Military Review

Fireflies as an exit for the Crimean bridge

66

Photo: rpn.gov.ru


Today we will talk about very interesting ships. Ships in general are rarely boring and uninteresting, but such zigzags and course changes that were prepared for these ships rarely happened to anyone.

So let me introduce our heroes. These are Mukhtars of border waters, project 10410 patrol ships.

The project was developed in the 80s of the last century as a replacement for the Project 205 Tarantula and Project 12412 Molniya-2 ships.


Photo: losbarcosdeeugenio.com

The first ones are completely outdated, the second ones, created on the basis of Project 12411 Molniya missile boats, turned out to be too expensive both to build and to operate.

Therefore, it was decided to design and build new ships to protect the maritime borders and the 200-mile economic zone. The development was carried out by Almaz Central Design Bureau and obviously did it successfully. It is worth noting that at the time when these boats were being developed, there was a practice that in the event of a war, the border guard was instantly reassigned to the command fleet. That is, the protection of the border - yes, and in the event of hostilities, the boats had to stand in the general system.

The Central Design Bureau "Almaz" and the team of designers, led by Konstantin Avanesov, in my opinion, turned out to be a very high-quality boat. With a displacement of 375 tons, it had the following dimensions:
- length: 49,5 m;
- width: 9,2 m;
- draft: 2,16 m.

Three M520 diesel engines with a total power of 5400 hp. they accelerated the ship to a combat speed of 29 knots, and in case of emergency, the boat could develop 33 knots. The cruising range at 13 knots was 2200 miles. The crew of 38 people, autonomy, depending on the load of supplies - from 10 to 30 days.

These boats, by the way, became the first ships in the Soviet fleet with permanent air conditioning of the crew quarters.


Source: forum.airbase.ru

Seaworthiness was also on the level. No wonder Avanesov was the chief designer of the government yachts "Caucasus" and "Crimea". It was on these yachts that Secretary General Leonid Brezhnev liked to take walks along the Black Sea.

The Fireflies, like the yachts of the 1360 Chaika project, were distinguished by their soft entry into the wave, smooth pitching, and less overloads in waves. Very useful qualities for a patrol boat.

Armament for boats of this displacement was very decent. It differed somewhat depending on the place of construction. Ships built in Leningrad / St. Petersburg were armed with the following kit:
- 1 x AK-176M 76 mm;
- 1 x AK-630M 30 mm;
- 16 x MANPADS "Igla";
- 2 grenade launchers MRG-1 or DP-64;

On ships built by the Yaroslavl Shipyard, the armament was lighter:
1 x AK-306 30mm;
2 x MTPU 14,5mm;
16 x MANPADS "Igla".

In addition, the boats had additional weapons:
- 2 OTA-40-204A anti-submarine torpedo tubes with a caliber of 400 mm,
- 2 bombers for 12 BB-1 depth charges.

The boats had a towed sonar MG-349 "Uzh", an electronic warfare complex "Slyabing", a jamming complex PK-16. In addition, there was a GAS MG-747 for detecting divers.


In general, it turned out to be a very successful combination of a patrol boat and a small anti-submarine ship. A fully combat-ready ship of the coastal zone, capable of working for different purposes, depending on the requirements of the situation.

The ships of the project did not receive their own name, but the name that the ships were given in NATO structures took root. So the project 10410 was called "Svetljak" ("Firefly"). We liked it and the name stuck in Soviet circles.

They started building boats at three factories at once: in Leningrad, Vladivostok and Yaroslavl. The first ship of the project was built in Vladivostok and became part of the Marine Border Guard in April 1989.

Subsequently, the boat was named "Korsakov" and serves as part of the Border Guard Department of the Far Eastern Federal District to this day.


In total, 44 ships of project 10410 were built. 12 in Soviet times, the rest in Russian. 7 ships were exported (6 to Vietnam, 1 to Slovenia).

Today, the Fireflies serve as the main ships of the Coast Guard of the Border Service of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation in all border maritime directions.

The ships turned out to be so successful that it was decided to strengthen their weapons. In the early 90s, a modernized project 10411 was developed within the walls of the Almaz Central Design Bureau. These ships were supposed to carry two quad launchers of Uran anti-ship missiles.

However, the project did not go into series, since its basis, the Uran anti-ship missile, was put into service only in 2003.

And the ships of project 10410 began to undergo reverse "modifications" and "upgrades".

First, torpedo tubes and bomb releasers were removed. The ships ceased to be the anti-submarine reserve of the fleet, but they became much lighter.

Then they revised the artillery armament. 76-mm AK-176M guns were no longer installed on ships under construction, replacing at best with AK-630M.

Why at the best? Because in the worst case, they began to install the AK-306, also a six-barreled 30-mm machine gun, only aiming was carried out not with the help of the MR-123 Vympel radar, but with the help of the usual Lazur optical sighting station, which was significantly inferior in its characteristics sighting system with radar, and the rate of fire of the AK-306 was five times lower than that of the AK-630. But it did not require water cooling.

