"Coast" against "air": the use of the A-222 self-propelled artillery system as a highly effective air defense system

The longer the Russian special operation in Ukraine continues, the more impudent the enemy becomes, the more precision-guided munitions are sent to Ukraine. USA only deliver dozens of launchers (PU) M142 HIMARS and hundreds of guided projectiles for them, the possibility of delivering ATACMS tactical missiles launched from these launchers cannot be ruled out, the United States also imports dozens of towed and self-propelled artillery systems of 155 mm caliber, thousands of guided and tens of thousands of unguided shells to them.

Western long-range systems cause significant damage to the Russian armed forces and civilian infrastructure. Image by wikipedia.org

In addition, Ukraine is still manages carry out the production of certain types of weapons, its military-industrial complex (MIC) turned out to be much more stable than it seemed many. Strikes against critical infrastructure are still clearly not enough to completely disable it and stop production throughout Ukraine.

Under these conditions, the Russian Air Defense Forces are working with an increased load, a significant number of anti-aircraft guided missiles (SAMs) are being used, which have a very high cost. At the same time, as we can see from the media, it is impossible to create an impenetrable shield, some of the Ukrainian missiles and shells reach their targets - just remember the Kakhovka bridge in the Kherson region.

Thus, we have two problems.

The first is that enemy ammunition is penetrating our air defense barrier, and we need to find any way to increase its density.

The second problem is the high cost of anti-aircraft ammunition. What alternatives do we have?

Flak

Of course, anti-aircraft artillery immediately comes to mind - the cost of artillery shells is much lower than missiles. However, the probability of hitting air targets by them is much lower, especially if these targets are small, inconspicuous and high-speed.

The situation can be corrected by remote detonation of shells on the trajectory, and our opponents are actively working in this direction. In particular, the German company Rheinmetall presented a new short-range anti-aircraft system Skynex, where a 35 mm rapid-fire cannon using projectiles with remote detonation on a trajectory acts as a means of destruction.

Detonation frame of one of the projectiles with remote detonation on the trajectory from the presentation of the Rheinmetall Skynex complex

The presentation can be viewed by clicking on this link.

The US wants to go even further and develop guided projectiles for guns up to 20 mm caliber - we previously talked about this in the material "30-mm automatic guns: sunset or a new stage of development". However, knowing the American military-industrial complex, we can assume that these guided missiles will be more expensive than missiles.

In Russia, 30-mm projectiles with remote detonation on the trajectory seem to have been developed by the Moscow NPO Pribor. Unlike the inductive system used by Rheinmetall, Russian projectiles use a remote detonation initiation system using a laser beam.

It was assumed that 30-mm projectiles with remote detonation on the trajectory would be tested in 2019 and would later be supplied to the Russian army. In 2021, Oleg Chizhevsky, General Designer of NPO Pribor, told RIA "News» about the fact that remotely detonated ammunition for 30-mm guns has already entered the stage of state tests and that they will be included in the ammunition of combat support vehicles tanks (BMPT) "Terminator", but at the moment no more information has been received on this topic.

Let's hope that the work will be completed in the near future, since 30-mm caliber shells with remote detonation on a trajectory like air are needed by all branches of the Russian armed forces.

Another promising project of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (RF Armed Forces) is the 57 mm caliber Air Defense Derivation complex, which we talked about in one of the previous materials.

Complex "Derivation of air defense". Image by wikipedia.org

The Air Defense Derivation complex should effectively deal with air targets using projectiles with remote detonation on the trajectory. According to a number of sources, the Derivation-Air Defense complex is potentially capable of fighting multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) projectiles, which means that it will also be able to shoot down the vaunted HIMARS projectiles.

There is no information on the timing of the entry of the Air Defense Derivation complex into service, and most importantly, on the readiness of shells with remote detonation on the trajectory, without which there will be little use from the Derivation.

So what other alternatives do we have?

Self-propelled artillery complex A-222 "Bereg"

Formally, the A-222 "Coast" complex of 130 mm caliber belongs to the Naval the fleet (Navy) of the Russian Federation, and in the NVO zone, it was presumably not used, but the potential of this machine is very significant.

Quite a decent firing range, about 23 kilometers, is combined with a high rate of fire - up to 12 rounds per minute. Another advantage of the A-222 "Bereg" complex is the wheeled chassis, which allows you to quickly change position, although, on the other hand, because of it, the patency of the complex is limited compared to tracked vehicles.

If we talk about the artillery use of the A-222 "Bereg" complex, then artillery batteries from three to six A-222 "Bereg" complexes could quickly move into position, deal a crushing blow to the enemy and go deep into Russian battle formations.

Self-propelled artillery complex A-222 "Coast". Image by wikipedia.org

The Russian Navy has 36 such systems, but how much does the Navy need them? Their use against enemy ships is another event, after all, the capabilities of artillery and anti-ship missiles are not comparable. On the other hand, when using the A-222 "Bereg" in the interests of the ground forces, it will complicate logistics - separate deliveries of 130 mm caliber shells will be required.

However, the A-222 "Bereg" complexes have another potentially much more interesting area of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbapplication than artillery support for ground forces ...

The fact is that the ammunition of the A-222 "Bereg" complex includes anti-aircraft rounds A3-UZS-44 and A3-UZS-44R. The A3-UZS-44 shot is equipped with a DVM-60M1 remote fuse, and the A3-UZS-44R shot is equipped with an AR-32 radar fuse. Information on how the delay time for detonation of the remote fuse in the A3-UZS-44 projectile is set could not be found. If it is introduced manually, then these projectiles are useless for us, but if automatically, then they can be effectively used to destroy air targets of all types, similar to how it will be implemented in the Derivation-Air Defense complex, while the power of a 57 mm caliber projectile and does not stand next to the power of a 130 mm caliber projectile.

In addition, the A-222 ammunition load includes A3-UZS-44R rounds with an AR-32 radar fuse, which, when hitting anti-ship missiles, misses up to 8 meters, and when hitting aircraft, up to 15 meters.

