Project 22160 corvette "Pavel Derzhavin" entered the factory sea trials

The third patrol ship of project 22160 "Pavel Derzhavin" began the stage of factory sea trials, having gone out to sea for the first time for tests. The press service of the Black Sea fleet.

The crew of the newest patrol ship "Pavel Derzhavin" went out to sea for the first time and began to undergo factory sea trials

- says the message of the fleet.

During this stage of testing, all systems of the ship will be checked, the main power plant is operable in different modes of operation, backup mechanisms and various equipment will be tested, including when switching to emergency power supplies, and the operation of in-ship communications will be checked.

Upon completion of the factory sea trials, the ship will return to the Zaliv shipyard, where the ship systems, devices and mechanisms will be revised and preparations for the next stage of testing will be carried out.

Patrol ship "Pavel Derzhavin" is the third ship of Project 22160 and the second serial ship in a series of five units. The construction contract was signed in 2014, the entire series is intended for the Black Sea Fleet. The ship will join the formation of ships guarding the water area of ​​the Novorossiysk naval base of the Black Sea Fleet.

This corvette is the first one built at the Kerch Shipyard "Zaliv". Laid down on February 18, 2016, launched on February 21, 2019. The transfer of the ship to the customer is scheduled for this year.

The lead ship and the first serial “Vasily Bykov” and “Dmitry Rogachev” are already serving in the Black Sea Fleet.

Recall that the construction of the entire series of these ships was delayed due to import substitution of the power plant. All ships of the series, except for the lead Vasily Bykov, on which the German MAN diesel gear units are installed, will receive diesel gear units manufactured by the Kolomensky Zavod.

Comments

[Mavrikiy]

The third patrol ship of project 22160 "Pavel Derzhavin" began the stage of factory sea trials

, It upsets that on the Russian site, they do not want to write in Russian. Do you even hire foreigners (except for the naglo-Saxons, those in general ), whether.
"Pavel Derzhavin", the third patrol ship of Project 22160, has begun the stage of factory sea trials. "This is how it should be" (Kin-dza-dza) Or .... began the stage of factory sea trials "Pavel Derzhavin", the third patrol ship of project 22160
Especially below, it is quite adequate

Patrol ship "Pavel Derzhavin" is the third ship of project 22160 and the second serial

Are we lazy or don't have time, or are we saving money on a staff unit?

[TAMBU]

Why, as it is written in the article, is not correct in terms of the rules of the Russian language?

[Vladimir16]

Rules don't have a "point of view".
Why don't we read Tolstoy, Turgenev, Pushkin, Lermontov and other great Russian writers.?
If we read, we will write beautifully.

[Mavrikiy]

Quote: Vladimir16

Why don't we read Tolstoy, Turgenev, Pushkin, Lermontov and other great Russian writers.?

What for? We got the Akunins divorced. You cannot enter news sites. As soon as the stress is not hit on the ears, my mother is dear. It seems to be for ours, but I close the site. It's a shame, and kind of interesting, but reformatted.
Creation of a new Russian language?

[TAMBU]

okay, I'll explain the question differently. Why are the examples of the sentence given by you correct, but how the sentence is written in the article is not?

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Mavrikiy

Creation of a new Russian language?

The vocabulary of Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin was about 50000 words. The vocabulary of a modern inhabitant of Russia rarely exceeds 2000 words.
Progress, however.

[alexmach]

The vocabulary of Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin was about 50000 words. The vocabulary of a modern inhabitant of Russia rarely exceeds 2000 words

Both your first and second statements are false. That would not say deceitful.

[Bad_gr]

There are other data on Pushkin:
".... Total words in the analyzed texts: 900313,
Unique words: 101105 (i.e. more than one hundred thousand!),
Total Entropy of the text: 0,113;
(Shakespeare's total entropy is 0,02; this is for comparison :)) .......
...... We also carried out an analysis for each item separately, so that we have frequency information on any item, and not just general information. For example, I will say that only Pushkin's VERSES contain 27 thousand unique words! Pugachev's story - 29 thousand unique words, and so on for each section ... Eugene Onegin contains about 10 thousand unique words. And the official dictionary tells us that Pushkin possessed 21 thousand words ... Even if we exclude ALL particles from Pushkin's language, then about 80 thousand lexemes will remain. Nothing to do with the official State Dictionary, and not close. It is not clear what the purpose of this dictionary is ...
..... There are also about 800 foreign-language lexemes in Pushkin's work ..... "
https://stihi.ru/2010/03/24/1825
The vocabulary of Russians comes across numbers from 2 to 32 thousand words. Depends on the office that carried out the calculations (where it was carried out, the contingent, etc.)

