Coastal artillery complex A-222 "Bereg" and its capabilities

103
Coastal artillery complex A-222 "Bereg" and its capabilities
Means of the Bereg complex in position


The Russian Navy solves the problem of protecting the coast by various means. One of them is the A-222 Bereg self-propelled coastal artillery complex, capable of finding various surface targets and hitting them with precise fire. This complex was built using a number of interesting technical ideas, due to which it differs significantly from other artillery systems and effectively solves its problems.



Long way to the troops


In the mid-seventies, in the course of regular theoretical work, it was established that the coastal forces of the Navy required not only anti-ship missiles, but also artillery systems to effectively protect the coast. Guns with a firing range of no more than tens of kilometers were proposed to be used against targets near the coast or on land, and in addition, they were supposed to cover the dead zones of anti-ship missiles.

The development of such a coastal artillery complex (BAK) was launched in 1976. The creation of the project with the code "Coast" was entrusted to OKB-2 of the Volgograd enterprise "Barricades" (now NPC "Titan-Barricades") and several related enterprises, which were responsible for the creation and supply of individual components. Work started at the end of the year and continued for several years. In 1980, the design documentation was transferred to production.

Due to the overall complexity of the project, certain difficulties and a general negative background, the first experimental Bereg complex was built only in 1988. Soon it was sent to Crimea to undergo testing at the Black Sea testing grounds fleet. These activities continued until 1992, and the promising UAV confirmed all the calculated characteristics, and also demonstrated the ability to hit various targets in a given range.

The A-222 product was accepted into service with the coastal forces of the Navy only in 1996. The launch of serial production and supply of equipment to the troops also took time. The first production complex was transferred to the Black Sea Fleet only in 2003. Then deliveries continued, but in limited quantities.


Self-propelled central post of the A-222 complex

According to various sources, no more than 5-6 complexes were built over the entire period; the total number of artillery systems in their composition is 36 units. Each complex is organizationally a division with three batteries of two self-propelled guns each. Due to the specifics of the tasks being solved, only the Black Sea Fleet has such divisions.

Technical features


The A-222 "Bereg" is a self-propelled artillery system with 130 mm caliber guns, capable of independently and without external assistance detecting and hitting various surface and ground targets. Combat work is ensured in prepared and unprepared positions, at any time of the day and in a wide range of weather conditions, as well as in the face of enemy opposition.

The Bereg BAK division includes a central post, six self-propelled artillery units and one or two combat duty support vehicles. All means of the complex are built on special wheeled chassis MAZ-543M, due to which high mobility and agility are achieved. In addition, wheeled chassis have operational advantages over tracked ones.

The central post of "Berega" is a self-propelled vehicle with a kung van, which houses the necessary equipment and work stations. The CPU crew includes 7 people. The curb weight is 43,7 tons, but the load-lifting chassis provides high mobility.

The CPU of the A-222 complex is equipped with its own radar and optical location station. They provide detection and tracking of surface objects of various sizes at a distance of at least 35 km. Two detection channels can operate in several modes, from manual to fully automatic. In this case, the coordinates of the target are calculated and data for firing is provided. Commands are transmitted to the self-propelled guns via radio channel.


artillery mount

The self-propelled artillery mount for the Bereg received a fighting compartment in the form of a large rotating turret containing weapons, crew positions, etc. In the stowed position, the turret is turned with the gun forward, and the barrel is placed next to the chassis cabin. In the combat position, the self-propelled gun is placed with its stern in the direction of the target and turns the gun backwards. The tower can be rotated within 120° to the right and left of the longitudinal axis.

The 130-mm gun for the Bereg was developed based on the gun from the AK-130 shipborne mount. When transferred to a ground-based self-propelled gun, the gun received a developed muzzle brake and an ejector. The swinging part of the installation is built using components of the 2S19 Msta-S self-propelled gun and allows vertical guidance from -5° to +50°. Aiming drives are electric and manual backup.

The gun uses unitary rounds with four types of 130mm shells, also taken from naval artillery. There is a high-explosive F-44 projectile and an anti-aircraft ZS-44 projectile weighing up to 33,4 kg, as well as a practical and training projectile with a similar design. Two turret stowages hold 40 rounds. The ammunition is fed manually from placement onto the rammer tray. A rate of fire of up to 10 rounds/min is provided. Firing range – up to 20-23 km.

The commander and gunner have at their disposal devices for receiving commands from the CPU and controlling the turret actuators. The crew of the self-propelled gun also has its own sighting devices. There are two main operating modes - automatic under the control of a central post and autonomous, in which target detection and shooting are carried out independently.