130-mm shot A3-UZS-44R with radio fuse type AR-32

History shells with a radar fuse began during the Second World War, when they became secret and highly effective weapons American fleet - for some time they were even forbidden to use over land, so that the enemy could not detect and copy them. An article was published on the pages of the Military Review about shells with a radar fuse "The Remote Fuse That Saved London and the American Navy".

The AK-130 shipborne artillery mounts, on the basis of which the A-222 complex was created, initially have the ability to work on air targets, but they can be guided by shipborne radar stations (RLS). The A-222 "Bereg" has a significantly lower rate of fire and ammunition compared to ship guns, in addition, the central post of the "Bereg" complex, which includes the BR-136 fire control system with optical-electronic and radar channels for detecting and maintaining detected targets, most likely, will not be able to detect air targets, especially small and high-speed ones.

Shipborne artillery mount AK-130. Image by wikipedia.org

Thus, to ensure the operation of the A-222 "Bereg" complex against air targets, it will require its deep interface with any modern anti-aircraft missile system (SAM), which will give it target designation for firing. Considering the presence of anti-aircraft shells in the A-222 "Bereg" ammunition load, the possibility of such a pairing in the design of the complex is most likely provided.

With which air defense system is it preferable to match the A-222 "Bereg" complex? It is not possible to give an answer to this question, for this it is necessary to have access to information of limited distribution, and this is not required at the current stage.

The main issue determining the feasibility of integrating the A-222 "Bereg" complexes into the air defense system is the availability and effectiveness of A3-UZS-44R anti-aircraft shells with AR-32 radar fuses. And it doesn’t seem like it happened that nominally such anti-aircraft shells are included in the ammunition load, but in fact there are 50 of them in warehouses throughout the country, and of them, conditionally, only one in ten fires when fired. If so, then it destroys the whole idea in the bud.

If there are enough A3-UZS-44R anti-aircraft shells of 130 mm caliber with AR-32 radar fuses, and their reliability and effectiveness are confirmed, then the use of A-222 "Bereg" complexes as an air defense system can become one of the simplest and most effective ways to significantly increase the security of critical facilities from massive attacks by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), artillery and MLRS.

For example, the city of Kherson, as the most important foothold of the RF Armed Forces on the right bank of the Dnieper, and the infrastructure adjacent to it, as well as the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, whose destruction can lead to unimaginable consequences, can be indicated as such objects.

Potentially, covering each of these facilities with six A-222 Bereg complexes integrated with other air defense systems will make it possible to largely devalue enemy air attacks. In addition, do not forget about the artillery essence of the A-222 "Bereg" complex - if necessary, half a dozen of these machines can bring down a steel hail of 72 shells per minute or 240 shells of full ammunition on the advancing enemy in less than four minutes.

PS

There are some more interesting questions:

1. Can A3-UZS-44R anti-aircraft shells be used against ground targets as air-blasted munitions and what will be their effectiveness with this use case?

2. Can AR-32 radar fuses be installed in 152 mm caliber shells to use the latter to destroy air targets?

3. Are other radar fuses of the AR line (AR-5 ... AR-45) currently used in 152 mm caliber shells to provide air blasting, and if not, why not?

Comments

[Amateur]

If I understood correctly, then this article is about how to shoot correctly

From a cannon on sparrows

[Bingo]

Moreover, it is unclear why. For obvious reasons, it’s stupid not to get a high-speed target from artillery, you won’t have time to aim, on a single geranium or similar

with radar fuses

they won’t work, there is iron like in a box of stew, and the shell will be more expensive than Geranka, which, according to rumors, with a Chinese engine, the whole costs about 10000 bucks.

[Monar]

and the projectile will be more expensive than Geranka

And why do you only consider Geranka? Well, you save 100 on a projectile. And the conditional Geranka for 000 destroys the Mi-10 on the ground (an example from the bulldozer) at the cost of 000.
A direct comparison of the price of Geranium shell (and many similar ones) is simply not correct.

[Bingo]

This is only the second reason, there is also the first. The second reason suggests that in this case it is cost-effective to rivet geraniums in series - and even if they don’t even get anywhere - the damage in the form of a projectile has been done, the enemy will ruin himself. Like the Jews with their holey colander in the last confrontation with the Palestinians. 10 days - and Israel has nothing to shoot stupidly, no matter how cool, you have to sign peace

[Monar]

And if you don’t shoot down conditional cheap Gerankas with conditional expensive shells, then how quickly will you go bankrupt? In few days? Or three?
If you completely simplify, then why do expensive bulletproof vest, if it's just against a penny bullet?

[Hanurik]

We have already seen how the bourgeoisie wage war with their profitability. No more. The army should not have such a word as profitability, only price and efficiency.

[Bingo]

Quote: Hanurik

only price and efficiency

Price / quality, i.e. profitability is efficiency. Why did I cite Israel-Palestine as an example? Penny pipes on saltpeter - and the Iron Dome with hundreds of thousands for a rocket - 10 days - and Israel is NOT ABLE to fight with Palestine - the rockets are over. And Palestine still has their car. And a rocket, even a subsonic missile launcher flying overhead with an envelope of the terrain ...
So you have to think. There is a scope for electronic warfare, MZA, even machine guns such as GSHG for Geraniums - the 7,62 cartridge is cheap, and the GSHG from Geranium will make a colander in a second. but fuck such a complex. Not only expensive - WHAT to knock them down. Geranium will not blow up a projectile with a radio fuse, there is almost no metal there!

[Hanurik]

7.62 is absolutely ineffective, you just have to go to the shooting range and shoot a kilometer from the PKT. If such a bullet loses its energy very quickly in the horizon, then only itself can defend itself through the air. The minimum caliber in air defense is 12.7 mm.

[Bingo]

Quote: Hanurik

per kilometer from PKT.

With the rate of fire of the GShG, the minus turns into a plus - a cloud of bullets is scattered over the area, and a plastic flyer does not need lethality, a stone from a slingshot will break through there. However, do not care, 12,7 - so 12,7, the principle is the same - it's cheap, you can stick a lot and shoot until you're numb, they will lure UAVs to rivet - and just go broke on them themselves. And such a complex - well, where is it?