[alexmach]

There are other data on Pushkin:
".... Total words in the analyzed texts: 900313,
Unique words: 101105 (i.e. more than one hundred thousand!)

What do you say, already 90 thousand and not 50? And what can we say in Ozhegov's dictionary of only 70 thousand words? (About 100 words, terms and phraseological expressions). Did Ozhegov's entire dictionary fit into Pushkin's work? Is this even possible? Especially considering that the dictionary appeared 000 years later, and contains a certain number of terms that did not exist in the time of Pushkin. Is it generally possible that the entire corpus of words was in the work of one person?

There is also other data:

The minds of Linguistics claim that AS Pushkin had a vocabulary equal to 21 thousand unique words.

The vocabulary of Russians comes across numbers from 2 to 32 thousand words

Especially from my own knowledge, 2 thousand words is not a realistic assessment from non-professionals at all. For example, I am now studying a foreign language, and so 2 thousand words is the minimum for a foreigner in order to have at least some command of the language. In principle, the vocabulary of an average modern native speaker cannot be so small.
32 thousand - yes, this is a realistic estimate .. and this is 10 thousand words more than the vocabulary of Alexander Sergeevich (here it is worth mentioning that we can estimate his vocabulary mainly only by creativity and personal correspondence, neither give a test nor communicate in live with him is not possible). And it is quite natural that the vocabulary of a modern person is greater than the vocabulary of a person who lived 200 years ago, albeit a talented one.

[Kart]

Quote: alexmach

What do you say, already 90 thousand and not 50? And what can we say in Ozhegov's dictionary of only 70 thousand words? (About 100 words, terms and phraseological expressions).

What do they think?
Here's an example:
I remember a wonderful moment:
Before me was you,
As a fleeting vision,
Like a genius of pure beauty
Instead of a moment - a moment, 1 word is. Instead of vision - vision, 2 the word is.
And so on.

[TAMBU]

this is needed to create a unique text. otherwise, you will not find your terribly interesting site in a search engine if you do not know exactly and specifically what to look for.

[Xnumx vis]

Quote: Mavrikiy

What for? Our Akunins got divorced

Not long ago I talked with a girl who graduated from MGIMO ... I talked about Balaklava, Kuprin's work "Listrigones" .. The virgin of MGIMO education, does not know who Kuprin is ... I have not read Conan Doyle ... She does not understand the expression "The Lost World" ... I puffed my cheeks with offended, I de, read another ... Game of Thrones, Gone with the Wind, Akunina ... The new generation is fooling ... But cheeks are puffing ...

[alexmach]

I puffed my cheeks with offended, I de, read another

I also read other things, and in continuation of linguistic discussions I can also speak on the topic.

Why don't we read Tolstoy, Turgenev, Pushkin, Lermontov and other great Russian writers.?

I, too, have practically not opened the "classics" since leaving school, well, with very rare exceptions. And I don't really plan, for a banal reason - for a modern person, the problems of the works of modern authors are an order of magnitude closer than those of authors who lived 150-200 years ago. It is natural to read your contemporary contemporaries and not look for "eternal themes" in the works of people who lived several eras ago a completely different life. The last time I took up a "classic" I actually did it for this to understand how much it is relevant to me now and generally understandable. On another occasion I tried to find in literature the historical context of a bygone era, but to admit this is a rather meager set of reasons to noticeably influence popular tastes.

I repeat - this is natural and there is nothing wrong with that.

[Xnumx vis]

Quote: alexmach

I, too, have practically not opened the "classics" since leaving school, well, with very rare exceptions. And I don't really plan

This is normal . But you hope you know who Kuprin is? Do you know his creation of Listrigone? And do you understand what the "lost world" ... from Conan Doyle? Or this is also not important and unnecessary.

