. Live calmly and he will not come to you and will not send you his cubs.
  • solovey 27 October 2015 08: 34 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    If in 2008 we drove with disgrace the Georgians prepared according to NATO standards, then what can I say now !!!!!!!!! And don’t even think about repeating the mistakes of the French, Poles, Swedes, Germans, but who weren’t there - 2.5 m.2 land was enough for everyone.
    1. Vladimir Pozlnyakov 27 October 2015 09: 51 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      No need to banish our land - let them die on their own, as in Syria! And better over the ocean and on the islands!
  • Alex_59 27 October 2015 08: 35 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    ships of the Caspian Navy successfully hit targets over 900 km with cruise missiles, Campbell emphasizes. At the same time, according to him, similar surface ships of the US Navy can not do anything like this.
    What kind of nonsense? Any destroyer or submarine of the US Navy can deploy cruise missiles many times more than our RTOs. What "similar" surface ships does he mean? The USA does not build RTOs; they do not need them. We would have built destroyers according to 2-3 pieces a year like they had them, we would have MRKs, too, without the need. But while we have been building corvettes for 10 years, we have to dodge and push the PU of cruise missiles onto such carriers.
    1. Poppy 27 October 2015 09: 54 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      just the opposite is the most effective way in our conditions
      1. Alex_59 27 October 2015 10: 40 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        About the way - no questions. The question is just under the conditions. Why do we still have such conditions that we cannot arrange for the construction of ships of the sea-ocean zone to flow? Which are not only capable of carrying KR, but also have developed anti-aircraft defense, air defense. Are we RUSSIA or Vietnam? RTOs - this is without fish ... I do not argue - beautifully circumvented the INF. All is correct. Sailors - well done. Ships too. They showed teeth. Disguise in the Volga Delta, again, in case of a big mess. But gentlemen, not only this must be dealt with? Or will we just sit in the Volga delta for reeds and proudly cry in the Caspian, where in fact there is nobody besides us? The next step is needed. 22350 - on 10-15 pieces for all fleets, 885 - on 15 on the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet. So I would be completely satisfied.
  • vell.65 27 October 2015 08: 45 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    They saw a little what the army of Russia is capable of and for now it’s enough, and let them guess what later we will be able to surprise them very much. So there is no need for pissemism, that everything is so bad with us.
  • Oleg1080 27 October 2015 08: 45 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And flowed down my pants ...
  • Wolka 27 October 2015 08: 49 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    apparently the Yankees still have bright heads capable of really evaluating the combat capabilities of the Russian Navy ...
  • 31rus 27 October 2015 09: 07 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Dear, according to the same “experts,” a single-shot volley of the Kyrgyz Republic can be 6000! Missiles, even if there are half, and that’s enough for the eyes, but rearm and introduce new systems, by the way and a good thing, there is a lot of work in this regard
  • shimus 27 October 2015 09: 18 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    A reasonable question arises: WHOSE SAME ECONOMY WAS TORNED BY THE USA, according to Obama ???
    This is the main question that excites the minds of American generals !!!
  • YaMZ-238 27 October 2015 09: 19 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    That they began to be afraid and respected is pleasant ....
  • LukaSaraev 27 October 2015 09: 30 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    "Almost none of our NATO allies can match what Russia has done in the sky so far."

    I did not miss anything ?? If it `s not a secret. then who? Who also works?
    1. 2s1122 27 October 2015 12: 06 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I agree with you. For example, Argentina and Britain asked for U.S. support for the Falklands. Franks in Libya have formed a coalition of NATO members. Only the states and we are able to conduct combat operations with an equal adversary (although about the states I probably praised them, they only Aboriginal desert drive)
  • Dimon19661 27 October 2015 09: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Alex_59
    ships of the Caspian Navy successfully hit targets over 900 km with cruise missiles, Campbell emphasizes. At the same time, according to him, similar surface ships of the US Navy can not do anything like this.
    What kind of nonsense? Any destroyer or submarine of the US Navy can deploy cruise missiles many times more than our RTOs. What "similar" surface ships does he mean? The USA does not build RTOs; they do not need them. We would have built destroyers according to 2-3 pieces a year like they had them, we would have MRKs, too, without the need. But while we have been building corvettes for 10 years, we have to dodge and push the PU of cruise missiles onto such carriers.