[SincerityX]

Well, with such logic, buckshot and shotgun cartridges will be even more effective. A quick-shot machine gun does not take long to assemble. That's just the air distance will be 500 meters. Although this could also be used if there was the production of cheap microelectronics for homing small turrets with a machine gun for installation directly at the facility, as the last frontier of missile defense

[iConst]

You have described the essence of the problem.
It was at a short distance and precisely with a "cloudy" projectile - cheap and covering a certain area.

Prerequisites:
1. The use of inexpensive kamikaze drones by the enemy is guaranteed to increase significantly.
2. At the moment, the current army air defense systems are ineffective against this class of weapons, possibly with the exception of electronic warfare. But electronic warfare has its own problems and limitations, which does not alleviate the problem.
3. The damage caused by the kamikaze drone is incomparable with its price, not in favor of the goal.

This also includes copter-bombers.

All of them have the following properties in common:
- Stealth
- Hard vulnerability (due to small dimensions) for "standard" weapons
- Economic effect (both in terms of damage and destruction costs)

But there are also downsides:
- Weak design
- Low speed and mobility
- Relatively weak warhead (undermining 15-20 meters from the target most likely will not cause significant damage to the latter)

From here, the appearance of a countermeasure weapon emerges: a rapid-fire "shotgun" equipped with an optical-radar station.

And apparently in two forms: installed on armored vehicles to cover other objects and as a module on more expensive products as a means of "individual" protection.

[SincerityX]

That's how I thought about it, that's why I gave an example. In addition, an automatic one is needed, because the crew will not have time to respond to a projectile approaching at a speed of 250-350 km / h (in a dive), or to a falling grenade (I assume that the radar will not be able to detect it immediately at high altitude) Radar should be used as cheap as possible - we do not need to see everything in 100 km, it is enough for us to detect targets in a kilometer.
That is, in the projection, a kind of "KAZ", but with a "shotgun" instead of an explosive block.

[hagen]

Quote: Monar

Geranka destroys Mi-10 on the ground for 000 (an example from a bulldozer) at a cost of 8.

The question is not the ratio of the price of the means of destruction to the target, but that a conditional "geranium for 10" can be made in a batch of 000 (conditionally), that if each "geranium" is hit with a supply more expensive than it, it will simply destroy the country's economy , which could not reduce the cost of the means of destruction of this very "geranium". Everything is simple ... Or do I need to explain something? In general, the article deserves attention, if only because today there really is no information about our successes in programmable fuses. The Europeans, if the media is not lying, have developed a universal fuse that works on the principle of counting the revolutions of a projectile in flight, which can be placed on a projectile of any caliber. What makes the process of its mass production even more cheaper. We have silence on this topic ...

[Monar]

Are you sure that shells with a "rev counter" can, in principle, cost less than a "geranium"? Yes, the same built-in electronics. And if for a "geranium" it is quite suitable "from a washing machine", then for a projectile there are much more stringent requirements for performance characteristics.
These means of attack are getting cheaper. A dozen geraniums instead of a cruise missile. And air defense systems are only getting more expensive. When the target is not one "bomber carrier of His Imperial Majesty", but a bunch of small fry, where the iron is only a dvigun from a lawn mower.

[hagen]

Quote: Monar

Are you sure that shells with a "rev counter" can, in principle, cost less than a "geranium"?

I can’t even imagine how much they can cost, but I think in a series of under a hundred thousand their price will be less than that of missiles. And significantly.

[Monar]

Controversial question. Tomorrow they will put turbojet engines on the same geraniums. They have been used in modeling for a long time. And you get a highly maneuverable and high-speed target. For which the guns simply will not keep up. And again, only missiles are against them. Everything repeats in a spiral. If for some Me-109 a (conditionally) quad "Maxim" was enough, then for the "Phantom" the S-75 was already needed.

[SincerityX]

Listen guys, what country are you for in general? "Geranki" are so used by the troops of the Russian Federation.

[Foul skeptic]

"Geranki" are so used by the troops of the Russian Federation.

This is for now. Or do you think the other side will have problems creating an analogue?

[SincerityX]

I think there will be no problems, but you should not call them "Geraniums" then - the ear hurts. Yes, and their performance characteristics will probably be different, do they have Motor Sich, which, unlike our turbojet plants, seemed to work? Or I'm wrong? Yes, even if I’m wrong, Siemens definitely won’t work out how to develop a one-time turbojet engine for these drones. Even if I have my own ideas of cheap turbojet engines, what kind is there, if even a pipe blogger built a turbojet engine from a tin can. (Look for "Microjet Engine" from Igor Negoda)

[iConst]

Quote: A vile skeptic

"Geranki" are so used by the troops of the Russian Federation.

This is for now. Or do you think the other side will have problems creating an analogue?

For a long time. Switchblade - several thousand will be delivered to the APU.

[Foul skeptic]

Switchblade is not the same. Both in terms of purpose and method of application.

[engineer74]

Quote: A vile skeptic

"Geranki" are so used by the troops of the Russian Federation.

This is for now. Or do you think the other side will have problems creating an analogue?

Problems will not arise if they are not created! The total destruction of energy and logistics, for example ...

[Foul skeptic]

1) There will be no problems to move production to a third country.
2) Naive people who believe that delivering strikes on the energy sector in isolation from the combination of such strikes with a prepared large-scale offensive only leads to the fact that such strikes on the energy sector will be delivered in response. The media are embarrassed to tell you, and the news of Kherson has overshadowed everything, but in the LPR and DPR, the targeted removal of substations has already begun. It is still of a precautionary nature, but the position has been outlined for us.

[Monar]

I know. In this discussion, the word "Geranki" has become (in my opinion) a household name. Meaning a cruise missile with a piston engine.

[Rome]

Cheaper means of inspiration does not eliminate the need for protection! In the new conditions, you need to look for opportunities to reduce the cost of protection and the proposed option, if it is working, then why not try it as an option! And most importantly, the tactics and strategy of war are changing, which is based on at least the presence of parity in the means of supply and competent tactics and strategies for their use!

[Monar]

Who would argue? Only now, from my sofa, I don’t see a practical cheap solution to the problem with conditional geraniums. Or an expensive shot. Which is already in place he understands what's what. Or just a pig. Which an expensive control system will bring to a tin can at a distance per kilometer.