Long-term work of artillerymen is ensured by combat duty support vehicles (MCSD). This equipment is equipped with kungs with a compartment for resting personnel, a small kitchen, etc. A machine gun is provided for self-defense. One MOBD can serve up to 10 people. within a few days.


High potential


In the past, during tests, the A-222 Bereg BAC confirmed the design characteristics and showed the ability to solve all expected tasks. Such results were obtained through the use of a number of important ideas and technical solutions of one kind or another, optimal for the intended scope of application.

First of all, you should pay attention to the approach to ensuring mobility. The complex was built on a wheeled chassis, which improved the transfer speed and simplified operation without significant losses in maneuverability - this parameter remained at an acceptable level. As a result, Bereg has high mobility and is capable of operating along the entire Black Sea coast.

The A-222 uses a modified 130 mm ship gun. The AK-130 and its “Bereg” variant show a fairly high firing range and use a large-caliber and high-power projectile. At the same time, logistics are optimized. Ships and shore units do not need to be supplied with different ammunition.

Of particular interest in the Shore project are control systems. The complex received its own radar and optical means, with the help of which it detects and tracks targets, fires and makes adjustments. Data processing is performed automatically. Firing is also carried out without human intervention, with the exception of general control over the operation of systems and the supply of ammunition.

A control system of this kind makes it possible to identify and hit all intended targets - surface objects of various sizes in open spaces and skerries, as well as ground targets in different landscapes. Of particular interest is the complex’s ability to attack and hit small moving targets, which present a certain complexity.


The effective use of the complex in different compositions is envisaged. It is possible to operate both all means and its individual self-propelled guns. However, in the latter case, the absence of a central post negatively affects the speed, accuracy and ability to adjust fire.

The 130-mm Berega gun has a firing range of up to 23 km. In this regard, it is inferior to modern domestic artillery systems, not to mention missile systems. Nevertheless, the achieved fire characteristics are fully consistent with the intended combat missions. Landing craft and other enemy targets operating near the coast are considered typical targets for the A-222. The existing projectile and a range of up to 20-23 km are quite sufficient to destroy them. A few hits can cause serious damage to larger targets.

Optimal variant


The A-222 “Bereg” coastal artillery complex occupies a special place in the armament system of the coastal forces of the Russian Navy. Unlike other artillery systems, it was created specifically for coastal defense, taking into account its needs and operating characteristics. Due to this, high efficiency of application is achieved in solving all intended problems.

Despite all its advantages, the Bereg UAV was produced in a limited series and entered service with only a few units. The total number of such equipment in service is small, and only one fleet has it. However, it is precisely in the zone of responsibility of the Black Sea Fleet that this complex can show the best results, both independently and together with other coastal defense systems. And in the current situation, such opportunities in the region, at a minimum, will not be superfluous.
103 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    14 November 2023 04: 58
    And in the current situation there are such opportunities in the region, at least they won’t be superfluous.
    recourse "I doubt it!" The coastal complex is defensive and the location of the collision is chosen by the enemy. Chasing him along the rugged coast with a huge complex with a relatively short firing range.... requestToday at sea the main thing is not to destroy the enemy, but to disrupt his operation. request
    1. -12
      14 November 2023 06: 56
      Send the complex to the Northern Military District without talking, a chance for the fleet to show its capabilities.
      1. +27
        14 November 2023 08: 42
        Quote: Civil
        Send the complex to the Northern Military District without talking, a chance for the fleet to show its capabilities.

        With a maximum firing range of 23-24 km and huge dimensions of the self-propelled gun? Adequacy, awww.
        1. +1
          14 November 2023 09: 08
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Quote: Civil
          Send the complex to the Northern Military District without talking, a chance for the fleet to show its capabilities.

          With a maximum firing range of 23-24 km and huge dimensions of the self-propelled gun? Adequacy, awww.

          We can see very well what our people have in the Northern Military District. So, it won't be any worse.
          1. +10
            14 November 2023 09: 59
            Quote: Civil
            We can see very well what our people have in the Northern Military District. So, it won't be any worse.