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: alexmach

It is natural to read your contemporary contemporaries and not look for "eternal themes" in the works of people who lived several eras ago a completely different life.

This is not the point. Why did we, at one time, study at school "Dowry", "The Cherry Orchard" and other works of Russian classics? In order not to "get to know the people who lived ....", but to learn to empathize. Empathize with the heroes of the work, and then with the people around us. Learn to feel someone else's pain.
Akunin, alas, will not teach this. And Ostrovsky, Chekhov, Kuprin, and you cannot name all our great writers, they taught this.

[TAMBU]

the question was not about "beautifully" but about why, as you say "correctly", and as it is written in the article - no.

[Mavrikiy]

Quote: TAMBU

Why, as it is written in the article, is not correct in terms of the rules of the Russian language?

It is very difficult to explain it as a foreigner to a foreigner.
Because the meaning of what has been written has changed and the reader is misled. Not intentionally, not my God. I myself happen, when there is a lack of time, I give it out even more trenchantly, but in someone else's eye the straw is very strong. but his log will wait.

[TAMBU]

For a foreigner, I will explain. In Russian, the word order (more precisely, the order of the members of the sentence) is considered free. This means that there is no strictly assigned place in the proposal for one or another of its members. For example, a sentence consisting of five significant words: The editor carefully read the manuscript yesterday - allows 120 variants depending on the permutation of the sentence members.
Building a sentence generally implies the movement of thought from the known to the unknown in "bureaucracy" and the ordering of words according to the SVO scheme (subject, verb, and object). The meaning of what was written in this case has not changed. To increase the uniqueness, the author (apparently) decided to swap the words in the sentence. The third patrol ship of project 22160 "Pavel Derzhavin" began the stage of factory sea trials, having gone to sea for the first time for tests = The world's first cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin made his flight on April 12, 1961. So where does the meaning change here? Yuri Gagarin, the world's first cosmonaut, made his flight on April 12, 1961. On April 12, 1961, the world's first cosmonaut, Yuri Gagarin, made his flight. and so on ... Beauty - yes, it spoils, but the meaning does not change.

[alexmach]

To increase the uniqueness, the author (apparently) decided

And what does the increase in uniqueness have to do with it? Here, rather, the rule you quoted above

The construction of a sentence usually involves the movement of thought from the known to the unknown in

Who will immediately remember what kind of "Pavel Derzhavin" is? So they start right away with the explanation that this is the third ship of Project 22160. It is logical, in accordance with formal stylistic rules, and does not cut an ear at all. What is the point of all this discussion with references to the classics at all is not clear.

[alexmach]

Everything is correct and in Russian. A person just wants to write and not about anything. I decided to fight over the word order, which in Russian is not clearly deterministic. There is nothing to do, apparently.

[Mavrikiy]

Quote: alexmach

Everything is correct and in Russian. A person just wants to write and not about anything. I decided to fight over the word order, which in Russian is not clearly deterministic.

Apparently, with the study of a foreign language, the brains were reformatted, according to the SVO scheme (subject), predicate (English verb) and direct object (English object), they completely stopped hearing Russian, sometimes I sympathize.
The third patrol ship of the project The third patrol ship of the project 22160 "Pavel Derzhavin" has begun the stage of factory sea trials You can't write. For it reads like "Pavel Derzhavin" project title 22160 It can skip if there is a separator (,)!
By the way, vocabulary is active and passive. In the Dictionary of A.S. Pushkin, we have 20 words, an active vocabulary, and only his passive ...

[alexmach]

and his passive ...

It is not possible to evaluate in any way at all. So all the talk above about thousands of thousands of words is about nothing at all.

completely stopped hearing Russian, sometimes I sympathize

No, it’s you who will pick on what you should not.

You can't write. For it reads like "Pavel Derzhavin" project title 22160

Well, it doesn't read like that, with minimal knowledge of the topic. According to the rules of the Russian language, a comma is not allowed there, although yes, I agree, you are right, the sentence may still be ambiguous. I understand your idea. But you can write that way. Tea is not a key doctoral thesis.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: alexmach

According to the rules of the Russian language, a comma is not allowed there, although yes, I agree, you are right, the sentence may still be ambiguous.