[Non-fighter]

and the projectile will be more expensive than Geranka, which, according to rumors, with a Chinese engine, the whole costs about 10000 bucks

It depends how you count. If at the cost of the target, then yes, if at the cost of the protected object, then no.

[insafufa]

Geraniums, which, according to rumors, with a Chinese engine, all costs about 10000 bucks.

Well, just for a geranium, three shells from the coast will be enough if the control center is given an accurate one. A remote detonation shot for a 130mm cannon cost 1000 ye with a tail fully equipped. in 2002.

[dementor873]

Article from the category we will help the army
1)bulk
2) cheap
3) fast
You can only select 2 items.

[SergeyB]

Quote: Amateur

If I understood correctly, then this article is about how to shoot correctly

But I don’t understand the author’s conviction that remote detonation significantly increases the likelihood of a downing. Naturally, the author did not cite any research on this topic.
But let's try to think logically. We take a caliber of 30 mm. In fact, all air defense installations in this caliber fire automatically. Often, such installations are capable of releasing tens and hundreds of shells per second. But even such a rate of fire is not capable of providing an acceptable probability of hitting a target. Therefore, various tricks are required, such as remote detonation.
At first glance, remote detonation really increases the likelihood of somehow hooking the target. But there is a nuance.
If earlier a full-weight 30 mm projectile flew into the target. This projectile inflicted serious damage by piercing the target's hull, then after the detonation there is a high-explosive and slightly incendiary effect. And of course, fragments from the projectile, which caused the maximum possible damage, since the projectile usually exploded inside the target.
Now let's take remote detonation. It seems that the probability of at least somehow hooking the target is higher. But what will be the impact on the target?
In the explosion of 30 mm ammunition, for obvious reasons, a small number of very small (and therefore low-energy) fragments are formed.
And the same drones are not gentle creatures that wallow from any impact.
I watched a report about one "Orlan-10" from Syria. During its operation, this device was pierced several times (at different times) through bullets. Which did not stop him from using (after field repair) again and again. But a bullet is capable of causing UAVs many times more damage than microscopic fragments from a 30 mm projectile.
In general, studies are needed to determine whether a remote detonation is capable of causing serious damage to a target at all.

[Vlodek]

as if looking at what will become a fragment. if a piece of magnesium incendiary alloy, then quite ... a plastic geranium will burn through. an ordinary salute, when blown up on the flight path of a geranium, will burn everything you want within a radius of 300-400 meters. the only question is the delivery of this salute charge to the altitude of the aircraft

[insafufa]

So you friend are not right or right in part as you please. 1. To begin with, Reinmetal went down a very good and logically correct path. remember about shrapnel ammunition, thereby increasing the likelihood of damaging a small target. If larger shells are needed to destroy aircraft and it is desirable to hit Hit-to-Kill with an explosion inside the object to detonate fuel, this is also true for large missiles and large drones, since the mass and inertia of the ammunition, even in the event of a defeat, will still allow it to fly towards the target or into direction of the target.
2. A completely different situation with the defeat of small targets, which is the UAV Orlan 10, back in World War II, they derived the formula for the mass of a second salvo to saturate the area of ​​​​flight of an object with fragments or bullets. And oddly enough, we are given a hint by hunters who, the larger the game, the larger the shot, and vice versa, the smaller the game, the smaller the shot. since the probability of hitting needs to be increased by saturating the target's flight area.
3. if you have a gun, the larger the more it can deviate from the target, therefore you need more ready-made fragments. They went this way to the Bofors, supplying their 40mm shells with ready-made submunitions from tungsten and bearing production waste. They did the same in Rheinmetal but made shotguns out of their shells. the distance for undermining can not be determined very accurately, but the accuracy needs high guidance with relatively small accuracy.
3. Your statement that the bullets will save, I do not agree that the bullets are a tool of last resort, since their range is not long and the KVO is large at a longer range. Against any small UAV, a shotgun works great, which I personally tested when the maverick shot a duck while hunting, the maverick didn’t get into the trash.

[Thrifty]

For the battle zone, the Coalition of the SV is needed, and to work on Himars MLRS missiles, you really need ammunition with remote detonation. They are also necessary to defeat kamikaze drones. And it is inefficient to use the tools of the Bereg complex against MLRS missiles! In general, ideally, it is high time to start a real hunt for MLRS, for this you need, first of all, means of searching for multiple rocket launchers, and hit them with a pair of Lancets, and not fence the garden.

[Nikolaevich I]

The main issue determining the feasibility of integrating the A-222 "Bereg" complexes into the air defense system is the availability and effectiveness of A3-UZS-44R anti-aircraft shells with AR-32 radar fuses. And it doesn’t seem like it happened that nominally such anti-aircraft shells are included in the ammunition load, but in fact there are 50 of them in warehouses throughout the country, and of them, conditionally, only one in ten fires when fired. If so, then it destroys the whole idea in the bud.
Finally ! Mitrofanov nevertheless remembered the "non-commissioned officer's widow" and decided to flog himself ... although, perhaps not ... so, slap yourself on the ass! Try now to find "anti-aircraft 130-mm shells"! By the way, when the "Coast" was being developed, it almost became a 152-mm-vym! But lovers of 130 turned out to be more sneaky! But did the army really need this 130-mm "Coast"? Is it worth recalling the "eskirements" of the Americans to shoot down air targets from a "field" 155-mm howitzer? And in Russia, the candidate is "Coalition-SV" with a rate of fire of 16 rounds per minute. ! True, they were produced only in the amount of 12 pieces and are still being finalized, but the main thing is to start! And there things will speed up, since Putin promised to personally insert chopiki into ... well, guess for yourself where!

[bk0010]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

Is it worth remembering the Americans' "escorts" to shoot down air targets from a "field" 155-mm howitzer?