            You talk so much about the inadequacy of generals/admirals and the Russian government in general, but here you demand that short-range, huge, and therefore inactive, unarmored self-propelled guns be sent to war. “This is different” in its purest form...
          2. 0
            14 November 2023 18: 14
            But it needs to be better
        2. 0
          16 November 2023 15: 55
          Well, the dimensions are large, but not huge. At one time I rode a MAZ 543 with an operational-tactical missile. It goes well on public and field roads. The ride is better than a Mercedes. But its maneuverability, despite the large wheels with independent drive, is not so great. Ground clearance is low. If he sits down, then it’s amba. Only a tank-based SEM can pull it out. And I am suspicious of the shooting distance of 25 km. This is the minimum for conventional OFZ shells of the old design. And if with a bottom gas generator, then + another ten. And if they are active-reactive, then another 10-20.
          1. +1
            16 November 2023 19: 32
            Quote: Alexey Lantukh
            I am suspicious of the 25 km shooting distance. This is the minimum for conventional OFZ shells of the old design

            What about the caliber?
            “Shore” is a passing nature, it simply exists. It is being replaced by the "Coalition" with a turret on a wheeled chassis. In the meantime... there is "The Shore".
            1. Eug
              0
              12 January 2024 10: 09
              The fleet ordered 130-mm shells for reserves. For unarmored targets more than. The 152 mm is certainly more effective, but the complex would be more expensive.
              1. 0
                12 January 2024 17: 26
                Quote: Eug
                The fleet ordered 130-mm shells for reserves.

                Unification with the ground and coastal defense and the Marine Marines of the Navy, in addition, such guns will have to fire at landing ships and enemy landing forces on the shore. And for this, caliber is important.
                In addition, the issue of creating a naval weapon for future destroyers on the basis of the Coalition was considered.
                And don’t forget about the possibility of using Krasnopol laser-guided guided missiles from UAVs.
    2. +8
      14 November 2023 08: 57
      Likewise, not all areas of the coast are suitable for landing. And the range is just to the horizon.
    3. -3
      14 November 2023 16: 17
      Are you going to shoot at radio-controlled boats? In my opinion, the shore is a completely stupid waste of money. This task could be performed by VKS
  2. -1
    14 November 2023 05: 39
    Something has not been heard about its use in the Northern Military District. Alternatively, during the defense of Energodar
    1. +8
      14 November 2023 06: 40
      The destruction range is short, the dimensions are huge, and this is not his task.
      1. 0
        14 November 2023 16: 19
        The coast is a stupid waste of money. Concept 1970) against landing who needs it? Turkey? Or the USA?
      2. 0
        15 November 2023 01: 03
        The range of destruction is normal for our artillery, but the dimensions are, yes, too big
        1. -2
          15 November 2023 18: 29
          Do you want full automation? Receive and sign.
    2. 0
      14 November 2023 08: 59
      read carefully what it is and what it is intended for, it is a coastal defense complex, although the caliber and, accordingly, the firing range with such dimensions of the installation are probably too small.
      1. 0
        15 November 2023 18: 30
        The caliber is just right against landing craft!
    3. 0
      14 November 2023 09: 35
      Quote: UnterOf
      Something has not been heard about its use in the Northern Military District.

      I once read in messages “from the front” about the use of “Bereg” artillery systems! The message even indicated who used...which units (units). Unfortunately, now I don’t remember the details of this part of the message.
  3. +3
    14 November 2023 06: 34
    There is only one possible plus - the ability to use guns/battalions for anti-aircraft fire (but the VP angle is too small).

    A rate of fire of up to 10 rounds/min is provided. Firing range – up to 20-23 km.
    everything is clear here...
    And it's obvious why
    It was produced in a limited series and entered service with only a few units.
    1. +5
      14 November 2023 08: 50
      Quote: Wildcat
      everything is clear here...

      Well, yes, in such dimensions 152 mm will fit comfortably, with the corresponding characteristics...
      1. -1
        14 November 2023 08: 59
        152 mm will fit comfortably
        - I think so and a larger caliber, like 180mm
      2. +9
        14 November 2023 11: 28
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        Well, yes, in such dimensions 152 mm will fit comfortably, with the corresponding characteristics...

        EMNIP, the navy was offered to make the “Bereg” in 152 mm caliber - for a gun from the “Msta”.
        But the navy stood up strongly for the unification of shots with the AK-130. The result was a gun with a range of 23 km and three types of shells - high-explosive, fragmentation with a remote fuse, and fragmentation with a radio fuse. Cluster, guided, adjustable shells - all of this flew past the fleet.
        And finally, the meaning of unifying the coastal complex with a naval gun disappeared after the arrival of 2A65 and 2S19 to the Coastal Forces.
        1. 0
          14 November 2023 15: 52
          Quote: Alexey RA
          The navy was offered to make the "Bereg" in 152 mm caliber - for a gun from the "Msta".
          But the navy stood up for unification

          Do the navy have their own quirks? So maybe 152 mm guns should be installed on ships? This will be unification + common sense.
          1. +4
            14 November 2023 19: 40
            Quote: the most important

            Do the navy have their own quirks? So maybe 152 mm guns should be installed on ships?