Shouldn't there be two dashes on both sides of the ship's name?

[alexmach]

As for the dash, I'm not sure how much my memory from school days does not let me down, it may be optional there, and this is on the conscience and at the choice of the author, the comma is definitely out of place.

[TAMBU]

Now it is clear. I do not pronounce numerals in sentences, therefore it didn’t "cut".

[Bashkirkhan]

With what bolt did "Pavel Derzhavin" become a corvette? This is a 3 '' military style yacht.

[Insurgent]

Quote: Bashkirkhan

With what bolt did "Pavel Derzhavin" become a corvette?

Well, somehow, these patrol ships are classified as corvettes ...

Simply, the line "between and between" is very conditional and blurred ...

Corvette is a class of surface combat ships designed for patrol and escort service, anti-submarine and air defense of naval bases

[mdsr]

Quote: Insurgent

Simply, the line "between and between" is very conditional and blurred ...

Is it really so blurry? Maybe someone is trying hard to do this?

Quote: Insurgent

intended for patrol and convoy service, anti-submarine and air defense of naval bases

And which of these tasks, in addition to patrolling, can this patrol ship? He is the same corvette as I am the bishop.

[Insurgent]

Quote: mdsr

Which of these tasks, besides patrolling, will this patrol ship be able to perform? He is the same corvette as I am the bishop.

With eight "Caliber" (as a variant of the Uranium anti-ship missile system) on board? Well I do not know
Come up with a task yourself ...

[Ros 56]

Poland will suit you, or rather its death, because calibers are different.

[Insurgent]

Quote: Ros 56

Poland will suit you, or rather its death, because calibers are different.

You see, and for this "patrol flea" the task was found or a colleague mdsr in difficulty in defining it ...

[Ros 56]

Well, what do you want from the failed bishop?

[Insurgent]

Quote: Ros 56

Well, what do you want from the failed bishop?

Even so ?

[Stirbjorn]

Quote: Insurgent

With eight "Calibers" (as a variant of the Uranium anti-ship missile system) on board? Well .... I don't know what no
Think of the yes problem yourself ...

Already the third ship of this project is being tested, and something neither caliber nor uranium fired

[Insurgent]

Quote: Stirbjorn

Already the third ship of this project is being tested, and something neither caliber nor uranium fired

While There are no missile launchers there, but structurally the ship is designed for their installation, which, with some "stretch", makes a corvette out of a purely patrol ship ...
The PU complex will be "finished", there will be missiles, there will be launches

[Vlad T]

That's when they put all the weapons, then it will become a corvette, while only, as Bashkirkhan correctly identified, a patrol yacht for acquaintances ...

[Mavrikiy]

[quote = Bashkirkhan] [/ quote] You shouldn't be like that, everything is thought out .... For even numbers he is a corvette, for odd numbers he is a patrol ship Our ship classification VIKI defines: Russian patrol ships (corvettes)

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Bashkirkhan

With what bolt did "Pavel Derzhavin" become a corvette?

Wait, the container version of the Caliber will be adopted, it will be renamed the missile cruiser

[Bashkirkhan]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

container version of Caliber, it will be renamed into a missile cruiser

Oh, those wet mriyas of patriots about containers with calibers. The story of 22160 with Calibers reminds ...

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Bashkirkhan

Oh, those wet mriyas of patriots about containers with calibers.

Uv. Andrey just forgot to put the tag "sarcasm".

The ships were ordered in 2014. Six years have passed, the third serial patrolman went out on the chassis - and of all the modules there is only a diving and GAS (under testing).
Against this background, even the Soviet opupeya with pr. 1155 and "Dagger" fades. Although no, the Soviet Navy had another pr. 941, delivered to the fleet without SLBMs.

[Bashkirkhan]

Quote: Alexey RA

Uv. Andrey just forgot to put the tag "sarcasm".

Yes, I realized that this is sarcasm, about the patriots I wrote not to the respected Andrey, but in general about individual experts. Andrey understands this better than me.

[Sidor Amenpodestovich]

Quote: Bashkirkhan

With what bolt did "Pavel Derzhavin" become a corvette? This is a 3 '' military style yacht.