It wasn't a crime. global trend. The "Iron Curtain" collapsed, the time has come for detente and general appeasement. Coastal guard ships were assigned purely border functions and the fight against terrorists and smugglers. And for these tasks, heavy weapons were not needed.

Naturally, all this significantly reduced the cost of ships.

As for our “Fireflies” personally, they got rid of “extra” weapons, they became more autonomous, were able to improve living conditions and place more modern detection tools on board.

But as warships in the future and if necessary, they lost all value, moving into the category of patrol ships.


Combat value… Very thin material. Even for boats.

It is worth remembering the 2018 incident in the Kerch Strait. Then two artillery boats of project 58155 "Gyurza-M" of the Ukrainian Navy and the raid tug "Yany Kapu" operating with them made an attempt to violate the state border of Russia by sea.


The Coast Guard had to ask for the help of the Black Sea Fleet in order to prevent the breach. In general, that incident showed that not everything is fine with us in terms of protecting maritime borders. Suffice it to recall how many ships were involved in order to stop and detain three Ukrainian ships, one of which was a low-speed tug.

Patrol boats of the Border Service "Mongoose" and "Sobol" easily caught up with the violators. But what could they really oppose to Ukrainian boats? Two 14,5mm machine guns against four 30mm automatic cannons is a very bad deal when it comes to a fight. And it’s good that the Ukrainians were going to just arrange a provocation, without using weapons.

Everyone remembers how Ukrainian ships were stopped?


The tug "Yany Kapu" "braked" in bulk PSKR "Don", project 745P. This ship is larger than the Sobol, 1620 tons and well armed.

The Berdyansk was stopped by the Izumrud, which opened fire with its AK-306 on the apparently departing Ukrainian ship. The speeds of projects 58155 and our 22460 are approximately equal, but Berdyansk was clearly leaving, so we had to use guns.

"Nikopol", which demonstrated miracles of speed and crew control, was generally stopped by a Ka-52 helicopter. Holes from shells in the sides in the photo spread all over the world and aroused genuine sympathy for Ukrainians in the West.

Fireflies as an exit for the Crimean bridge

What if the weather was bad and aviation could you help? Then the options for the development of events would not be so rosy. Especially when you consider how many forces were involved in order to cope with the three provocateurs. At least 4 ships were involved from the FSB of the Russian Federation: PSKR Don and Emerald, boats of the Sobol and Mongoose projects. From the Black Sea Fleet, the minesweeper "Vice-Admiral Zakharyin", the MPK "Suzdalets" and 2 artillery boats of project 1204 participated. That is, 8 ships, 2 aircraft and 2 helicopters.

For two and a half semi-combat troughs of the Ukrainian Navy - too much. Caused by certain circumstances, but overkill.

In general, in terms of possible provocations and conflict situations, the Black Sea is perhaps the “hottest” region both today and in the future. Exclusively thanks to Ukraine.

And it cannot be said that our command does not understand this. The so-called "armored boats" of the "Gyurza-M" type are not a headache, especially since the boat grouping of the forces for protecting the water area was reinforced by boats of project 1204 "Bumblebee" and artillery versions of the "Fireflies" of the first series.

But recently there was information that makes you think a lot about the prospects in the Black Sea region.

We are talking about the receipt by Ukraine from the United States of the first patrol boats of the Mark VI type.


A series of 16 boats has been ordered, and, I must say, this can make life much easier for the Ukrainian military during various provocations.

The Mark VI boat has a displacement of only 65 tons. A small boat, but toothy. 2 25mm Mark 38 automatic cannons, heavy machine guns and optional AGM-176 "Griffin" rockets. You can’t call this anti-ship missile, but a warhead weighing almost 6 kg of explosive is really dangerous for boats.

Plus, the speed is impressive: 41 knots maximum and 45 knots in forced mode. Even the "Mongoose" will be difficult to catch up, but in terms of weapons, the American is much superior to the Russian boat.


And I repeat, 16 units of such boats have been ordered. Are there any doubts that they will be delivered to Ukraine? I do not have. Proxy tension is a normal US method of action. So the boats will go to the Ukrainian fleet. At least in order to be able to create tension in the region.

But that's not all. With great joy, the Ukrainian media reported on the signing on June 21 last year of an agreement on the construction of 8 modern missile and artillery boats of the P50U type for the Ukrainian Navy. And in 2024, the first two boats will have to enter the Ukrainian fleet, and the rest will be assembled in Nikolaev.

About 500 tons of displacement, a speed of 40-45 knots is declared (it is doubtful, the design of the Protector 50 patrol ship, taken as a basis, assumed a speed of 30-35 knots), artillery armament from a 76-mm Leonardo Super Rapid artillery mount, or 57 -mm artillery mount BAE Systems Bofors Mk 110, or 40-mm BAE Systems Bofors Mk 4.