            For ships, the 130-mm caliber was at least somehow justified - the AK-130 could work against air targets (like all 127-mm guns potential adversary). The 152 mm caliber in this regard was redundant and not fast enough.
            But why turn a normal naval anti-aircraft gun into a poor coastal gun?
            1. +4
              14 November 2023 22: 54
              Quote: Alexey RA
              The navy was offered to make the "Bereg" in 152 mm caliber - for a gun from the "Msta".
              Ours are tricky about installing a turret from the "Coalition-SV" on a chassis from Kamaz, where, in my opinion, it is absolutely out of place, but installing a turret from the "Coalition-SV" in place of the turret "Berega" is just right.
              1. +4
                15 November 2023 01: 02
                The four-axle "Caesar" of the Danish order is 13 tons lighter and just better for everyone.
                1. +2
                  15 November 2023 10: 33
                  Quote: Yaroslav Tekkel
                  The four-axle "Caesar" of the Danish order is 13 tons lighter and just better for everyone.
                  And if the Bereg is compared with any towed gun, the difference in weight will be even greater.
              2. 0
                15 November 2023 22: 37
                Yeah! And at the same time, recalculate the load on the chassis when firing. Strengthen the suspension of this chassis. Look what happened. Spit. And make this artillery system from scratch, new. Believe me - by God, it will be easier!
            2. 0
              15 November 2023 07: 19
              It turns out that my pepelats can work like an anti-aircraft gun?
      3. 0
        15 November 2023 18: 34
        And the bookmaker is twice as small. A 152 mm projectile against a light landing craft made of aluminum is obviously overly powerful.
    2. +3
      14 November 2023 09: 45
      Quote: Wildcat
      Firing range – up to 20-23 km

      I don’t understand where these numbers came from! I remember the “numbers” from the Vietnam War...27 km firing range of the 130-mm M-46 cannon! In Syria, 130-mm artillery shells of Chinese and Iranian production (active-reactive!) are used... The Chinese BEE4 has a firing range of up to 44 km (according to Norinco), a similar Iranian shell is stated to be slightly less...
      1. +11
        14 November 2023 11: 34
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        I don’t understand where these numbers came from! I remembered the “numbers” from the Vietnam War...27 km firing range of the 130-mm M-46 cannon!

        But because “Bereg” was made under an AK-130 shot from its 23 km range. Unification, panimaish.
      2. +5
        14 November 2023 16: 28
        Distance to horizon 24 km. The shore was made completely autonomous. I saw it and was amazed. No more, no less. The main purpose is landing craft. And that's it.
        Ball. Bastion. Shore.
        1. 0
          14 November 2023 19: 45
          Quote: garri-lin
          Distance to horizon 24 km. The shore was made completely autonomous. I saw it and was amazed. No more no less

          Then those who wrote TTT forgot about more than a hundred years of the history of our fleet. In which the main targets of coastal artillery were land targets.
          In Perechnev's classic work on Soviet coastal defense half the volume composed a chapter - “On the reverse directrix” - on the use of coastal artillery on land, in the interests of the army and marine corps. smile
          1. 0
            15 November 2023 07: 37
            There's no arguing with that. Well, a few more letters for quantity.
    3. 0
      20 November 2023 01: 20
      Quote: Wildcat
      There is only one possible plus - the ability to use guns/battalions for anti-aircraft fire (but the VP angle is too small).

      What kind of anti-aircraft shooting from two barrels are you talking about? Even during WW2, the effectiveness of large-caliber anti-aircraft fire was negligible. It was of any use only in the event of massive raids by low-speed bombers, which were forced to “huddle” in a tight formation to protect themselves from fighters. And then, this fire was barrage and did not so much shoot down cars as drive bombers away from the target, forcing them to unload away from the protected objects.
      Today, the main carriers of strike weapons have speeds significantly higher than WW2 bombers, are much more maneuverable and do not have the need to unload directly above the object. Therefore, it simply does not make sense to use these guns as air defense weapons. The same applies and goes to using bow cannons on ships for this purpose.

      I think so.
  4. +2
    14 November 2023 06: 43
    If the complex is supplemented with ground artillery systems in the process of completing a mission, then the result will be very good, it issued target designation in autonomous mode, carried out an artillery raid and was on the move.
    "Coalition SV" will greatly increase the damaging potential of "Bereg".
  5. +3
    14 November 2023 08: 23
    We made it! 130 mm has become a large caliber!
    Kmk, rather than creating specially trained coastal installations, it is easier to develop autonomous universal fire control systems to which ANY existing artillery systems can be connected.
    1. -1
      14 November 2023 08: 56
      First we will develop it for ten years, then set up production for the same amount of time, and then these systems will become an anachronism...
      1. AAK
        +6
        14 November 2023 14: 29
        So, all our artillery systems (for now, except for the “Coalition-SV”, which has not yet entered the troops) have already become anachronisms, including the “Promising” “Malva” ...
        1. +2
          14 November 2023 16: 38
          Quote: AAK
          So, all our artillery systems (for now, except for the “Coalition-SV”, which has not yet entered the troops) have already become anachronisms, including the “Promising” “Malva” ...

