Military Review

"Admiral Gorshkov" performed a shooting complex in the White Sea

41
In the framework of state tests, the frigate Admiral fleet Soviet Union Gorshkov "performed a complex of firing in the White Sea from a universal artillery mount on naval targets, reports RIA News post the Northern Fleet.




“In the near future, in the White Sea, the frigate crew will continue the final stages of state tests of technical means and weapons. According to their results, it will be decided to admit the ship to the fleet, ”the release says.

Exercises with firing passed in the Caspian Sea. Around 30, the ships and ships returned to their bases in Astrakhan and Makhachkala.

"In total, at sea, the tasks were carried out near 30 of surface ships, boats and flotilla support vessels, including the Dagestan rocket ship, the Grad Sviyazhsk small rocket ships, the Uglich Veliky Ustyug small ship, the Makhachkala small artillery ship, anti-sabotage boat "P-351" "Rook", as well as the court hydrographic service and the auxiliary fleet, "- said the press service of the Southern Military District.

“During the exercise, the crew of the Veliky Ustyug successfully fired a cruise missile from the Caliber-NK complex at a coastal training target. The rocket, after launch, flew about 330 kilometers, made seven turns at given points and hit a ground target. Accuracy of hit was 100% ", Says the release.

"Admiral Gorshkov" performed a shooting complex in the White Sea
Photos used:
Curious www.forums.airbase.ru, www.korabli.eu
41 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vladimyrych
    Vladimyrych 2 November 2015 17: 17
    +35
    Lord, will they soon be part of the Navy? I thought I won’t live up to this. Seven feet under the keel, you are an ICR sufferer! good
    1. Ruslan
      Ruslan 2 November 2015 17: 24
      +3
      When will the bullet start in caliber? :)
    2. lelikas
      lelikas 2 November 2015 17: 29
      +9
      Quote: Vladimir
      Lord, will they soon be part of the Navy? I thought I won’t live up to this.

      Yes, not so scary! Now you can wait for the aircraft carrier - a long life is guaranteed! laughing
      1. Vladimyrych
        Vladimyrych 2 November 2015 17: 37
        +12
        Here by the way can not but rejoice:
        At the Admiral Nakhimov nuclear-powered cruiser dismantling of old equipment is completed
        http://vpk-news.ru/news/27824
      2. NEXUS
        NEXUS 2 November 2015 18: 55
        +2
        Quote: lelikas
        ! Now you can wait for the aircraft carrier

        First you need to build destroyers for him, and then think about the aircraft carrier. And Gorshkov 7 feet under the keel and a long fruitful service.
        1. The lead
          The lead 2 November 2015 19: 21
          +3
          Quote: NEXUS
          First destroyers need to be built
          It is necessary to build destroyers, cruisers and an aircraft carrier at the same time. So we have already lost too much time.
          1. gispanec
            gispanec 2 November 2015 21: 46
            +1
            Quote: Lead
            It is necessary to build simultaneously destroyers, cruisers

            Frigates such as Gorshkov will be enough for an escort ..... they need to saturate the entire fleet .... and our destroyers are more like cruisers ....
            1. The lead
              The lead 2 November 2015 22: 38
              +1
              Quote: gispanec
              .and our destroyers are more like cruisers ....
              Perhaps, if a frigate is 4000 tons of displacement, then the destroyer is promised somewhere in the region of 16000 tons. Of course, it would be more reasonable to create a destroyer of the order of 8000 tons and a cruiser of 16000 tons. For an escort, a destroyer with the analogue of c400 and a cruiser with c500 is still preferable. A destroyer and a cruiser cannot ammunition of cruise missiles, which will add toothache to the adversary.
              1. gispanec
                gispanec 4 November 2015 21: 10
                0
                Quote: Lead
                Destroyer and cruiser can carry a large ammunition of cruise missiles

                Well, the death star is even more)))
          2. Spnsr
            Spnsr 2 November 2015 23: 05
            0
            Quote: Lead
            Quote: NEXUS
            First destroyers need to be built
            It is necessary to build destroyers, cruisers and an aircraft carrier at the same time. So we have already lost too much time.