Protector 50-class patrol ship

Rocket armament of four launchers for anti-ship missiles "Neptune" and four launchers for anti-aircraft missiles.

Such boats can not only arrange provocations, but also distract more significant ships of the Black Sea Fleet.

And given that the main patrol boat forces of the Black Sea Fleet were created in Soviet times, it may turn out that there will be nothing to oppose to the new Ukrainian boats. Especially considering the plans of the fleet command to write off project 12411 Molniya missile boats from the composition, and project 10410 boats also do not shine with freshness and a huge resource.

And something will have to be contrasted, because the picture of speedboats of Ukraine dissecting with impunity not far from the Crimean bridge is not something that will be pleasant to watch.

Options?

And here is the option - to quickly start building all the same Fireflies.

Photo: forums.airbase.ru


Fortunately, the factories in Yaroslavl and St. Petersburg have not gone away. And on them it is quite possible to start the production of boats, which are so necessary for the protection of the Black Sea region. Still, the protection of such objects as the Crimean bridge should be entrusted to ships that can easily cope with such a task.

That is, these should not be just patrol boats, but I would characterize them as anti-boat defense boats. With all the ensuing consequences. And these boats should not only provide some nominal resistance in the event of provocations from Ukraine, but eliminate the very possibility of provocations in the bud.

This requires appropriate weapons.

AK-176MA is relevant if guidance is carried out using the ship's radar fire control system MR-123/176. Sights and rangefinders just in case of emergency are not bad, but for accurate shooting you still need the appropriate radar.

AK-630. Yes, precisely because this is not the newest, but quite relevant gun mount works on the same guidance principle, it is also good. AK-306 with actually manual guidance, I would not consider at all. It is clear that weight and all that, but shooting at optics is the last century.

Especially if there is a radar that allows you to do this.

And if the warhead has a radar station at its disposal, according to which it is possible to work, it would be good to have missiles on such ships. Anti-boat missiles, homing or with operator control, it doesn’t matter. It is important that they could cause damage to any boat with a displacement of up to 1000 tons or so.

3M-47 "Bending" - a possible solution.


In this variant, when not 2 anti-aircraft missiles are loaded into four launchers of the installation, "Willows" from the helicopter and the crew will be able to brush aside, but all 4 Attack missiles. An anti-tank missile will turn the enemy boat around just as well tank.

"Gibka" has already been installed on the patrol boat of project 22460 "Rasul Gamzatov" and on patrol boats of project 14310 "Mirage", so the issue of registration on similar ships is not worth it. Everything is possible.

Anti-boat missiles, along with artillery, will significantly enhance the combat capabilities of ships. Of course, according to some experts, it makes no sense to install normal anti-ship missiles of the Uranus type on boats with a displacement of up to 1000 tons. For this, there are carriers of the corvette class and above.

But in order to complicate the existence of an ordinary high-speed boat of the Gyurza-M type or whatever the allies will present to the Ukrainian fleet, Attacks are more than enough.

The fact that today our factories have begun to build Fireflies again is wonderful. This is evidence that there is an understanding of possible further provocations on the part of Ukraine, fortunately, there is someone to incite.

But ships need to be armed based on the fact that the current situation is not the same as it was 20 years ago. And stroking a potential enemy with machine guns is not very significant.

With regards to the boats of the 10410 project and how they should be armed, the 10412 Triglav project, built in one copy for the Slovenian Navy, looks like the most profitable option.


If we start from this option, then we get a very good set of weapons in general: one 76-mm AK-176, one six-barreled 30-mm AK-630, 4-8 Ataka missiles and 16 Igla MANPADS. 14,5-mm machine guns and AK-306 can be left overboard, and instead of them, install something small-sized, but harmful from the electronic warfare area.

4-6 such boats, based in the immediate vicinity of the Crimean Bridge facility, will be able not only to ensure the safety of the bridge, but also to take control of the entire adjacent water area of ​​the Black and Azov Seas.

The first ship of project 10410 "Korsakov" was launched back in 1989. Two extreme (and I hope not the last), "Sochi" and "Novorossiysk" - in the past. It remains to be hoped that these frankly successful ships will have a very long life, because the protection of our maritime borders, especially in the Black Sea, is a very important task.
Author:
66 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 210ox
    210ox 1 February 2022 06: 28
    +12
    Definitely, serious weapons should be installed on the Fireflies.
    1. NDR-791
      NDR-791 1 February 2022 06: 54
      +4
      Quote: 210ox
      Definitely, serious weapons should be installed on the Fireflies.