          And the North Military District suddenly showed that, it turns out, we are very seriously behind NATO artillery systems in almost all indicators.
          And where was the technical intelligence, where were the design bureaus?
          1. 0
            20 November 2023 01: 35
            Quote: Gritsa

            And where was the technical intelligence, where were the design bureaus?


            It depends on what design bureaus you mean. For example, missile design bureaus ensured the superiority of our systems. Both Iskander and Caliber showed themselves to be better than their Western counterparts. And I think the designers of guns and self-propelled guns now have questions for the Russian Defense Ministry. The artillery unit of the Coalition self-propelled gun - the 2A86 howitzer - is superior in basic parameters to the howitzers of the US and German self-propelled guns. And the question is not for the designers, why the re-equipment of troops with this weapon in different types has not yet begun.
            By the way, the Coalition was originally developed as an interspecies complex. And it’s high time to replace the Shore based naval gun.
        2. 0
          April 3 2024 16: 46
          No, places and mallow will be at the top of the artillery for a long time, we sank in shells, reconnaissance of targets to great depths and timely transmission of data to the battery. Let's resolve these issues, the mallows will immediately be at the level of Caesar, the Polish and American howitzers will lose to it... The German PZ-2000 and the Swedish Archer will most likely surpass them a little, but this is not certain. Maybe not.
    2. +1
      14 November 2023 18: 12
      And target designation, so that each gun is constantly “targeted” during operation and corrections are made automatically, and with the overlay of a coordinate grid and its binding to the coordinates of the gun along three axes and its systems, hitting the target is possible with a high probability from the first shot.
  6. +2
    14 November 2023 09: 11
    The complex is excellent. But modernization is needed. Update the central automated control system. Add the ability to receive data from UAVs and other third-party sources. I would also like new shells - active-reactive, with controlled detonation... True, I was in such a division back in the XNUMXs, perhaps something has already been done
    1. +3
      14 November 2023 13: 13
      Quote: KVU-NSVD
      The complex is excellent. But modernization is needed. Update the central automated control system. Add the ability to receive data from UAVs and other third-party sources. I would also like new shells - active-reactive, with controlled detonation...

      And then spit on everything and purchase an army “Coalition” for BRAV, temporarily replacing it with “Msta”. And refine the AU and artillery control system to make it possible to work on moving targets. smile
      Because guided and adjustable shells of 130 mm caliber, due to the small batch, will come out golden - of course, not like 155 mm shells for Zamvolt, but close.
    2. -1
      14 November 2023 18: 08
      Increase the range by three times and the power of ammunition
  7. +4
    14 November 2023 09: 29
    A question.
    Is it effective against unmanned boats and boats with DRGs? Is it used in SVO?
    Since there seem to be no other purposes for it yet.
    1. +2
      14 November 2023 16: 11
      Not promising, because The chances of this “thing” hitting a fast moving object are close to 0.
      1. +1
        14 November 2023 19: 48
        Quote: Vladimir80
        Not promising, because The chances of this “thing” hitting a fast moving object are close to 0.

        In theory, you can use a projectile with a radar fuse, which, when detonated remotely, will simply cover the sea area with the boat with shrapnel. But the question is - how does this RV work at extremely small levels, near the surface of the water?
      2. 0
        15 November 2023 18: 41
        With a radar, it will even cover your OLS! Moreover, there is a fragmentation device with a radio fuse. Do not need anything else ! On then there will be no landing on the beach. They will go around...
    2. -2
      14 November 2023 16: 22
      How can you get a radio-controlled boat from such a fool???
      1. 0
        15 November 2023 18: 43
        30 shells - 3000 deadly fragments for a boat. The sea will boil and at least one will definitely hit.
  8. Owl
    +4
    14 November 2023 09: 39
    Much depends on the ammunition. There will be cluster munitions, with self-aiming combat elements - it will be possible to fight highly maneuverable small-sized targets (drug landing vehicles and unmanned combat sabotage boats), there will be adjustable ammunition - install observation, reconnaissance and guidance posts (target illumination) - the complex will be able to combat naval landing systems the landing force at the front is about 40 kilometers.
    1. +4
      14 November 2023 10: 06
      We only have adjustable ammunition in 152 mm caliber.
      If before the SVO, the traditional caliber for sailors was 130 mm, for land soldiers 152 mm, then after the SVO, most likely it will be necessary to unify all calibers and all projectiles. There are a lot of problems with different calibers and different systems.
      The complex itself appears only as a huge target. How he can help in battle is unclear. The enemy can shoot at him from 40 km. the same barrel systems.
      It was put into service in 1996, in the conditions of general collapse, this somewhat explains its weakness and lack of development of the concept.
      1. +2
        14 November 2023 11: 37
        Quote: glory1974
        If before the SVO, the traditional caliber for sailors was 130 mm, for landmen 152 mm,