Also write that this "yacht" was originally built for himself by some regular oligarch. But he changed his mind, because he wanted a yacht twice as large, and in an ultimatum order ordered "this government" to immediately buy out the unfinished one, which she immediately did, with one hand picking it up and with the other taking money from pregnant pensioners in kindergartens. (srkm)

[Bashkirkhan]

Quote: Sidor Amenpodestovich

Also write that this "yacht" was originally built for himself by some regular oligarch.

This yacht was originally designed for border guards, and it was dragged into the Navy. A series of data useless (in the event of a real conflict - coffins for sailors) ships give nothing to the fleet.

[Sidor Amenpodestovich]

Quote: Bashkirkhan

This yacht was originally designed for border guards, and it was dragged into the Navy. A series of data useless (in the event of a real conflict - coffins for sailors) ships give nothing to the fleet.

How many people, so many opinions.
If you revise the comments over the past couple of years, you get the impression that there are no new, satisfying projects at all.
22350 are bad, 20380 are bad, 11711 are bad, 955 and 855 are also bad (given as an example), etc.
Some commentators have already signed the death warrant in advance to "Barguzin".
In general, there is nothing good. But this is absurd.

[Bashkirkhan]

22160, unlike the ships you indicated, is simply a useless unit of the fleet with a small cannon, hand-held air defense systems and an incomprehensible extinguisher, with a speed of 22 knots ... Well, pure show-offs.

[Sidor Amenpodestovich]

You are well aware that any of the projects I have mentioned evoke the same feelings for some part of the local contingent as for you 22160.
I say, how many people, so many opinions. Especially among amateurs.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Sidor Amenpodestovich

You are well aware that any of the projects I have mentioned evoke the same feelings for some part of the local contingent as for you 22160.

At least 20380 has an anti-ship missile system, a TA and a ZRAK / full-fledged air defense system. Unlike 22160 with its cannon, two machine guns and MANPADS on a pedestal, which is useless even against helicopters with ATGMs.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Bashkirkhan

22160, unlike the ships you indicated, is simply a useless unit of the fleet with a small cannon, hand-held air defense systems and an incomprehensible extinguisher,

SAC there is just understandable - anti-sabotage. It is practically useless for PLO.

[Mavrikiy]

built at the Kerch Shipyard "Zaliv". Laid down on February 18, 2016,

For 2 years the CVD was restored, great!

[Insurgent]

Quote: Mavrikiy

For 2 years the CVD was restored, great!

You see, it turns out in the country "Not so simple" as she used to say "daughter of a Crimean officer"...

[PN]

Duck, maybe it wasn't all that bad initially and it was?

[Insurgent]

Quote: PN

Duck, maybe it wasn't all that bad initially and it was?

Everything is relative
Can you remind me how many ships, and what classes, were built at the Kerch Shipyard "Zaliv" during the period when Crimea was part of Ukraine?

[PN]

No, I will not remind you, because I do not have such information. If you know, enlighten.
I am to another. If they quickly set about building the ships, then the infrastructure of the plant was probably not looted, plundered and sawed. Yes, probably something was in decline, but not fatally otherwise it is difficult to build something on your knee among the bare walls.

[Livonetc]

Good news.
But the article probably lacks a brief description of the technical characteristics of the project.

[Alex 2020]

In short:
developer
JSC "Severnoe PKB"
Displacement - 1500 tons.
Maximum / patrol speed - 27 knots / 16 knots.
The cruising range is 6000 miles.
Autonomy - 60 days.
Crew - 60 man.
Armament: 76 mm universal gun AK-176, air defense missile system "Gibka".

Possibility of installing modules: With a hydroacoustic system, with 8 or 4 cruise missiles "Caliber", with a universal launcher for SAM "Shtil-1". But they and the infrastructure for their storage, maintenance, etc. no .... yet ... maybe it will be.

[Alex 2020]

on other systems installed:

Radar "Positive-ME1" (range of action against a fighter-type target - 110 km);
navigation station "Pal-N";
hydroacoustic complex MGK-335EM-03 (detection of submarines at a distance of up to 12 km);
sonar station (GAS) with an extended towed antenna "Vignette-EM" (submarine detection range up to 20 km);
GAS "Pallada" (protection from submarine sabotage forces and assets);
standard shipborne electronic warfare equipment.