      I agree with serious weapons, but not quite with the Fireflies
      For the Sea of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbAzov and the protection of the area, in general, SVP may be more suitable. Maybe something like a converted Bison. Its carrying capacity is quite sufficient to accommodate not only missiles, but also a lot of other things. Taking into account the fact that the Sea of ​​Azov and the Kerch Strait periodically freeze in winter, this would be an all-weather remedy. And even if there are coastal radar stations, their parking during duty (in order to neutralize the increased fuel consumption) can even be an unequipped coast.
      As far as I remember, not only landing, but also shock variants were designed.
      1. Ryaruav
        Ryaruav 1 February 2022 08: 33
        +4
        Bison does not provide plo and pds
        1. NDR-791
          NDR-791 1 February 2022 08: 35
          -3
          Quote: Ryaruav
          Bison does not provide plo and pds

          Completely provide. After all, he can not only 55 knots, but he can simply afloat, and without access to the pillow he can with the same towed GAS
          1. 210ox
            210ox 1 February 2022 17: 35
            +3
            I did not understand. What is the PLO in Azov? And Gus? Anti-sabotage defense, gun mounts and short-range air defense missiles and ATGMs agree.
            1. NDR-791
              NDR-791 1 February 2022 17: 56
              0
              Quote: 210ox
              I did not understand. What is the PLO in Azov?

              On the other side of the bridge, from the Black Sea. There's a lot of depth there. Not immediately, of course, but still very close by modern standards.
              1. 210ox
                210ox 1 February 2022 18: 00
                +1
                Okay. Where to put the equipment on the patrol boat. Here on the patrolman of the type "Bykov" I agree. And he's kind of clueless
                1. NDR-791
                  NDR-791 1 February 2022 18: 05
                  0
                  Quote: 210ox
                  Okay. Where to put the equipment on the patrol boat.

                  Actually, from the very beginning of the discussion of the article, I suggested hovercraft like the Bison or Saiga. Already in them you can shove the "landing" into place as much as you like !!! But he was subjected to collective obstruction. I understand ... the state order is such a thing that the mind cannot be treated.
                  1. 210ox
                    210ox 1 February 2022 18: 39
                    +1
                    I am a layman in SVP. So here I'll look at the comments from more savvy colleagues.
        2. MauZerR
          MauZerR 20 July 2022 13: 52
          -1
          Where are you going to play PLO in the Sea of ​​Azov? With depths of 8m limit? And in the Black Sea, where the depths allow, it is possible to provide normal PLO ships.
      2. Flooding
        Flooding 1 February 2022 09: 32
        +3
        Quote: NDR-791
        For the Sea of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbAzov and the protection of the area, in general, SVP may be more suitable. Maybe something like a converted Bison.

        high voracity
        and as a result, a small power reserve
        what is unacceptable for a patrol vessel
        1. NDR-791
          NDR-791 1 February 2022 09: 36
          0
          300 miles with a full load is not enough for you? And you don’t have to constantly hang around the sea, I wrote above - not for constant patrolling, but for prompt response. Well, of course, not only use them alone.
          1. Flooding
            Flooding 1 February 2022 09: 42
            +1
            Quote: NDR-791
            300 miles with a full load is not enough for you?

            got it
            assigning to the FSB a ship that the marines desperately need is such an idea
            right there, just for efficiency, the border guards need a ship capable of independently preventing threats
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 1 February 2022 12: 50
              +1
              But such a boat?
              1. Flooding
                Flooding 1 February 2022 12: 55
                +1
                Quote: Bad_gr
                But such a boat?

                judging by the fact that only two of them were handed over, I will assume that something did not suit the customer
                1. The comment was deleted.
      3. donavi49
        donavi49 1 February 2022 09: 58
        +16
        Rave:
        1) Bread PSKR is a patrol. Firstly, the violation is stopped by the very fact of the presence of the ship. Secondly, the shore or other means do not always work. Thirdly, there are a lot of auxiliary tasks - transitions, passing exercises, preparing the crew for a new ship, small transportation, etc. SVP - will gobble up the entire budget of the border service in this mode, or will rot on the shore. And yes, on the bank of the SVP it rots very quickly, because the skirt is cracking and needs to be replaced.

        2) Specific gravity of the payload - armament, crew, additional specialists, cargo, etc. on SVP is much lower than on a conventional boat.

        3) Vitality. Again, the SVP from the queue of the conditional bushmaster / arrival of Brimstone begins to burn brightly like a sparkler, and the skirt also smokes so that everyone without GDZS devices will have to leave the ship. And yes, the same bulk is a common thing for the PSKR, on the SVP it can end in a very expensive repair. Conventional boats have more survivability.

        4) Service life - again, the boat has more. It also has cheaper repairs. The SVP changes the same skirt according to the regulations, the boat does not have such an expense.