        "Bereg" is a coastal defense complex. And among the sailors in the coastal troops, the traditional calibers are the same as the army ones. But for some reason the A-222 was made for a ship's caliber, thereby significantly reducing its capabilities.
      2. 0
        15 November 2023 18: 46
        We have adjustable ammunition only in 152 mm caliber

        Yes. And also 100 mm, 122, 160 and 240 mm. The jet has another 220 and 300.
  9. Eug
    +1
    14 November 2023 10: 16
    I wonder if the Bereg control system is capable of controlling the firing of Msta-S? Hyacinths? Malok 2S7M? Mallow? It is clear that the 130 caliber was justified by the ammunition available to the fleet, but the control system should have been made universal.
  10. +3
    14 November 2023 10: 20
    The system began to be developed a long time ago, but now, when it is the time of drones, small kamikazes, etc., how effective is such an artillery system in protecting the coast?
  11. +2
    14 November 2023 11: 29
    the idea came to mind... maybe off topic, but still... what if we adapt 152mm shells to fire from a 203mm Malka, coming up with a kind of “adapter”. It will separate like a sub-caliber projectile after firing, but receive energy from a 203mm charge. This will increase the range for counter-battery combat and work from a distance beyond the reach of NATO artillery systems. You can also try adapting 122mm shells to 152mm artillery systems to increase the range. Lack of range is now the main problem for our artillery systems. And the accuracy would be compensated by a block similar to PGK. Or, at the very least, a non-contact detonation.
    1. -1
      14 November 2023 21: 56
      Quote: rosomaha
      the idea came to mind...what if we adapt 152mm shells to fire from the 203mm Malka, coming up with a kind of “adapter”. It will separate like a sub-caliber projectile after firing, but receive energy from a 203mm charge. This will increase the range for counter-battery combat and work from a distance beyond the reach of NATO artillery systems. You can also try adapting 122mm shells to 152mm artillery systems to increase the range.

      I once proposed a similar idea... I don’t remember what year... They criticized me like crazy then! And now the people have become, I see from the lack of criticism, more “peaceful”! (Or, less competent! wink ) . And the reason for the proposal was the message that one of the “third world” countries turned to the Chinese company Norinco with a request to create artillery corps - “containers” of a larger caliber in order to place artillery shells of a different (smaller) caliber... (The point was The fact is that the country has a lot of shells left for guns that are outdated and have been removed from service... New guns of a larger caliber were adopted, but the shells were charged too much in the opinion of the leadership of this country...
    2. 0
      15 November 2023 10: 18
      Quote: rosomaha
      the idea came to mind... maybe off topic, but still... what if we adapt 152mm shells to fire from a 203mm Malka, coming up with a kind of “adapter”. It will separate like a sub-caliber projectile after firing, but receive energy from a 203mm charge.

      And it was - see the work on long-range sub-caliber projectiles in the USSR in the 30s.
      In Shirokorad's description of 12"/52 it was written that:
      Before the start of World War II, an experimental batch of extra-long sub-caliber shells (drawing 1941) designed for shooting along the coast was designed and manufactured in the first half of 2042. Active projectile caliber 210 mm, Vo = 1275 m / s, range 100 km.
      © A. B. Shirokorad. Naval artillery of the Russian fleet 1867 - 1922. Marine collection. No. 2, 1997
    3. -1
      18 November 2023 00: 21
      Quote: rosomaha
      the idea came to mind... maybe off topic, but still... what if we adapt 152mm shells to fire from a 203mm Malka, coming up with a kind of “adapter”. It will separate like a sub-caliber projectile after firing, but receive energy from a 203mm charge. This will increase the range for counter-battery combat and work from a distance beyond the reach of NATO artillery systems. You can also try adapting 122mm shells to 152mm artillery systems to increase the range. Lack of range is now the main problem for our artillery systems. And the accuracy would be compensated by a block similar to PGK. Or, at the very least, a non-contact detonation.