[Charik]

Is EM in GAS-no export a case?

[Alex 2020]

He is. At the beginning they oriented this miracle Yudo for export. These ships go to our Navy almost naked. Both in terms of weapons, radio electronics and anti-aircraft defense and anti-aircraft defense systems. They only promise to install. And they are not the best, unfortunately ...

[Mountain shooter]

Finally, our diesel! The vessel for the protection of the water area has quite adequate armament for its tasks ...
Well, not with "onyxes" to chase Ukrainian "battleships".

[Cyril G ...]

Exactly what a ship Yes, for OVR weapons are absolutely not adequate. No GUS, no PLO weapons. Air defense - in fact, 1 target channel.

[donavi49]

Just no two times.

1) It has far from the best driving characteristics in terms of maneuverability and dynamics. Ukrainian battleships around him will cut and make terrible faces and swear at the matyukalnik. IT IS MADE FOR ANOTHER!

The designers pushed in the unpickable, and still pushed it in. This is the first rank for solving urgent problems in the far sea zone. That is, they ordered to drive pirates in Africa - it is not the BOD / Cruiser that goes to drive the pirates in Africa, after which he dies for 2-3 years, but this boat. Moreover, it is better in terms of economy and better in terms of habitability, and in such trips it can be 180 days a year.

Now the pirates have disappeared, but there is a constant presence in important areas of the world's oceans.

For Ukrainian battleships, there is a much more effective tool that:
a) More maneuverable and dynamic, it may well crush if it catches on a maneuver or cut-grind into a box.
b) Has more adequate weapons, even in the heaviest version.
c) Does not inflate the conflict before the war (fleet-fleet), but still keeps it in a border incident (tough suppression of violations by the Coast Guard).

2) There are also problems with fire superiority. In fact, a working AK-176. Not the best weapon if ordered to stop, with a minimum of casualties. Other weapons - 2 MTPU with sailors at the machine gun. And this is the Stone Age by today's standards. All put stabilized turrets with guns, a thermal imager and joystick control from a cozy CIC. Such a high-tech was not delivered to the anti-piracy ship, they saved on matches by going on a campaign, so to speak.

[Stirbjorn]

Quote: donavi49

Now the pirates have disappeared, but there is a constant presence in important areas of the world's oceans.

So why aren't they present ?! Already two in the ranks and do not hear about long trips. Even the news says that

The ship will join the formation of ships guarding the water area of ​​the Novorossiysk naval base of the Black Sea Fleet.

So much for the regions of the world's oceans

[donavi49]

Well, this does not change that they did them for another. And other ships do the Ukrainian boats to drive.

Those advantages that were laid in it (habitability, own reserves for 60 days, a helicopter, a large supply of aviation fuel, good seaworthiness and a hull under the ocean) are not needed for ATS. But the disadvantages that come out of a compromise hurt its effectiveness in the internal affairs department. Simply, now those tasks for which they were built have disappeared. Looking for new ones.

But in Mediterranean they are regular guests.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: donavi49

Those advantages that were laid in it (habitability, own reserves for 60 days, a helicopter, a large supply of aviation fuel, good seaworthiness and a hull under the ocean) are not needed for ATS.

Was it for the fleet that was laid? 60 days of autonomy is the standard specification of the FSB for the PSKR.
So, PMSM, the habitability, autonomy and seaworthiness of the naval patrolman inherited from his previous "border" incarnation. As well as 80% of the combat missions declared for him.

[donavi49]

The political leadership set the task for the fleet.
The fleet began to carry out and realized that very soon it would be left without BNK at all. For this task was only suitable for large ships, the resource of which began to melt rather quickly.
The Navy ordered a specialized ship for this task.
By the time the first ships were built, the task disappeared by itself.

The Coast Guard operates in its own waters, economic zone, etc. We must immediately go to the other end of the world to defend the freedom and safety of navigation. Or now, to demonstrate a presence in key areas of the world's oceans (as Putin formed this, here at the recent laying of ships).

[Alexey RA]

Quote: donavi49

The Navy ordered a specialized ship for this task.