        SVP is a very specific technique, applicable only in certain conditions when other methods do not work.
        1. astra wild2
          astra wild2 1 February 2022 11: 58
          0
          Excuse me, what does SVP mean.¿
          1. donavi49
            donavi49 1 February 2022 12: 32
            +2
            Hovercraft.
        2. gev_ru
          gev_ru 20 February 2022 13: 29
          0
          Patrol ships of the coast guard is to catch up to stop and inspect. If it is necessary to escort, mainly civilian ships. It is quite possible and should be made from AMg. Let me remind you that aluminum alloy armor exists, but absolutely armored boats and ships do not exist. I myself accepted ships on the air cavity and I want to say that this is promising. The move is soft and fast (up to 55 knots). All this is good in peacetime. Taking into account the options for combat countermeasures off the coast of Crimea considered by the authors of the messages, then, in my opinion, the most correct option is to install coastal anti-ship missiles and make a combat information system integrated with ships. In addition, the use of fire support helicopters with ATGMs and aviation is likely. Please note that the meteorological conditions for the use of small ships and aviation are approximately the same. In addition, armor is also made of aluminum alloys. The superstructures of ships of small and medium displacement in all fleets, as a rule, are made of light alloys. As for the SVP, I can say that it makes no sense to use it in this region, because with the freezing of the strait, the task of blocking it with ships also ends. And the strength of flexible fences of military SVP is higher than the strength of AMg alloys. When we had an accident, the rubber began to collapse after the destruction of the fastening structures and simultaneously with the destruction of the hull structures. Shrapnel and bullet holes in a small amount for a flexible fence are not critical. And all ships, from steel structures, and from AMg alloys, burn about the same. The incendiary effect occurs after breaking through the hull structures, and property, fuel, ammunition, and paintwork are burning. To ignite an AMG superstructure or hull requires so much thermal energy that the source can be a rocket or a bomb, and this is another situation.
      4. bk0010
        bk0010 1 February 2022 11: 28
        +5
        Quote: NDR-791
        For the Sea of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbAzov and the protection of the area, in general, SVP may be more suitable
        SVP is VERY expensive to build and operate. For patrol tasks - not an option.
      5. The comment was deleted.
    2. Barberry25
      Barberry25 1 February 2022 13: 22
      0
      But why? In fact, it’s either patrol boats or anti-submarine ones, put something serious there, which means you need to put in a more powerful radar, which will lead to an increase in mass and price, this ship should hit targets at a maximum distance of the radio horizon, even 76 mm for it the gun is too much, 57 mm a-220M is already enough for the eyes.
  2. ban
    ban 1 February 2022 08: 48
    +2
    For those who are interested, the source
    https://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2022-01-27/6_1174_pskr.html
  3. Sergey Aleksandrovich
    Sergey Aleksandrovich 1 February 2022 09: 59
    0
    Weak weapons on very large patrol ships of project 22460 "Hunter" raised questions from the very beginning. The military value of such a large vessel, with only a 30-mm automatic gun, is practically zero.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 1 February 2022 12: 57
      +1
      Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
      Weak weapons on very large patrol ships of project 22460 "Hunter" raised questions from the very beginning. The military value of such a large vessel, with only a 30-mm automatic gun, is practically zero.

      Because this is not a warship, but a BOHR ship. Large-caliber weapons are contraindicated for them, since their task is not to destroy the enemy, but to detain the civilian violator with minimal damage to him and the absence of casualties among his crew.
      Our border guards even managed to sink a 30-meter Chinese cargo ship from a 230-mm AK-100.
      So the AK-176 on the PSKR is already redundant. Which means it won't be used. And it will be with her as with TA, RBU and other purely naval gadgets on the PSKR - outwardly beautiful, but inside it is neglected, and the crew has completely lost their application skills (because it has boundary tasks above the roof, in order to also work out naval ones). Actually, that is why the MCHPV and the BOHR partially disarmed the existing PSKR and ordered new ones without naval excesses.

      As for military ships violating the state border, the Navy should deal mainly with it. As it was in 1988: the MCHPV detects a violation of the border, the Navy forces out the violator.
      1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
        Sergey Aleksandrovich 1 February 2022 13: 04
        -1
        You, apparently, do not understand the main difference between 76 and 30 mm artillery systems. It is both in the multiple difference in firing range, as well as in the power of the ammunition. And the BOHR ship of 600 tons of displacement turned out well without even medium-caliber artillery. And what kind of tasks are these that require such large ships without any long-range weapons and where does it bother you so much?
        And a very interesting argument about the fact that the 76-mm gun will not be used, you might even think that 30-mm automatic guns are now used for their intended purpose.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 1 February 2022 13: 14
          +2
          Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
          You, apparently, do not understand the main difference between 76 and 30 mm artillery systems. It is both in the multiple difference in firing range, as well as in the power of the ammunition.

          You, apparently, do not understand the tasks of the BOHR ships.
          Quote: Alexey RA
          their task is do not destroy enemy, and hold up civil offender with minimal damage and no casualties among his crew.

          A typical task is to detain a trawler leaving after illegal fishing or a dry cargo ship that has escaped from arrest in the port. Can you imagine what a 76-mm shell will do to a ship? Or with the crew on a miss? And how soon detention with AK-176 turn into a rescue operation?
          Was the New Star not enough for you - during the detention the ship was sunk, 8 dead? Well, the Chinese hushed up the scandal.
          Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
          And the BOHR ship of 600 tons of displacement turned out well without even medium-caliber artillery.