      Well, if you put a smaller caliber projectile in some kind of “master device” - an adapter, ok. So from what point... should it fly much further?
  12. +4
    14 November 2023 12: 32
    In essence, this is the same 130-mm naval one with only one barrel and manual loading. It provides corrections when shooting automatically. The crew's task is simply to throw the shells into the tray. It was possible to put the same turret with a 130-mm twin on the chassis, but there’s the weight... and the dimensions of the turret compartment...
  13. +1
    14 November 2023 13: 49
    This complex has already decayed 10 years ago.
  14. +3
    14 November 2023 14: 28
    Quote: Civil
    Send the complex to the Northern Military District without talking, a chance for the fleet to show its capabilities.

    Offer your candidacy for the role of calculation. With a range of 23 km and an installation size of a small steamer...
  15. -2
    14 November 2023 16: 09
    This complex would be placed on the left bank of the Dnieper at the Antonov Bridge and the canopy, so that not a single enemy boat would be able to cross the river. Otherwise there is some kind of incomprehensible mess there. They gave the Nazis the opportunity to cross and gain a foothold on our side.
    1. +3
      14 November 2023 17: 06
      It will be demolished quite quickly by long-range artillery, drones and chimeras. There will be a loss of losses.
    2. +2
      14 November 2023 18: 05
      So that the Nazis would waste several shells on him? Because he himself can do little, no range.
  16. +2
    14 November 2023 16: 48
    Why won’t he be sent to Crimea to repel boat raids on the west coast? Is it because it will become vulnerable to drones that are also launched there?
    1. 0
      14 November 2023 17: 07
      The question is what it can do against a stealthy maneuverable target, such as an unmanned boat.
      1. 0
        14 November 2023 18: 04
        Nothing against maneuvering, “dumb” projectiles!
      2. 0
        15 November 2023 18: 55
        The shore protects the shores. Well, there was a flat beach there that the adversary had his eye on for landing. And in the morning the Shore stands on the shore. We have to look for another beach. They arrived, and there the Shore was already waiting, but the carriage was faster than any barge. They are radio-controlled at the bases, not on the beaches. And there is someone there to meet them...
  17. -1
    14 November 2023 18: 03
    Who will let him get to 23 km? “My arms are short,” if it were 50..60, then it would be a different matter.
    1. 0
      15 November 2023 18: 59
      So they will approach him, he is standing on his shore. On a steep, landing-accessible slope. Trenched. They will swim, but this will end very badly for those landing.
  18. +1
    14 November 2023 18: 20
    It's hard to say what the military is thinking when ordering THIS. They don’t think with their heads, that’s for sure. Both army men and navy men...geniuses...
    1. +4
      14 November 2023 21: 17
      Quote from Wratch
      It's hard to say what the military is thinking when ordering THIS. They don’t think with their heads, that’s for sure. Both army men and navy men...geniuses...
      Year of order "Shore" 1976... - naval commanders ordered the development of the Bereg tank based on the situation at that time.
      Only now the gunsmiths have reached the finished product in 1992g, the UAC was adopted by the Navy in 1996g, and the production model reached the fleet in 2003g - and now more has passed 20 years - has arrived 2023...
      Naturally, the Bereg tank is outdated - after all, the idea of ​​its creation was 1976g - in the conditions of the 70s, this system was combat-ready.
      hi
  19. +1
    14 November 2023 19: 18
    Why was there such a fuss - Msta and even better?
    1. +2
      14 November 2023 19: 50
      Quote: Bone1
      Why was there such a fuss - Msta and even better?

      Because this is the fleet and its traditions. For the sake of illusory unification in terms of ammunition, they took a shot from a ship's anti-aircraft gun and made a coastal gun for it.
  20. 0
    14 November 2023 23: 10
    I wonder why they produced it in such a small series, at least theoretically it looks like something that should have its own niche, if it were also with cluster and reconnaissance UAVs, then against landing boats
  21. 0
    15 November 2023 00: 31
    Some kind of bullshit. I still don’t understand, why is this better than a regular 155mm self-propelled gun?
    1. +3
      15 November 2023 11: 29
      Well, 155 is your caliber. But we don’t have such ammunition)
      1. 0
        15 November 2023 21: 04
        The 155mm shells just fell apart. There are much more of them than 130mm. And their range is significantly wider.