            Or maybe an aircraft carrier is better? for 20-30 planes, but one that could stand up for itself and support with missiles? otherwise the deck will not be all sailing ...
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Major Yurik
      Major Yurik 2 November 2015 17: 40
      +4
      The United States is studying the issue of increasing the number of its ships in Europe

      I read this article, annoyance rolled over, I read an article about the tests of "Admiral Gorshkov" —it was easy, I realized that we were already preparing for the study of the issue by the Yankees! Come, if we will take you home! negative
    5. GSH-18
      GSH-18 2 November 2015 17: 41
      -1
      Quote: Vladimir
      Lord, will they soon be part of the Navy? I thought I won’t live up to this. Seven feet under the keel, you are an ICR sufferer! good

      This is good, because it is a ship of the far sea zone (ocean). And he obviously won't stand at the mooring counter! But this is just the beginning. We now need ships of the oceanic zone like air. And they are already planned - SEVEN nuclear-powered missile cruisers of the "Leader" series!
      That would be a couple of aircraft carriers to them and in general everything would be in openwork. As for the aircraft carriers, everything is ready to begin their production, the decision is up to the president, the admirals have already decided on. And I think it will be positive in the light of current world events.
      1. dr.star75
        dr.star75 2 November 2015 18: 13
        +3
        small business: no money! request
      2. marlin1203
        marlin1203 2 November 2015 18: 16
        +10
        Not a cruiser, but a Project 23560 Leader destroyer. Ventilate the topic at least a little before commenting. am As for the power plant, it is also another question. The reactor on a surface ship is very difficult and, above all, in operation, we only had such cruisers of the 1144 Orlany project, and one more reconnaissance ship. One cruiser, Peter the Great, is currently on the move. Not to mention the fact that "seven nuclear missile cruisers" + "a couple more aircraft carriers" is so expensive that it is difficult to even imagine now. Our delivery of laid down ships is lame, and you are talking about 7 cruisers and 2 aircraft carriers. In general, the country has a deficit budget and reserve funds for a few years or two. The first place is taken by projects that are most effective in terms of the price-efficiency formula, and this is traditionally pl and, as it turned out, MRK with cruise missiles. So think at least a little ... soldier
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 2 November 2015 18: 54
          +2
          Quote: marlin1203
          As for the power plant, it is also another question. The reactor on a surface ship is very difficult and, above all, in operation, we only had such cruisers of the 1144 Orlany project, and one more reconnaissance ship. One cruiser, Peter the Great, is currently on the move.

          So there are no alternatives yet. Technical training colleges, as shown by experience 956 and 1143.5, are even more difficult to operate. There is no GTE until 2018, and then their entire release will be dismantled for new ships and repair of old ones. A diesel engine ... there are no normal domestic ship (non-ship) diesel engines either.
          1. gispanec
            gispanec 2 November 2015 21: 49
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            A diesel engine ... there are no normal domestic ship (non-ship) diesel engines either.

            and what they put on Varshavyanka? ... what’s there for a diesel ?? .. not normal ?? ... from where are you all-knowing?
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. Marconi41
              Marconi41 2 November 2015 23: 32
              +1
              Quote: gispanec
              and what they put on Varshavyanka? ... what is there for a diesel ?? .. not normal ??

              Do not make me laugh! Diesel engines, as in Varshavyanki, are on the border ships of Project 745. The speed of these tugs is 12 knots. Does it suit you?
        2. g1v2
          g1v2 2 November 2015 19: 44
          +7
          Well, judging by the well-known data, the leader is a destroyer only by name. In all respects, in my opinion, this is a missile cruiser, comparable to the Atlanteans. About the power plant. Personally, I am for nuclear. We are able to build them and for sure it will be more reliable than not mentioned by the night GTZA-674 with buzzard. It’s better to pay more than once, than to suffer the entire service life as with 956 destroyers. Everything has been said about aircraft carriers for a long time - in the next 10 years they will not be built for sure. As for MrK I agree, but there is one thing but. MRK and semi-frigates 20380, 20385 are primarily ships of protection. Establishing coastal defense is of course a priority, but you still have to think about the offensive power of the fleet, and it is precisely it that will be made up of frigates 22350 and leaders.
          Yes, and on reserve funds. If you look at their dynamics, you will see that in recent months they and the gold and foreign exchange reserves of the Central Bank have not been decreasing, but are growing. Do not take on faith everything that you are told on TV. wink When money doesn’t build superbridges, ports, stadiums, cosmodromes badly and don’t buy tons of physical gold. Mr. Siluanov stupidly stiffens and cries so that they do not demand money from him. By God, in all his behavior, he is a XNUMX% Jew - he will fight for every coin and moan that the Herods are taking it away. laughing
        3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 November 2015 19: 55
          +6
          Quote: marlin1203
          Not a cruiser, but a Project 23560 Leader destroyer. Ventilate the topic at least a little before commenting