          Their opponents have no artillery at all. The maximum is a light rifle.

          It’s just that the author of the article stubbornly lists counteraction to enemy warships and boats as the tasks of the BOHR. Although this is the task of the Navy.
          1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
            Sergey Aleksandrovich 1 February 2022 13: 22
            0
            No one asks to make arrests with direct hits from a 76-mm cannon. The point is that the gun should be available to meet with serious violators, and they often came to us, perhaps because of the unarmedness and slowness of the patrol ships. The speed of the ships of project 22460 is not impressive, for the production of the detention of violators.
            And the author hints that it is not worth building very large and unarmed ships in such quantities. We're not that rich, are we?
            1. bk316
              bk316 1 February 2022 15: 01
              +1
              The point is that a weapon must be available to meet with serious violators,

              You still don't understand. Let's take an example.
              Let's take the traffic police, it deals with, among other things, violators of traffic rules. And among them there are bandits with AK. And sometimes they shoot at gaytsov. Do you propose to patrol the Moscow Ring Road in tanks? After all, how conveniently I saw the intruder, warning from Kord, did not stop - high-explosive fragmentation.
              1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
                Sergey Aleksandrovich 1 February 2022 15: 05
                -2
                No, it is you who propose to patrol the Moscow Ring Road in tanks, using Project 22460 ships, and even on unarmed and slow-moving tanks. And there are more armed violators, in the form of destroyers of a potential enemy and Ukrainian boats, than fishing trawlers-violators.
                1. bk316
                  bk316 1 February 2022 16: 42
                  -1
                  No, it is you who propose to patrol the Moscow Ring Road in tanks,

                  Well, if you don’t want to understand a simple thing, you don’t need to ....
                  Just think about why the police were once re-equipped from TT to Makarov.
                  1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
                    Sergey Aleksandrovich 1 February 2022 17: 07
                    -1
                    Starting with you, I will make it a rule not to answer opponents with big stars on shoulder straps. Moreover, you somehow went into a discussion of small arms, some kind of TT and Makarov, what does this have to do with it?
                    1. bk316
                      bk316 1 February 2022 18: 02
                      -1
                      what does it have to do with it

                      Sergey, come on, just think a little and you will understand.
                      Each EVERY weapon system, in general, each weapon is invented for a specific purpose.
                      Of course, you can upgrade the weapon (and replace the components in the system) in order to use it for a different purpose, BUT ONLY due to the purpose for which it was invented.
                      Here Alexey points out this goal to you.
                      their task is not to destroy the enemy, but to detain the civilian violator with minimal damage to him and the absence of casualties among his crew.


                      It’s the same about Makarov, the goal of the policeman is not to kill an armed criminal, but to stop him and detain him alive and, if possible, more or less healthy and not yet cause damage to law-abiding citizens and their property. TT is not well suited for this, like AK
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 1 February 2022 17: 35
              +1
              Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
              No one asks to make arrests with direct hits from a 76-mm cannon. The point is that the gun should be available to meet with serious violators, and they often came to us, perhaps because of the unarmedness and slowness of the patrol ships.

              Again. Countering enemy warships is not the task of the BOHR. In the same way as land border guards should not repel the aggression of the enemy army in one person.
              Enemy ships are the goal of the Navy. And if the Navy overslept the approach of these ships to the borders, then you should not shift everything onto the shoulders of the BOHR.
              90% of BOHR targets will hardly survive a 76-mm hit.
              Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
              The speed of the ships of project 22460 is not impressive, for the production of the detention of violators.

              So their main means of detention was to be a helicopter. You can't run away from him. smile
              And then - everything is as always. Smooth was on paper, but the Ka-226 was delayed so much that the BOHR instead of project 22460 began to order Fireflies again.
              Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
              And the author hints that it is not worth building very large and unarmed ships in such quantities. We're not that rich, are we?