        For example, are there 130mm adjustable shells? With a bottom gas generator?
        With a homing head? With remote detonation? Cassette?
        1. -1
          15 November 2023 22: 12
          PS Of course, I meant 152mm caliber.
          1. +1
            15 November 2023 23: 19
            It would seem that only 3 millimeters, a trifle, like a stainless steel paper clip :)
          2. +1
            16 November 2023 00: 07
            PS Of course, I meant 152mm caliber.

            So we came to our senses. Yeah bully The reservation came out, according to F
  22. +1
    15 November 2023 01: 09
    Rubbish. A hopelessly outdated complex, which is generally not clear what it is intended for. Defend against landings on the Black Sea coast? But only the Turks can land him, and they are not whipping boys.
    1. -1
      15 November 2023 19: 01
      Well, try it not have such. And those wishing to parachute will immediately increase wink
      1. 0
        16 November 2023 21: 49
        Ukraine does not have this. Where is the landing in Odessa?
  23. +1
    15 November 2023 12: 16
    IMHO The most useless system in the Navy! Moreover, it is so large that camouflage is impossible.
    1. -1
      15 November 2023 19: 05
      They not only camouflage, but also entrench. Along the trunnion. By the way, in every landing-hazardous direction, trenches have long been built. From two flanks. Came, cleaned, moved in. Threw a masknet, one on guard, others tips ! In a beat-up car.
  24. The comment was deleted.
  25. 0
    15 November 2023 13: 30
    Who’s stopping you from putting these towers on an armored train? At least they could use it somehow...
  26. +1
    15 November 2023 15: 15
    yes, these are all galoshes from the USSR
  27. -1
    15 November 2023 16: 43
    The main advantage of this complex is its concept: network-centric + mobility + self-sufficiency. To be perfect, it lacks only the 152 mm gun from the Coalition with its long-range and guided projectiles.
    1. 0
      16 November 2023 15: 56
      Well, the dimensions are large, but not huge. At one time I rode a MAZ 543 with an operational-tactical missile. It goes well on public and field roads. The ride is better than a Mercedes. But its maneuverability, despite the large wheels with independent drive, is not so great. Ground clearance is low. If he sits down, then it’s amba. Only a tank-based SEM can pull it out. And I am suspicious of the shooting distance of 25 km. This is the minimum for conventional OFZ shells of the old design. And if with a bottom gas generator, then + another ten. And if they are active-reactive, then another 10-20.
  28. 0
    16 November 2023 00: 42
    My deep couch opinion.
    1. It was necessary to think many years ago and HOW TO REFUSE 122 and 125 CALIBERS. Tank guns, self-propelled guns should be made with 130 mm. Here comes unification with the naval forces and increased power and so on.
    Change the 152 mm caliber to 156 mm.
    2. The barrels of the installations need to be made longer. It is clear that the trunk on the Shore can be made a meter or one and a half longer without damage. And this is the range. It is important.
  29. 0
    16 November 2023 09: 38
    What an Af-tar, such are the comments. Ryabov again “distinguished himself”: articles (EXCELLENT, detailed articles) about the A-222 “Bereg” were already on VO: “Coastal mobile artillery complex A-222 “Bereg”” dated April 3, 2012, authored by Roman Dzhereleiko, and ““ Shore" against "air": the use of the A-222 self-propelled artillery complex as a highly effective air defense weapon" dated November 13, 2022, authored by Andrei Mitrofanov.
  30. 0
    18 November 2023 22: 03
    Already looks outdated
  31. 0
    19 November 2023 10: 40
    "Bereg" is quite optimal for the Black Sea coast of the Caucasus. Where there are few convenient places for landing troops, there is a mountainous and wooded area to camouflage such a system and there is a need to quickly move “from gorge to gorge” along roads passable for wheeled vehicles.
    By the way, why did commentators think that it was not used against surface drones? The lack of public information is not yet an indicator.
  32. +1
    27 January 2024 00: 59
    In my opinion, this is a complete "hat".
    In the mid-seventies, in the course of regular theoretical work, it was established that
    British scientists smoke enviously...
    Who were they going to fight off? From which landings?
    Over there near Kherson Ukrainian troops are landing. And where is this “Shore”? Protects the Laptev Sea?
    1. 0
      24 February 2024 19: 32
      I really regret that I didn’t remember who wrote and in which magazine. Our officer fought alongside the North Koreans in their war. And he wrote what a seaborne assault performed by the Americans looks like. It's just that the horizon turns black from the landing craft. He said that they looked at it and realized that all that was left was to get out of there. Because there is no way to counteract this swarm of locusts. This is called over-the-horizon landing. Idiocy, as with our large landing craft, was not accepted by our partners from WWII. It is not clear where and at whom they were and are going to shoot from this “Shore” in this situation. They can’t catch some lousy kamikazes on the way.