It’s not worth it: at one time the Americans tried to make universal 155 mm caliber guns. As a result, the air defense light cruiser turned out to be 18000 tons of displacement (heavy cruiser Baltimore - 15000 tons). Yes, a lot has changed since then, but I don’t think that a gun lightened to the state of 777 will be able to have an anti-aircraft gun rate of fire and serve more than once at the same time. Yes, and the power of 6 "is redundant: any modern drone will get 130 mm (except for the Global Hawk), and modern guidance tools will make it possible to manage with a caliber more modest than 6".

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

Try now to find "anti-aircraft 130 mm shells"!

Why look for them? Do you remember why the navy clung to the 130-mm caliber at the "Coast", although they were offered 152-mm? That's right - the unification of ammunition. And in the fleet, shipborne AK-130s are, among other things, an air defense weapon, having ZS-44 and ZS-44R shells with a remote and radio fuse in the BC.

[Toucan]

Previously, the niche of unscientific fiction in VO was occupied by the unforgettable Damantsev, now Mitrofanov has taken up this thankless task.

Quite a decent firing range, about 23 kilometers, is combined with a high rate of fire - up to 12 rounds per minute.

This is the firing range at surface (ground) targets, and only with a big stretch in modern realities can it be called "decent". The maximum firing range against air targets will be approximately 30% less. In addition, without an advanced radar for detecting air targets and the associated FCS, the effectiveness of artillery installations will tend to zero. The presence of 130-mm shells with a radio fuse in the ammunition load raises great doubts, at least there is no evidence that they exist in nature. The author once again "pulls the owl on the globe", which is tiring.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

It depends on which drones to shoot. For small and hanging shrapnel shells or even just buckshot, it will be enough. Sufficient visual observation and approximate guidance.

[SincerityX]

Even relatively inexpensive ceiling - 5km. The buckshot will fly up well, a maximum of 1 km, and then if the wind blows in his ass.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

In addition to buckshot, there is also shrapnel, and the buckshot itself has an effective range of 200 meters.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Tucan

The presence of 130-mm shells with a radio fuse in the ammunition load raises great doubts, at least there is no evidence that they exist in nature.

Isn't "Bereg" unified in terms of ammunition with the AK-130?

[acetophenone]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

And there things will speed up, since Putin promised to personally insert chopsticks

Do you feel the difference between "marry" and "promised to marry"?

[Bogalex]

But now some "veteran" from the apparatus of the Ministry of Defense will read this, and a dozen specialists, instead of really useful work, will be cut off from their direct duties for a week in order to explain to the minister or the NGS in an accessible way why it is categorically it is not worth wasting efforts, time and money ... And it's not a fact that they will be able to.
There is such a way to undermine the enemy's military economy - directing his activities into a deliberately inefficient or even impossible, but very resource-intensive research / production. Is the author definitely not going down this path?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

It certainly won't take weeks to abandon an idea. You can always refer to the small number available in combat readiness. But the fact that it is time to connect self-propelled artillery to the fight against drones is a completely sound idea.

[Bogalex]

Sergey, there is nothing sensible in this thought. Each ram must lay its own eggs. Artillery - to ensure the solution of the tasks of combined arms units by defeating uncovered ground targets, military air defense - by arresting the same grouping of ground forces of all kinds of threats from the air. I emphasize - ALL POSSIBLE. This is precisely the task of air defense and a draw more. Wasting the most valuable resource of artillery for this is a crime.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

It depends on what tasks, by what means and at what cost to solve. Artillery can be equipped with both optical guidance tools to destroy hovering reconnaissance drones using shrapnel and buckshot, as well as more sophisticated means. Up to the point that new 120-mm self-propelled guns "Phlox" should be introduced into each motorized rifle, and not just airborne battalions and equipped with shrapnel and buckshot. Specialized air defense systems for small, and far from harmless drones, are not enough and are already not enough.

[Blackgrifon]

Quote: Bogalex

now some "veteran" from the apparatus of the Moscow Region

If the "veterans" from the apparatus of the Moscow Region had read VO, then we would not be in the situation we have now.

[Bogalex]

Believe me, they read. The Defense Ministry has specialized structures responsible for monitoring specialized media, including the one we are on.
The trouble is that, firstly, he is far from alone, and secondly, that the quality of VO materials has noticeably dipped over the past. Alas...

[old rats]

Here, recently, a friend named Skomorokhov, in an article on the obsolescence of towed artillery, complained that we do not have wheeled self-propelled artillery installations.
Say, they have a number of advantages over tracked ones (in particular, a larger resource).
But the A-222 is just such a system. What prevents it from being used in the army? (Besides the unpopular caliber?)
Why is she not successful? Why have you never heard of it being used?

[d.zacharith]

For naval shells, they fly along different trajectories because

[SincerityX]

What is it? It will be interesting to hear how the ballistic trajectory differs from the "naval" one.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: old rats

But the A-222 is just such a system. What prevents it from being used in the army? (Besides the unpopular caliber?)

Change the “Bereg” turret to the one from the “Coalition-SV” and the Army will have a normal self-propelled gun, unified with the rest in terms of ammunition load of 152mm caliber, otherwise the “Coalition-SV” variant on the KAMAZ chassis is not in an arc at all.

[Bogalex]

Does the "tower from the "Coalition-SV"" exist?

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Bogalex

Does the "tower from the "Coalition-SV"" exist?

We are talking about this thing that is on the chassis of the tank. What do you think it's called?

[Bogalex]

j

We are talking about this thing that is on the chassis of the tank. What do you think it's called?

It's called a prototype absent from the troops, with currently unknown prospects.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Bogalex

j

We are talking about this thing that is on the chassis of the tank. What do you think it's called?

It's called a prototype absent from the troops, with currently unknown prospects.

.... The development of the 2S35 self-propelled guns began in 2006. In 2013, the first self-propelled guns were produced, and in 2014 a limited series of self-propelled guns for military and state tests was released. The ACS has been in service since 2015.....

[Bogalex]

Yes, this is a photograph of a certain number of SAO 2S35 units (whether 6 or 10 - it's not clear) delivered to an unnamed ZVO formation to participate in parades on Red Square.
But now in our country the situation is slightly different, if you are not aware.
Have you seen a photograph of at least one "Coalition" crushing the enemy in the NWO? Me not.