    At least one adequate person in this forum.
    1. Poppy 27 October 2015 09: 54 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      just no - doesn't understand the essence of the issue
      1. Alex_59 27 October 2015 10: 48 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Poppy
        just no - doesn't understand the essence of the issue

        Yes, where do we go ...
        Our people think in black and white categories. Nobody notices shades. Here is an example:
        Quote: 3
        Briefly - be afraid of the Russians! Yankees ...!
        - Hooray! We will tear all. Another example:
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The Russian Navy continues to degrade over the past 15 years, there are no new ships and are not expected
        Calibers' starts impressed only housewives
        - here, on the contrary, all the polymers have come through. Both positions are simply killing me, with this level of thinking, our prospects really look ambiguous.
        Even 5 years ago, our fleet could not launch a single KR anywhere. And now it can, and it’s really cool! But at the same time we are up to the United States as before the moon. And in the article, the American officer is clearly cunning and pissing. He certainly understands that after the launch of our CDs, the situation has changed and they can get their teeth from where they had not expected before. But so here is lying about the fact that they are weaker than Russia? Well, this is rudeness.
  • 2s1122 27 October 2015 09: 44 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I’m not a big strategist, but apart from the small frigates of the Russian Navy, we need heavy shock groups with air-carrying armchairs, heavy missile cruisers, ekranoplanes so far. And these military watercraft should not be up to the mark. Finance is a different conversation, we are not America. But defense orders are both jobs and money supply turnover within the statehood. Something like this is in the moyma.
  • Socialism 2.0 27 October 2015 09: 50 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I can’t even imagine their surprise if a real batch started between us ... bggg ..
  • Roman 11 27 October 2015 09: 54 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    The article, to put it mildly, is inadequate

    I agree, dizziness from success.

    Until now, we have been dancing on our heads because rockets flew laughing

    If you think about it, then this whole circus (verbiage addressed to us) is the usual job of knocking out military production corporations of money from the government. In our country, they attach this value almost as a victory at Stalingrad - they say the fleet is not only still alive, but also fighting). I will not argue, rockets take off, and good rockets are thought.

    However, talking about the fleet as a combat unit is not necessary yet. If someone thinks otherwise - start asking yourself the simplest children's questions - and when was the last time the fleet exercises were held with the separation of the blue and some diamonds, or some other?
    With the unforgettable Leonid Ilyich, or immediately after his departure under Andropov, Ocean 83.

    Mostly in the 70s.

    Now, from the force, the ship will go out to sea, the target will be launched across the course, it will bring it down. This is all combat training.

    And where is the independent search for rival squadrons? Where is the participation of minesweepers in the setting of minefields? The curtains of submarines, mutual deck strikes on the one hand, and strategic aviation on the other, as well as the massive use of missile strikes by ship groupings, how and where drones are used ???
    Already in the course of such exercises at least approximate data will begin to appear - how much an average cruiser is able to recapture missiles independently, in a group, in a squadron, under the cover of deck aircraft, etc.

    The Japanese fleet conducted exercises 2 times a year for the Japanese before WWII. We need at least once every 2 years, because the last time such teachings were more than 30 years ago and now we can’t know what the fleet and ships in particular are capable of, and as you know, individual ships are not capable of much.
    Yes, rockets are still flying.
    Can unite all the ships in one fleet, leaving only on the seas light exiles like the Caspian flotilla?
  • Corsair 27 October 2015 09: 59 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It’s neither warm nor cold to us from the opinions of these experts, it doesn’t make sense to hit our heels in the chest either - their group of destroyers can half our plants, factories, hydroelectric power stations, and possibly nuclear power plants, crush their own missiles with one volley.
    Their Kyrgyz Republic also does not fly 500 km, and judging by the map it can be calculated that they can cover the western and central parts of Russia, the Volga region, and the east from Yakutia and Buryatia from the territorial waters of the EU allies.
    We showed the world that we can answer - in my opinion, showed early, but apparently there were some reasons unknown to us. So far, in the case of an instant non-nuclear strike, I have little idea of ​​how we can protect thousands of objects from thousands of missile defense systems, although they are quite vulnerable and go astray. So far, only SNF and SNA remain - it is necessary to modernize delivery systems and be sure to launch the BZHRK sad
    These Americans and Europeans, as well as Yapis, see the threat in our existence, and our territory only as a resource base and at some point, assured of our abilities, can hit the crowd.
  • Zomanus 27 October 2015 10: 06 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The most powerful weapon is the presence of a leader,
    which is not afraid to use all other weapons.
    For the point was from our weapons in 90, when our leaders
    S. sali in his pants only with a hint of discontent of the States with their actions.
    Just a little States expressed concern, we immediately rushed to cut rockets and planes.
    And now, regardless of feelings and
    The concerns of the States we do what we need.
  • Belousov 27 October 2015 10: 07 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Now I would have to cut another 5th column under the root of the owls with these seven echoes-rains-nabiullins-millers-ulyukaevs-sechins and other Medvedevs.
  • Dimka999 27 October 2015 10: 08 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    They are still there that this is that Russia from the 90s, BUT there is no bite)
  • iliitchitch 27 October 2015 10: 15 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: solovey
    If in 2008 we drove with disgrace the Georgians prepared according to NATO standards, then what can I say now !!!!!!!!! And don’t even think about repeating the mistakes of the French, Poles, Swedes, Germans, but who weren’t there - 2.5 m.2 land was enough for everyone.