          Yes, a destroyer, but taking into account that the displacement and capabilities of this destroyer are somewhere in the middle between the RRC 1164 Atlant and the modernized TARK Nakhimov - in fact, we are talking about a series of missile cruisers.
          Quote: marlin1203
          As for the power plant, also another question. The reactor on a surface ship is very difficult and, above all, in operation

          Very funny. Maybe share information, why is the operation of a surface ship reactor more expensive than a submarine?
          Quote: marlin1203
          Not to mention the fact that "seven nuclear missile cruisers" + "a couple more aircraft carriers" is so expensive that it is difficult to even imagine now

          And you try :) I'll even try to tell you - the American destroyer Arleigh Burke costs the same as the Virginia nuclear submarine, about $ 1,8 billion. Our serial Ash-M was going to cost 32,8 billion rubles. will probably be more expensive - let's take 40 billion for clarity. And since the "Leader" is much larger than Arly, even if it costs 1,5 times more, 60 billion. Seven of these ships will stretch for 420 billion rubles.
          The largest amount voiced by an aircraft carrier is 400 billion rubles. (320 - R&D and, apparently, carrier-based aviation, 80 billion - directly construction.) Accordingly, two aircraft carriers will cost (given that our fighters cost about 1-1,2 billion rubles) - well, let it be 550 billion (400 billion for the first, 1 billion for the construction of the second and 80 billion for the air group of the second).
          Total goes to 2 AB and 7 "Leaders" need as much as 970 billion rubles. The amount is rather big, and that's not all - 10 percent should be added to the equipment of the bases. In total, 1067 billion comes out. But on the other hand, it should be understood that these costs will last for about 20 years, because we cannot build all this splendor faster. Those. about 54 billion per year.
          Is it a lot or a little? For example, for the World Cup 2018, in 2013, the regions requested 540 billion rubles. It was planned to spend this amount for about 5 children, which gives us 108 billion rubles. annual costs. True, later it was sequestered a bit, about 10 percent :)))
          I leave it to you to answer the question of what is more needed for Russia - a powerful ocean fleet, or a couple of events in the style of the Olympics / football championship.
          Quote: marlin1203
          The most effective projects come out in the first place according to the price-effectiveness formula, and this is traditionally

          (sigh) would the genie be kind enough to explain on the basis of what calculations the nuclear submarines suddenly became the most efficient in terms of cost / efficiency?
          Quote: marlin1203
          and, as it turned out, a missile launcher with cruise missiles. So at least think a little ..