[SincerityX]

I think they call it "house"

[Oleg Ogorod]

Here, even I do not quite understand what and how. On wheels, there are two options. 152 caliber. We lower the coast.
On KAMAZ, it seems to be a new barrel, from a coalition, with a new knob.
On the other chassis is heavier, judging by the knob, the good old 2A64. Which supposedly has a shorter barrel.

And then my brain explodes.
Both are called mallow. But which of them is the true mallow...

[Bad_gr]

The Malva self-propelled gun is the one in the top picture, on the BAZ-6010-027 chassis, and with a 152-mm 2A64 gun from the Msta-S tracked self-propelled gun. This should go to replace towed artillery (similar to the French "CAESAR")
In the lower picture, the wheeled version of the 2S35 "Coalition-SV" is called 2S35-1 (ROC "Coalition-SV-KSh")

The gun from the "Coalition-SV" (2A88, caliber 152-mm) was also tried on the tracked 2C5 "Hyacinth-S"

[insafufa]

On the platform of the genocide, the coalition itself was tested, not to make the automatic loader and the entire self-propelled guns before the gun was run in. Here on this machine they ran in

[garri-lin]

Price. There is an opinion that the Coast is a very expensive toy.

[Virus-free crown]

The longer the Russian special operation in Ukraine continues, the more impudent the enemy becomes, the more precision-guided munitions are sent to Ukraine.

Another propaganda article for a child prodigy has no analogues
Bugs begin literally in the first sentence - the cause is confused with the effect
The enemy does not become impudent - he just becomes stronger. And it becomes stronger because we allow it. But this is so, the little things of life against the general background of the article)))

[Scharnhorst]

An additional option of the coastal defense artillery complex to combat air targets can be effective against huge Chinook or Stellen-type helicopters or our Mi-26, when the speed of an unguided projectile is an order of magnitude higher than the speed of the target. To hit something at a speed near the sound, you need at least a threefold advantage in speed and control on the trajectory. To hit a supersonic target, you must also add a maneuver with an overload of 30-50 units. Next come the possibilities and prices of strategic missile defense. Therefore, the best air defense is tanks at the enemy airfield ...

[Oleg Ogorod]

Already recently passed, tanks at the Kiev airfield. Only Mriya was destroyed, and it seems like other civilian transport workers in a certain amount.
When the tanks got there, there were no more military aircraft.
Therefore, at airfields you need iskanders and calibers. Which was sort of effective in the beginning. The 100 aircraft declared at the beginning of the war by the Armed Forces of Ukraine quickly ran out, but suddenly they still had a couple of hundred. It is not clear where they take off from, since there are almost no statements by the general about the destruction of airfields.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Scharnhorst

when the speed of the unguided projectile is an order of magnitude higher than the speed of the target. To hit something at a speed near the sound, you need at least a threefold advantage in speed and control on the trajectory.

Damn, you don't know anything about preemption? And about the initial speed of 870 m / s for a 130 mm gun? And why control the projectile when hitting a NON-MANEUVERING target?

Quote: Scharnhorst

To hit a supersonic target, you must also add a maneuver with an overload of 30-50 units

This is if the target is maneuvering. MLRS missiles do not maneuver, they taxi up to a maximum to reduce the KVO.

[Scharnhorst]

In order to hit a ship from such a caliber or a tank at close range, you need a laser rangefinder, a ballistic computer and a receiver programmer. Anti-aircraft guns of a similar caliber and rate of fire fired whole batteries and divisions at aircraft not in advance, but in barrage fire. This is not my idea, historical experience. You are a "legurary" reader of VO ... !!!

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Scharnhorst

In order to hit a ship from such a caliber or a tank at close range, you need a laser rangefinder, a ballistic computer and a receiver programmer.

Uh, do you want to say that all this, plus the Bereg complex does not have a radar? Let me disagree .... (programmers are far from always installed on the muzzle, if that)

Quote: Scharnhorst

Anti-aircraft guns of a similar caliber and rate of fire fired whole batteries and divisions at aircraft not in advance, but in barrage fire.

Barrage fire is, in a way, preemptive fire. Only in those years, the difficulties with determining the distance / height and with the accuracy of setting the fuse were noticeably (fundamentally) greater than now. Well, the planes and even the formations maneuvered.

Quote: Scharnhorst

This is not my idea, historical experience. You are a "legurary" reader of VO ..

Not only, not only VO, and not only me ...

[SincerityX]

15m pits instead of hangars will also cope

[Dronza]

In fact, for the modern realities of coastal defense, these systems are already outdated - the range is not the same. And in a real artillery hunger during the NWO, these systems would be very useful, normal mobile self-propelled guns. Why rust in hangars.

[Oleg Ogorod]

Yeah, if there are shells for them. Marine shells were not made as much as land ones. There are too few naval guns. The complex is relatively old, long out of production.
Now they are starting to make 152 mm mallow on wheels. It will be better. The main thing is that it has guided high-precision projectiles. And this is the problem.
Three deuces, this was precisely the complex, designed for use in coastal defense as a howitzer. Guidance was given to him by the machines of the complex - the central control post.
Our generals came up with a war in which they would like to fight, and weapons were ordered for this.
But modern warfare turned out to be somewhat different. And they weren't ready for it.
However, this took place in 1941.
In the 90s, the destruction of the electronic industry of the USSR began. She was already lame, and with the collapse of the country, the leading factories ended up in different countries. ALPHA In Riga, Integral in Minsk, Crystal in Kyiv. Part of factories in Georgia and Armenia.
And now the electronics are in trouble. A complete monopoly of factories that are in different hands, many in private. A monopoly allows you to dictate terms and prices.
Under Stalin, this was not the case. Deadlines were given to directors.

[Non-fighter]

In principle, the idea is not bad to put such a complex on the protection of the ZNPP. There are both water and air targets :)

[Oleg Ogorod]

The central control post can quickly get screwed up. Its location will be quickly seen by both drones and Americans from a satellite. And in an instant they will cover it with accurate missiles with a direct channel from the satellite. And without it, these self-propelled guns mean little and can.
Times are different. If earlier it stood on the shore, it could only be taken from an approaching ship, but it is very difficult and there are few ships and their position is known, then the arrival can be from any place from that shore.