Not quite so - the Navy chose to carry out this task a ship project created for another department.
For whom the 22160 was originally designed, you can understand if you analyze the list of tasks declared by the designer for this project.

According to the demonstration materials of Zelenodolsky NW, presented at the Army-2016 and IMDS-2017, as well as data from the OSK website, the main tasks of PC 22160 are:
- border patrol service for the protection of territorial waters;
- patrolling the 200-mile special economic zone in neutral and territorial waters;
- suppression of smuggling and piracy;
- Search and assistance to victims of maritime disasters;
- environmental monitoring of the environment;
- in wartime:
guarding ships and vessels at the transition by sea, protecting naval bases and water areas in order to warn of an attack by various enemy forces and equipment.

Five of the five peacetime tasks fall under the purview of the FSB.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: donavi49

The Coast Guard operates in its own waters, economic zone, etc.

We are looking at the tasks set by the 22160 fleet (specifically, by the commander-in-chief of the Navy Korolev).

- "the new patrol ships of the project 22160 of the modular type refer to ships of the 3rd rank and are intended for the protection and protection of the maritime economic zone, participation in the search and assistance to victims of maritime disasters, in the protection of ships at sea crossing, naval bases and water areas in order to warn of an attack by a potential enemy ";
- "ships of the project 22160 are for the protection and protection of the maritime economic zone, and in the event of hostilities - to ensure the stability of the forces and facilities of the fleet during the defense of the basing areas. They are also called upon to carry out the tasks of escort, anti-piracy and search and rescue activities ";
- "patrol ships are needed by the Navy today. They will solve the problems of protecting communications, be used to combat piracy, poaching and solving other problems "

Either the commander-in-chief of the Navy is not aware of what the fleet should do, and what the FSB should do. Either the Navy is trying with all its might to prove the necessity of the ships ordered by it, listing their tasks without taking into account the one in whose competence they are. Because if you remove the "face" ones from the list of tasks 22160, then there will be practically no naval tasks there - but the question will arise, why are these ships to the fleet.

Quote: donavi49

We must immediately go to the other end of the world to defend the freedom and safety of navigation. Or now, to demonstrate a presence in key areas of the world's oceans (as Putin formed this, here at the recent laying of ships).

- Vladimir Nikolaevich, you have a wife at home, a poor student, you haven't paid for a cooperative apartment. And here you are powdering your brains ... It will end badly, dear ...

© Kin-dza-dza!
In the sense that we have nothing to provide for SSBNs' withdrawal from the bases, the OVR has died, there are fewer new TSCs than fleets, there are no new anti-submarine aircraft at all (the Il-38 glider is not eternal) - and we are going demonstrate a presence in key areas of the world's oceans.

[Cyril G ...]

Quote: Alexey RA

In the sense that we have nothing to provide for SSBNs' withdrawal from the bases, OVR has died, there are fewer new TSCs than fleets, there are no new anti-submarine aircraft at all (the Il-38 glider is not eternal) - and we are going to demonstrate a presence in key regions of the world ocean.

Quite right. And as for the OVR corvettes, there was no movement and no movement.

[Irek]

Svidomnya has already raised a howl.

[Pavel57]

The difference between the corvette and the yacht is the presence of missiles.

[Insurgent]

Quote: Pavel57

The difference between the corvette and the yacht is the presence of missiles.

They are not yet available, but the design features of the 22160 project allow the installation of 2X4 launchers for container-type missiles, which are being developed.

[Pavel57]

Quote: Insurgent

Quote: Pavel57

The difference between the corvette and the yacht is the presence of missiles.

They are not yet available, but the design features of the 22160 project allow the installation of 2X4 launchers for container-type missiles, which are being developed.

While "development is underway" would have installed at least "Uranus".

[donavi49]

What for? Whom to scare them ??? This is not a battle ship. What thread is a helicopter with Penguin (light anti-ship missiles of the 70s) = death 22160.

[Pavel57]

donavi49,


8 Uraniums and a cannon, better than one cannon. And our air defense on many types of ships, even with cruise missiles, is frankly weak.

[Vlad Malkin]

Anyway, seven feet under the keel!

[Vladimir Mashkov]

We were VERY pleased with the last lines about replacing MANs with Kolomna SSUs. Import substitution!