          You really need to think. Because the attack by calibers of our Caspian flotilla, of course, is impressive in its good nature, but with what fright, the success of missiles to destroy ground targets against non-air defense barmalei suddenly became evidence of the effectiveness of RTOs in naval combat - it’s a mystery to me.
          I am happy and proud that our Caspian flotilla can do this, but this experience is not applicable to a naval battle.
          1. marlin1203
            marlin1203 2 November 2015 22: 38
            0
            With great respect to the layout of my comment, I am opposing Andrei from Chelyabinsk.
            1. The question of the accuracy of the wording. The name of the destroyer means a destroyer. The Americans' "Ticonderoga" from "Spruance" was not much different, but the first cruiser, and the second just not. And horseradish radish is no sweeter. In the current economic situation, the phrase "a series of nuclear cruisers" and even 7 pieces, somehow sounds wildly. So even in Soviet times, they did not build. And as they are building now, you yourself see the corvettes with frigates (and this is not even the notorious 956 project), they creak off the stocks.
            2. I wrote that operating the reactor on a surface ship is more difficult, not more expensive. I will not go into technical details. The only fact is that reactors live on submarines, and only on "Petrusha" they live on a surface ship. Well, it happened ...
            3. About the price. Entertaining arithmetic. But she does not plow in our military-industrial complex. "Vikramaditya" ask laughing we got involved in expensive events such as the Olympics and the World Cup at a different oil price ... but the bridge to the Crimea is already out of hopelessness. There is no time for savings. And if we are so wealthy and we buy up tons of gold, that our people are constantly being nightmares by raising the retirement age and bankruptcy of the Pesion Fund?
            4. Not only apl, I wrote about pl as a whole. This is not my conclusion, but the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy of the USSR, which at one time decided that we could not economically be able to oppose the US surface and especially aircraft-carrying fleets and therefore relied on the submarine fleet including with missile weapons.
            5. With naval battles - that's enough for you ... The last died down in 1939-1945. It has been quiet since then. RTOs can be armed not only with "calibers", but also with anti-tank missiles. I believe you know that. And according to our military doctrine, massive attacking actions of our fleet in the far sea zone, in my opinion, are unlikely ...
            1. Garris199
              Garris199 3 November 2015 03: 36
              +2
              Quote: marlin1203
              and on a surface ship he lives only on "Petrusha". Well, it happened ...

              What happened? Where? But atomic icebreakers of 25 thousand tons of displacement? They go to themselves, they pierce the ice and do not complain.
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 November 2015 16: 39
              +1
              Quote: marlin1203
              With great respect to the layout of my comment, I am opposing Andrei from Chelyabinsk.

              Your culture of communication is full. I apologize for starting the discussion in such an erotic tone. repeat
              Quote: marlin1203
              Question about the accuracy of the wording. They called the destroyer, then the destroyer.

              I agree. "Leader" was named exactly the destroyer, which means he is a destroyer. It just seems to me that the respected GSh-18, speaking of cruisers, had in mind not the class of the ship, but its capabilities. Then he should write not "cruisers", but "destroyers, with the capabilities of the RRC."
              Quote: marlin1203
              In the emerging economic situation, the phrase "a series of nuclear cruisers" and even 7 pieces somehow sounds wildly. So even in Soviet times, they did not build. And as they are building now, you yourself see the corvettes with frigates (and this is not even the notorious 956 project), they creak off the stocks.

              Well, well, in the USSR, in the first place, the four-hundred-ton "Hurricanes" were building almost a five-year plan. Here the whole question is in the order. We will order - the industry will rise, it will not go anywhere, in the developed USSR they built nuclear submarines in a year. Those. if the Ministry of Defense announces a tender for the construction of the Leader series and advances the laying of the first ships of the series, the industry will be confident in the future order and will make every effort to comply. It is clear that we will not build it quickly, but the road will be mastered by the one walking.
              Quote: marlin1203
              I wrote that the operation of a reactor on a surface ship is more difficult and not more expensive

              Again I have to apologize, I took your "harder" analogue "more expensive". You did not write that, this is my speculation.
              Quote: marlin1203
              The only fact is that reactors live on submarines, and only on "Petrusha" they live on a surface ship. Well, it happened ...

              Well, why - only in Peter? What about Nakhimov? There seems to be no problem there either (except for changing the fuel, but this is a completely planned procedure) And plus - in the USSR there were 7 nuclear icebreakers EMNIP, there were no particular problems with the operation of their reactors in the USSR or the Russian Federation.
              And yet, according to some reports, the Russian Federation came up with very advanced and small-sized reactors. It would be a sin not to take advantage, if so ...
              Quote: marlin1203
              "Vikramadityu" ask

              And what is Vikramaditya? A little more than $ 2 billion a new ship was built in the old hull (although the hull is largely new), the air group was handed over, and we still have a lot of obligations for the supply of materials. In my opinion, the story with Vikra just confirms the capabilities of the Russian Federation in terms of aircraft construction :)
              If you are talking about how the cost of repairs has risen sharply in price from 700 million to more than 2 yards, then these are questions for the Indians who thought it would cost a penny modernization, which of course did not work out. Only when the Indians realized that what they paid for would not give them a battle-worthy aircraft carrier - only then they entered into the correct contract.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 November 2015 16: 40
                +1
                Quote: marlin1203
                And if we are so wealthy and we buy up tons of gold that our population is constantly being nightmare and bankruptcy of the Pesion fund by raising the retirement age?