[huntsman650]

dvm-60, in the navy, on the NK, when shooting at the CC, it sets OUT (automatic tube installer). According to the CVM, which calculates the flight time of the projectile to the target. DVM-60 initially stand on impact action.
There is also a mode of shooting bursts at the NLC. The big question is the effectiveness of the use of artillery in the CC.

[Mustached Kok]

Having a cannon with shells with remote detonation is certainly not bad. But an "air defense gun" is also needed. After all, heavy 130 and 152 mm guns of both the fleet and the SV, due to their size and weight, are not capable of aiming at the target as quickly as 57 or 100 mm guns. And since we are talking about air defense, the speed of response is important.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Mustachioed Kok

heavy 130 and 152 mm guns of both the fleet and the SV, due to their size and weight, are not capable of aiming at the target as quickly as 57 or 100 mm guns.

It is not necessary to aim guns ... you can aim shells!

[Mustached Kok]

Changing the trajectory of projectiles (especially if the deviations of the direction of the barrel from the direction of the target differ by more than 90 °) leads to strong energy losses. This means a decrease in speed, which means a loss of time, which means a decrease in the chance of defeat.

[Vladimir Dmitrievich Burtsev]

Of course, the artillery and missile launchers of the coastal defense units of the Black Sea Fleet could have been more active in helping their counterparts in the NMD from the RF Armed Forces. Yes, and participation in the NWO of marines from the Black Sea Fleet is also not to be seen. Our sailors have fallen into hibernation, waiting for the next drone raid from VFU.

[Mazunga]

it is possible to reactivate quadruple maxims from warehouses if they have not yet been sold in Malawi

[Adrey]

Already by the heading "Mitrofanovshchina" I see

[Adrey]

Quote: Adrey

Already by the heading "Mitrofanovshchina" I see

But seriously, why is Bereg not considered as a highly mobile, long-range wheeled self-propelled gun? It seems that here it is, an analogue of "Archer" and "Caesar". You don't even have to reinvent the wheel.
Or maybe that's why it's not interesting because you don't need to invent? Can't you cut the dough for R&D?

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Adrey

But seriously, why is Bereg not considered as a highly mobile, long-range wheeled self-propelled gun? It seems that here it is, an analogue of "Archer" and "Caesar". You don't even have to reinvent the wheel.

Nope, not analog. "Caesar" and the company are either a cheap replacement for towed artillery systems, or a cheap second-line self-propelled guns for places where a full-fledged tracked self-propelled guns are redundant. Ideally, such self-propelled guns should generally be a combination of a mass-produced truck chassis, the same serial gun and SUAO.
And "Bereg" is an expensive complex of non-standard caliber for the army on a special chassis, sharpened for firing with central aiming at moving targets.
If it is remade for army TTT, then it is easier to make "Malva". For the first requirement of the boots will be - install a 152 mm barrel. And immediately the Polovtsian dances around recoil, dimensions, etc. will begin.

And most importantly, our army would first learn to use what we have. And so far, even with the defeat of towed howitzers firing, there are problems.

[Adrey]

Of course I agree with you. But just the whole "highlight" is that a mass truck (which is not available without imported components), 152 with its recoil, a new SUAO under 152, a new turret (because it won't get on wheels with a harp without changes) and here's a ready-made R&D for years on 10
And "Beach" is here, here and now. Even the SUAO can be simplified to reduce the cost. Fortunately, he does not work on ships

Quote: Alexey RA

And most importantly, our army would first learn to use what we have. And so far, even with the defeat of towed howitzers firing, there are problems.

This is a completely different song. Network-centricity only looks like it on paper and in dreams

[Roman Efremov]

Interesting idea! As an anti-ship self-propelled gun "Bereg" is no longer relevant - this is a fact. But do not disappear the same good?

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Roman Efremov

As an anti-ship self-propelled gun "Bereg" is no longer relevant - this is a fact.

But to stop attempts to force the Dnieper (or cover the Crimean coast) would be in the profile.

[Sedoy]

however, no further information on this subject has been reported to date.

Putin: "... The Government of the Russian Federation, together with the Russian Ministry of Defense ... bring the standards for the provision of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, other troops, military formations and bodies with material resources in accordance with the real needs that arise during the conduct of a special military operation, taking into account the intensity use and depreciation of material assets Deadline - November 14, 2022"
---
According to this order, Putin put an end to the state arms program, on which Russia has spent more than 20 trillion rubles over the past 10 years.
This means a complete cessation of purchases and financing of weapons in the same volume and according to previously developed plans. The development of a new state program, for which it was planned to spend an additional 22 trillion rubles, was also completely stopped.
Now our state needs to "revise its priorities" based on the experience of a special military operation.
Russia launched the previous program back in 2010. Every five years it was only expanded and sent for its implementation as much as two-thirds of the defense budget.
And according to this plan, by 2020 the Russian troops should already have Armata tanks, new strategic bombers, 600 aircraft and thousands of helicopters.
At the same time, the share of modern weapons was to grow to 70%.
Where is all this?

[bk0010]

The idea of ​​reviving large-caliber anti-aircraft artillery to fight drones seems reasonable and promising to me. The idea of ​​​​using coastal defense systems for this is a bad one: this is not an anti-aircraft gun. No, you can take the same gun, but everything else can be redone.

[Sedoy]

the advantage of the A-222 "Bereg" complex is a wheeled chassis that allows you to quickly change position ... they could quickly move into position, deal a crushing blow to the enemy and go deep into Russian battle formations.

according to TTX - Transfer time to combat position - 20 min
watch the video - everything is done with handles - supports, for example ...
those. time in combat and vice versa is commensurable ...
shot - ran away, it doesn’t work out with the current options for a counter-battery, dill has a reaction of several minutes ...

[Sedoy]

there is another question that is questionable
according to ttx:
Maximum target speed - 185 km / h
I did not find data on the speed of the HIMARS rocket, but there is general data on the MLRS "The MLRS projectile flies at a speed of 700-800 m / s"
we consider: 700 m / s is 700 meters per second \u2520d XNUMX kilometers per hour
data from online calculator Convert units: meter per second [m/s] to kilometer per hour [km/h]

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

There are also similar doubts about the ability of the complex to hit high-speed targets. It is rather against helicopters and Bayraktar-type drones.