    Whoever comes to us will become a dandelion. And I thought everything in childhood - where did so many dandelions come from?
  • 33 Watcher 27 October 2015 10: 38 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Dimka999
    They are still there that this is that Russia from the 90s, BUT there is no bite)

    Yes, they all know and understand, otherwise they would have bombed us for a long time, not in 2008, so in 2014 for sure. Just now, for some reason, they are pretending to be fools, but why let our special services figure it out. I do not believe that they didn’t know anything, and now there are only surprises. They just conceive some kind of muck, most likely informational, and all these surprised exclamations are not for us, but for the western electorate.
  • Fonmeg 27 October 2015 11: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Many considered Russia backward and incapable of confronting! But where are they ?!
  • slizhov 27 October 2015 11: 08 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Oh, how dangerous it is for NATO to underestimate the potential of Russia !!!
  • ImPerts 27 October 2015 12: 20 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Why keep AUG in the Baltic? But MRK please. And if RTOs are capable of launching SLCMs, then for each RTOs you can’t put a destroyer with the auspices on them)))
    And in Lake Onega, Ladoga it will be convenient for them to dabble.
    How beautiful the RTOs will keep Europe and the Middle East in their sight, I am cruising between Novorossiysk and Sevastopol.
  • leo3972 27 October 2015 12: 23 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Well, finally, the hawks woke up! They looked around and flew away from sin! laughing
  • tyler2 27 October 2015 13: 12 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    “Many analysts said that the Russian Federation is militarily weak” - in fact, the Russian army is in second place after the United States (Western analysts write this), how can it be weak? It is weak only in comparison with the USA.
  • beer-youk 27 October 2015 15: 58 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    "Almost none of our NATO allies can match what Russia has done in the sky so far."

    The key word “almost” is crude and completely undeserved flattery for the entire Kodla by the name of NATO, including, of course, the United States.
  • iliitchitch 27 October 2015 18: 50 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Alex_59
    About the way - no questions. The question is just under the conditions. Why do we still have such conditions that we cannot arrange for the construction of ships of the sea-ocean zone to flow? Which are not only capable of carrying KR, but also have developed anti-aircraft defense, air defense. Are we RUSSIA or Vietnam? RTOs - this is without fish ... I do not argue - beautifully circumvented the INF. All is correct. Sailors - well done. Ships too. They showed teeth. Disguise in the Volga Delta, again, in case of a big mess. But gentlemen, not only this must be dealt with? Or will we just sit in the Volga delta for reeds and proudly cry in the Caspian, where in fact there is nobody besides us? The next step is needed. 22350 - on 10-15 pieces for all fleets, 885 - on 15 on the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet. So I would be completely satisfied.


    And why not sit in the Volga delta for the reeds? With a fishing rod. Extra pieces of iron - minus s \ pl and pensions, right? Reasonable self-sufficiency should be, I think. But the constant messages about launching diesel submarines - very interesting. This is a serious nightmare for NATO: we are not going to attack, but even one such submarine is a very serious low-noise argument. And long-range ships ... There must be, of course, but to build squadrons is unnecessary. Everyone needs to know - The flag will appear quickly, if that.
  • Prisoner 29 October 2015 14: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    This is not potential yet, but a warm-up!
  • bratchanin 29 October 2015 14: 49 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Iya understands only power. It is necessary to help Iraq, there is oil. Make friends with Iran and Pakistan. And in general, there is nothing to do the United States in the Middle East.
  • Vova Vasilievich 29 October 2015 15: 16 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Politics are arguments reinforced by force.
  • Lenin 29 October 2015 23: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Found someone to believe. The Americans are cunning, we must not relax. And it will be like in Krylov’s fable: the Crow croaked its entire throat. Cheese fell out - with him was such a cheat. sad
  • Sultan Babai 29 October 2015 23: 30 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    No one is going to expose the Caspian flotilla, against the sixth fleet of the United States or any other. A major said about their fleet, the ships are too skewed towards anti-aircraft missiles, missiles against nuclear submarines and coastal targets, yes there are harpoons on the first destroyers, but now they are not put on new ones. Our ships, on the contrary, focus on PCR. Meet one of their destroyer and our ship at a range of pcr onyx ameru cap. If one pcr breaks through, and she breaks through. Aegis is not a panacea, she was created for the pro. I don’t know if they have a separate radar for low-flying. Yes, they have an armada of almost 90 ships with Aegis, but do not bow to the amers, it’s better to see what our craftsmen invented patent number 2539265. An additional 22350 onyx or caliber missiles can be installed on project 11356, 8, and this is a completely different ship.
  • reactivnyi 30 October 2015 01: 54 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    U uu - we still have this kind of troops, only animals serve there !!! They don’t even get machine guns ...
  • bos83bos 30 October 2015 03: 14 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Let them be afraid! if you are afraid, then respect !!!!!!!!!!!! am
  • exalex2 30 October 2015 06: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    We do not show. We just show.