                It’s not that the rich, I just showed with an example - the Russian Federation bears a fair amount of not too necessary expenses, the rejection of which will allow building a powerful ocean fleet.
                Quote: marlin1203
                Not only apl, I wrote about pl in general. This is not my conclusion, but the Supreme Commander of the Navy of the USSR, which at one time decided that we could not economically be able to oppose the equivalent to the surface and especially aircraft-carrying fleets, and therefore relied on the submarine fleet

                The main command of the USSR Navy, starting with Kuznetsov, desperately fought for aircraft carriers as part of the USSR Navy, but the rate on the submarine went from such a prominent naval specialist as Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev. With his departure, another "trick" arose - Ustinov, who "ruled" a lot of shipbuilding programs, including, agreed that the fleet needed carrier-based aircraft, but believed in the Big Future of VTOL aircraft.
                At the same time, the fleet clearly understood that it would be very, very difficult to kill the AUG without aircraft cover, therefore, in the end they achieved first "Riga" with "Tbilisi", and then there was already quite a nuclear-cultural "Ulyanovsk"
                By the way, there were quite interesting calculations, according to which the funds spent by the USSR on palliative responses (nuclear submarines, "Legend", TU-22M3 regiments, etc.), the USSR could build and maintain 10-12 AUGs similar to those in the US.
                Quote: marlin1203
                With sea battles - that’s enough for you ... The latter died out in 1939-1945. Somehow quiet since

                I would not say that - "Eilat" was clearly not sunk in 1945 :))) And besides, missile boats were used during the "tanker war", during the Arab-Israeli conflicts, US ships somehow nailed the Iranian missile boat EMNIP ... in general, there were battles :)
                Quote: marlin1203
                RTOs can be armed not only with "calibers", but also with anti-tank missiles. I believe you know that.

                Of course. But it is also known that RTOs have very few chances to use these anti-ship missiles against AUGs.
                Quote: marlin1203
                And according to our military doctrine, mass attacking actions of our fleet in the far sea zone are unlikely in my opinion

                Carriers are needed including and to protect their own shores.
                Yours faithfully,
                hi
        4. Stirbjorn
          Stirbjorn 2 November 2015 21: 41
          0
          Quote: marlin1203
          So at least a little think ... soldier
          Yes, it’s not the first time he has run ahead of a steam train. Recently, it announced that there is already an agreement between Moscow Region and USC for the construction of an aircraft carrier ... an aircraft carrier, Karl !!! wassat 7 cruisers from there))
    6. gispanec
      gispanec 2 November 2015 21: 43
      0
      Quote: Vladimir
      Seven feet under the keel, you are an ICR sufferer!

      he is more likely a destroyer and at least a frigate, but not a patrol ship .... skr is more suitable for Grigorovich ....
  2. roskot
    roskot 2 November 2015 17: 22
    +4
    We will still wait and hope to rejoice in the revived Russian fleet.
  3. saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 2 November 2015 17: 22
    +4
    Quote: Vladimir
    Hospodi, will they really soon be part of the Navy?

    A frigate with the latest weapons, there is no rush to anything, the main thing is that everything would work like a Swiss watch.
    1. kil 31
      kil 31 2 November 2015 17: 29
      +1
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      Quote: Vladimir
      Hospodi, will they really soon be part of the Navy?

      A frigate with the latest weapons, there is no rush to anything, the main thing is that everything would work like a Swiss watch.

      Haste of course is needed when catching fleas. But if you drag out half of the innovations become obsolete. hi
    2. prorab_ak
      prorab_ak 2 November 2015 17: 49
      -8
      And why is there the latest? Polement-redoubt? So they still loot it, they can’t do it until the end. Calm? old as the world. Oh yes, Caliber !!! so we have on the Caspian Sea how many they serve ... with calibers then wink
      BIUS? Well here HZ .... although if the same puma ... and there were difficulties with it.
      So I don’t remember anything particularly new ...
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 2 November 2015 19: 49
        0
        Quote: prorab_ak
        BIUS? Well here HZ .... although if the same puma ... and there were difficulties with it.