              The author of the article proposes to once again step on the old rake of project 11351 - to arm the MCHPV with expensive uber-armed ships of military projects, and then be surprised that most of their weapons simply do not function, since the border guards do not need it.
        2. vladcub
          vladcub 1 February 2022 16: 17
          -1
          "how much long-range" you offer another 100 mm
          1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
            Sergey Aleksandrovich 1 February 2022 16: 30
            -1
            The displacement of the ships of project 22460 allows you to install 100 mm, but I did not offer this.
            But you also want to advise, to be consistent, and to opt for the top of the idea of ​​shipbuilding weapons, namely the 14,5 mm MTPU mount, moreover, for standing, full-length shooting.
  4. SU3555
    SU3555 1 February 2022 10: 28
    +2
    Recently, on the M4 Don highway, four raptors transported to the Sea of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbAzov were noticed, maybe in this way they want to increase the mobility of the border group and the protection of the bridge?
    1. vladcub
      vladcub 1 February 2022 16: 35
      0
      Actually, the armament of the Raptor: Cord 14,5mm, it is a good "hound". To catch up with any boat, but against the "petite armored carriers" or: "protector" enough: "karakurta" or: "bumblebee"
  5. Mr. PeZhe
    Mr. PeZhe 1 February 2022 12: 32
    -1
    As Winston Churchill said: "In a war at sea, the first line of defense passes through the bases of the enemy, and the second, which is also the last - through its own bases."
    Chasing boats with your own boats is below average fun. You need to destroy them all with one blow, along with the ports.
    1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
      Sergey Aleksandrovich 1 February 2022 13: 43
      +2
      However, lately we have been doing nothing but chasing boats and destroyers of a potential enemy across the Black Sea. And there is essentially nothing to chase, patrol cars are more and more unarmed and slow-moving.
  6. Barberry25
    Barberry25 1 February 2022 13: 27
    -2
    Well, in general, you need to first solve the problem of production at Zvezda, but in general put not 3, but 4 engines (or 2 more powerful ones), increase the displacement to 450 tons, put the appropriate radio engineering stuffing and quite a massive ship to protect the coast as a patrol or MPK
    1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
      Sergey Aleksandrovich 1 February 2022 13: 34
      -1
      To begin with, it is necessary to move away from the concept of unarmedness; it has embraced not only large landing ships and helicopter carriers, but also patrol boats. If this can somehow be justified on carriers of missile and anti-submarine weapons, then it looks strange on empty guards.
      1. Barberry25
        Barberry25 1 February 2022 13: 51
        0
        well, I wrote a little higher: you need to put a 57 mm gun instead of 76 mm, it is lighter, has a similar range but many times higher rate of fire, for such a small ship it is ideal, also add the Pine air defense system - a range of up to 10 km and the ability to work on surface purposes, well, and a metal cutter for a kit with several positions for machine guns. For larger ships, let's say with a displacement of 900-1500 tons, you can install Shell + Pine-will close and air defense, and you can later install missiles with a range of up to 100 km .. But you need a serial product, but it should be inexpensive, simple and massive, and in our country, as a result, the moremans want to put both a larger gun and a more remote air defense system, which results in a huge cost, low construction rates and non-serialization
        1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
          Sergey Aleksandrovich 1 February 2022 13: 59
          0
          I would prefer the 76mm in order to unify the ammunition and more power, but the 57mm is also an option. In the end, it is possible to slightly simplify the 76-mm gun mount for small ships. And on small boats, you can also put a new module of the "Epoch" type from the BMP, there is a whole bunch of possibilities, not like they used to put land towers with 76-mm guns.
          1. Barberry25
            Barberry25 1 February 2022 14: 07
            +1
            it's not a matter of simplification, but in the mass of 76 mm the gun is 7 tons heavier and the weight of the volley, let's say at the fastest rate of 76 mm, the gun can fire 2 shots per second, i.e. to send 11,9 kilos of shells and 800 grams of explosives to the target, and the a-220m will be able to fire 5 shots, and even with old shells this is 14 kilos of shells and 765 grams of explosives, and due to the spacing of the queue, the efficiency will be higher, not to mention that there are shells that have the same 400 grams of explosives. It’s just that in the navy they always run into “but we still have to work along the coast, which means we need a bigger drin” .. Immediately, even though it’s a smaller caliber, but due to the rate of fire and modern shells, it is many times superior in capabilities to a 76 mm gun.
            1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
              Sergey Aleksandrovich 1 February 2022 14: 10
              -1
              As for the superiority at times, I would not exaggerate, there are cartridge cases of the same size, and only on this basis the difference will be more likely in favor of the 76-mm gun.
              1. Barberry25
                Barberry25 1 February 2022 14: 13
                -1
                the rate of fire is different, in one case the standard is considered to be 30-40 rounds per minute and 120 in a dangerous period, and then the gun should then cool down for a long time according to the instructions, and in the other, the standard rate is 300 rounds per minute and the ability to shoot 100-120 rounds without any problems , for me, given the size of several hundred tons, it is better to put a small biting cannon than an excess 76 mm gun
        2. vladcub
          vladcub 1 February 2022 16: 47
          +1
          "Moremans want to put" here, rather, "land-based Moremans" are weird: they know little about navigation.
          Such "specialists" as they argue: 30 mm is not enough, and 76 more is fine, we set 76, and then you look and we put 152 mm. Immediately all adversaries will subside
          1. Barberry25
            Barberry25 1 February 2022 16: 53
            -1
            Well, I don’t know, it was Klimov who once said that 76 mm is very small and that you need to put at least 100 mm on corvettes because of the power of the shells .. it’s just that the Moremans look at the performance characteristics, but you need to look at the possibilities .. The same Oliver frigates the American ones were not wunderwaffles when they were launched into the series, but they were built in series and a lot, like the Chinese corvettes 056 or the frigate 054 are also not superships, but they are being built a lot, so we need to go this way, let them build budget ships, but in a very large series, but for a small ship of 350 tons, it’s still better to have a lighter gun.
  7. Grossvater
    Grossvater 1 February 2022 15: 30
    -1
    It is interesting, of course, but a direct assessment of weapons based on, let's say, the non-combat use of the ship, is still not entirely correct. I remember that the British, in order to discourage the Francoists from digging to the bottom of the English steamers, had to call Hood for help. I don't think that the British destroyers lacked combat power to peck at an antique Spanish cruiser.
    Shooting the named guest is, of course, very good, but more often it’s enough just to lower it down the stairs wink.
  8. DED_peer_DED
    DED_peer_DED 1 February 2022 16: 28
    -1
    Three M520 diesel engines with a total power of 5400 hp. accelerated the ship to a combat speed of 29 knots