[Sedoy]

namely, the type of shahid / geranium 180 km per hour

[Georgy Sviridov_2]

About the projectiles. There are no electronics there. There, the old shells are actually like in 130mm anti-aircraft guns and 130mm universal guns of the fleet from the Second World War. There were anti-aircraft guns and there were shells, but there were no electronics. These are more modern shells of the 60-70s. They cost garbage and a lot of them were riveted for the fleet.

[Georgy Sviridov_2]

Now about the detonation of 20-30-35-40 mm shells ... This is all a hat.
The smaller the electronics, the more complex and expensive it is. But money is bullshit, you can print them, but laboriousness ... We need tens and hundreds of millions of such shells ... etc. This electronics eats up a place for explosives, and there are already few explosives, there are few fragments and they are light ...
As a result, such fragments can probably bring down Orion or a fury, even a geranium is already heavier, and a helicopter like Mi-28 does not care about these fragments at all ...
As a result, against light drones, it is easier to use rapid-fire machine guns such as gshg or yakb, or foreign miniguns. Against medium drones, 23-35 mm cannons, high-altitude ones - to hit with missiles.
And invest not in expensive and difficult-to-manufacture shells, but in more effective suos, radars and opto-location stations, so that the complex itself takes all the lead and hits the target in the first turn.
57-76 mm is already different there, in general, remote detonation is more interesting, because there are already more explosives, you can stick balls or rods and they will be effective, and most importantly, such a projectile will be dangerous for all aircraft and UAVs and turntables and attack aircraft, as well as manpower and light ground equipment.

[km-21]

... no matter how it turns out that nominally such anti-aircraft shells are included in the ammunition load, but in fact there are 50 of them in warehouses throughout the country, and of them, conditionally, only every tenth works when fired ...

Such a situation should be equated with treason, and the perpetrators should be punished accordingly. If the perpetrators are not found, then the leadership of the relevant services of the Ministry of Defense, up to the minister and his cabinet, must answer according to the Law.

[Zaurbek]

Why carry 130mm? This will be the largest machine at a depth of 30-50 km and not one, there are 2-3 more pieces to it. The main calibers at sea are 37mm, 57mm and 75mm……..The Italians presented, for example, a 75mm module on a truck. It is necessary to work on such machines precisely on the basis of serial army trucks. Chinese people are testing 30mm Gatling 7-11 barrels.

[Kostadinov]

Finally, quite a few people came to the realization of the obvious and simple idea that it is necessary to rivet cheap weapons in large quantities - thousands, tens of thousands, even better hundreds of thousands. What needs to be trained and armed is a large land army of millions of soldiers.
I must say thanks to the Armed Forces of Ukraine for knocking illusions out of the heads of the generals of the Russian Federation.

м

[Dormidontych]

The article was late, Kherson has already been leaked.

[Pavel57]

China introduced the Land Shield 76 melee air defense system (76-mm rapid-fire gun) capable of withstanding missiles, drones, light and medium armored targets and enemy manpower.

[futurohunter]

The best air defense means is the early destruction of enemy air attack weapons

[Parvis rasulov]

For a projectile with a radio fuse, nothing is needed, it undermines itself when a target like instant 19 flies past it up to 50 meters from the projectile, the main thing is to fire a shot in the exact direction from where the target may appear for this in the KS 19 complex, KS 30 (KS 130) was station SON 9. (In the war in Yugoslavia, large-caliber anti-aircraft guns became a nightmare for NATO aviation. By the way, after the collapse of the USSR, one of the requirements for the leadership of the new Russia was to get rid of large-caliber anti-aircraft guns, destructive bomber aircraft, aircraft carriers and aircraft-carrying cruisers and in 1993 and all these types armaments were decommissioned by Yeltsin's decree, this is so an excursion into the history of the new Russia)

[mmaxx]

We would try this system at the front.

[Ivan Mak_2]

Quote: Georgy Sviridov_2

And invest not in expensive and difficult-to-manufacture shells, but in more effective suos, radars and opto-location stations, so that the complex itself takes all the lead and hits the target in the first turn.

Absolutely right! It is in this direction that modern high-precision systems are developing now. Components of modern effective artillery weapons:
1) a network-centric target designation system that transmits data in real time, prioritizing targets and distributing them among specific guns
2) an ammunition guidance system that allows you to control, if not its movement, then at least the moment of detonation
3) the ammunition itself, which has at least a radio fuse, as a maximum - trajectory correction systems
4) carrier mobility - a wheeled or tracked vehicle capable of quickly - ideally in less than a minute - brought into combat position.
For the Russian Federation, the closest to such systems among those existing, at least in experimental batches, is Derivation - Air Defense with its new range of 57-mm shells, including both corrected and remotely detonated.
As for the Coast specifically, for its anti-ship tasks it is a worthy system, although of the listed advantages it has so far only network-centricity, which, in fact, is no longer small.
As a means of air defense, it is probably only possible against low-maneuverable targets such as a drone and will require fuses for remote detonation and deep integration with air defense systems. Purely hypothetically, a volley and simultaneous detonation of several 130-mm projectiles on the path of the drone at a distance of tens of meters from each other can probably create an insurmountable wall of fragments for it.

[usm5]

All these suggestions are good, but they are secondary. It is necessary to deprive the enemy of the source of targeting of high-precision weapons. Currently, this source is the NATO satellite constellation. It not only directs precision weapons, but also prevents the Russian group from conducting its operations covertly. Therefore, from my point of view, it is necessary to make every effort to destroy it. Such a move would seriously weaken NATO and cause no loss of life, so there would be no strong emotional pressure on NATO leaders from the public. At the same time, the losses of our army will decrease significantly. For the sake of this, one can "spit" on all treaties and conventions, as our sworn partners do. Well, if such actions in space lead to further escalation in the face of a global thermonuclear war, then it was inevitable anyway, but we will already have to fight in it with an enemy who "gouged out his eyes and cut off his ears."