        So it seems that all the difficulties are behind and the frigate is experiencing? And whose frigate is better?
  4. yuriy55
    yuriy55 2 November 2015 17: 30
    -1
    ... performed a complex of firing in the White Sea from a universal artillery mount on naval targets ...

    Exactly in White? Not in Black? what So it would automatically set off ...lol
  5. Alagez
    Alagez 2 November 2015 17: 54
    0
    I didn’t come for a long time. Today I decided to register and read komenty ... Time has not benefited. Minus.
    1. lelikas
      lelikas 2 November 2015 18: 37
      +1
      Quote: Alagez
      I didn’t come for a long time. Today I decided to register and read komenty ... Time has not benefited. Minus.

      Time very rarely benefits! :)
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 2 November 2015 19: 44
        +4
        Quote: lelikas
        Time very rarely benefits! :)

        Time is good for cognac.
    2. tupolev-95
      tupolev-95 3 November 2015 09: 08
      +1
      Well, if all your comments are the same informative, then you shouldn’t go in.
  6. v1tz
    v1tz 2 November 2015 18: 05
    +3
    It's nice when everything works, it’s built ... keep it up.
  7. Ivan Ivanovich
    Ivan Ivanovich 2 November 2015 18: 22
    +1
    Seven feet under the keel
  8. Old26
    Old26 2 November 2015 19: 56
    +2
    Quote: GSH-18
    SEVEN nuclear-powered missile cruisers of the Leader series!

    Well, actually it’s not about cruisers, but about destroyers. And not about 7, but about 12 buildings (6-TOF, 6-SF). new this is not earlier than 2023-2025, because they are not provided for in the shipbuilding program until 2020

    And God forbid that at least a series of "Admiral Gorshkov" be released, and we are already talking about nuclear destroyers-cruisers
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 2 November 2015 20: 20
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      Quote: GSH-18
      SEVEN nuclear-powered missile cruisers of the Leader series!
      Well, actually it’s not about cruisers, but about destroyers. And not about 7, but about 12 buildings (6-TOF, 6-SF). new this is not earlier than 2023-2025, because they are not provided for in the shipbuilding program until 2020

      All right, they’re not provided. But there are Shkval destroyers (with a non-nuclear power plant), and there is still silence and ambiguity. So we will see what is there and how it will be. hi
      1. g1v2
        g1v2 2 November 2015 20: 57
        0
        A flurry is not provided for in the state order. I think that this project is still for export, and leaders are planned for themselves. They are unlikely to build 2 types of destroyers. Well, most importantly, the leader is created by order of the Ministry of Defense, which allocated money for this and prescribed it in the plan for the state order. The squall is still only in the form of a model. Tch from the ships of the first rank in the coming years will be built udk "Priboy" and "destroyers" leader. And all the rest - the destroyer squall, the aircraft carrier storm, and so on are attempts to promote our and foreign customers to a tasty contract. hi
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 2 November 2015 21: 04
          +1
          Quote: g1v2
          A flurry so far only in the form of a layout

          Are the leaders already in the gland?
          Quote: g1v2
          Build 2 types of destroyers are unlikely to be

          And why not? Power plants are fundamentally different. This is one time. And second, our fleet is aging and we need new destroyers as air. So I think Squalls will be built for our fleets.
          1. Garris199
            Garris199 3 November 2015 03: 40
            0
            Rather, BOD 1155 is being modernized.
  9. drundel861
    drundel861 2 November 2015 21: 13
    0
    Quote: Major Yurik
    The United States is studying the issue of increasing the number of its ships in Europe

    I read this article, annoyance rolled over, I read an article about the tests of "Admiral Gorshkov" —it was easy, I realized that we were already preparing for the study of the issue by the Yankees! Come, if we will take you home! negative

    Or under water laughing
  10. gladysheff2010
    gladysheff2010 2 November 2015 22: 28
    0
    Quote: prorab_ak
    So I don’t remember anything particularly new ...

    Well, after all, a man was thrust in, and also a foreman! Well, if for you the Caliber-NK flying for a thousand nautical miles is not news, then it is true YOU is still prorab! Uh, and maybe this is one of the code names of one of our General Constructors ?! recourse belay lol