    At the moment, the border guards are missing as a class "interceptor boat".
    Light, armed and most importantly VERY fast, high-speed.
    Recent events near the Crimea only confirmed the need for such boats.
    Catch up, get attached, control and impose your attention and "circumvention".
    I consider them necessary.
    1. Barberry25
      Barberry25 1 February 2022 17: 41
      -1
      well, in principle, there are projects of boats up to 50 knots
      1. DED_peer_DED
        DED_peer_DED 1 February 2022 17: 42
        0
        Quote: Barberry25
        well, basically there is

        So this is "basically".
        How about in metal?
        1. Barberry25
          Barberry25 1 February 2022 17: 43
          -2
          and in metal you need an order
          1. DED_peer_DED
            DED_peer_DED 1 February 2022 17: 43
            -1
            So that's what we're talking about :)
            1. Barberry25
              Barberry25 1 February 2022 17: 45
              -1
              in principle, I think that while the Raptors can act as interceptors, the main ammo for the machine gun is to expand
              1. DED_peer_DED
                DED_peer_DED 1 February 2022 18: 15
                -1
                Quote: Barberry25
                in principle, I think that while the Raptors will be able to act as interceptors

                Not that department.
                1. Barberry25
                  Barberry25 1 February 2022 18: 43
                  -1
                  well, they constantly intersect with us, but for the future I think they will put the border guards
                  1. DED_peer_DED
                    DED_peer_DED 1 February 2022 18: 44
                    -1
                    Mi is not mine :)
                    They do not suit the border guards in terms of functionality, in any way.
                    1. Barberry25
                      Barberry25 1 February 2022 18: 47
                      -2
                      the team will pass, they will fit right away in terms of functionality, not to mention the fact that the National Guard in Kerch already has 4 BK-16
                      1. DED_peer_DED
                        DED_peer_DED 1 February 2022 18: 52
                        -2
                        So it's like the Kriegsmarine against Goering in aviation.
                        departments.
                        And the seaworthiness of these boats is in question.
  9. Eug
    Eug 1 February 2022 22: 41
    +1
    Project 133 Antares hydrofoil with AK-176, built by Feodosia.
    1. Flashpoint
      Flashpoint 2 February 2022 08: 00
      0
      Quote: Eug
      Project 133 Antares hydrofoil with AK-176, built by Feodosia.

      By the way, yes! Thing! There were even torpedo tubes. Very cool boat, did 60+ knots! good
  10. xomaNN
    xomaNN 2 February 2022 18: 27
    0
    I agree with the author that it’s easy to pretend that uk..r. we don’t care about the boat, it’s not an option. After all, the Black Sea Fleet will not launch 11356 or anti-ship missiles "Moscow" on them every provocation?
    So building a modernized "Firefly" with new art and missile systems, and not individually, but in a series of at least a dozen, and preferably up to 20 pieces - NECESSARY! Moreover, this is not an aircraft carrier from the Nikolaev plant (that is, now it’s just almost enemy territory), but our domestic shipyards.
    1. Evgesha
      Evgesha April 26 2022 17: 10
      0
      everything ... "Moscow" at the bottom ...
  11. realist
    realist April 26 2022 16: 08
    0
    our products have a significantly lower travel speed, something needs to be done about this.
  12. Evgesha
    Evgesha April 26 2022 17: 09
    0
    But I'm never a sailor.
    But since childhood, I have had questions, even on the basis of films where our boat was chasing an intruder. Like what kind of ships of the border service are these that cannot catch up with violators ???
    And now, right now, the author suggests building more Fireflies, well, put more modern weapons there, etc.
    But !! Where is the speed??? 29 knots - are you going to catch up with Ukrainian boats that run at 40 knots at this speed ???
    Fuck, we have a problem with the speed of warships!!
    Here the Angles swam on the EM .. and what - yes, a helicopter could catch up with them !!!
    And then the patrol, which will not be able to catch up with provocateurs!??!?
    Is this kind of normal??