Military Review

SPTP 2C25М “Sprut-SDM1” gets updated weapons and control systems

62
The tests of the prospective self-propelled anti-tank gun (SPTP) 2С25М Sprut-SDM1 are in progress. After completing several stages of testing the latest model of armored vehicles can be put into service and put in a series. So far these works have not been completed, but the industry and the military department are already revealing some of the details of the new project. According to the latest data, the 2C25М project involves the use of some new systems, and also allows the combat vehicle to use new weapons.


23 August edition of "Izvestia" has published some information about the modernization of the weapons complex, inherited the machine "Sprut-SDM1" from the base sample. An unnamed source in the Ministry of Defense told the media about some of the innovations of the promising project. One of the main differences of the updated self-propelled anti-tank cannon is an improved guided weapon system (KUV) using a new missile. Such systems complement other weapons and can increase the maximum range of self-propelled guns.


SPTP "Sprut-SDM1". Photo Bmpd.livejournal.com


It is reported that the rocket of the new complex is a further development of the product 9М119М "Invar-M" of the complex 9К119М "Reflex-M", which is already in service. The prospective rocket is based on the ideas and solutions of existing systems, but it has some differences related to the improvement of combat qualities and basic characteristics. With the help of this modernization, an armored vehicle carrying new missiles can fight with a wide range of targets, both with protected equipment and with fortifications or manpower.

To combat armored vehicles offered a rocket, which is a direct development of the product "Invar-M". It is equipped with a tandem cumulative warhead capable of piercing through armor of considerable thickness, including those covered with dynamic protection units. The second version of the product receives thermobaric warhead, which is intended for the destruction of various structures and fortifications. Due to the development of two variants of a rocket with different types of warheads, self-propelled gun crews will be able to choose the most effective ammunition in the current situation.

According to reports, the new missile system for the 2S25M Sprut-SDM1 self-propelled gun is based on the achievements of the Reflex-M system. Recall that the complex 9K119M was developed by the Tula Instrument Design Bureau for the purpose of additional weapons tanks and other armored vehicles. Missiles of the Invar family are guided munitions with guidance using a laser beam directed towards the target. The launch of missiles is carried out through the bore of the gun launchers of the 2A46 family, having a caliber of 125 mm In addition to the rocket and launcher, the Reflex-M complex includes sights and guidance systems, an automation unit, etc.

The 9K119M complex missiles have a body weight of more than 17 kg or about 24 kg as part of a shot, completed with a liner and a propelling charge. A solid propellant engine allows a guided missile to reach speeds of more than 280 m / s and attack targets at ranges from 100 to 5000 m. Controlled by a laser beam directed at the target and tracked by the equipment in the tail of the rocket. Tandem cumulative warhead can pierce up to 900 mm of homogeneous armor for dynamic protection. The Invar missiles carry all modern domestic armored vehicles equipped with 125-mm smooth-bore guns. Among the carriers of the Reflex-M complex are all the main tanks that are in service, as well as tools of the Sprut family in towed and self-propelled versions.


Guided missile 9М119М complex "Reflex-M". Photo of Wikimedia Commons


According to recent reports, not so long ago, the KUV Reflek-M underwent modernization, the result of which was the appearance of a new missile with enhanced characteristics and enhanced combat capabilities. Due to modernization, the firing range was increased to 6 km, and the range of targets hit was expanded with the help of a new warhead with a thermobaric charge.

In addition to the upgraded guided weapons complex, the Sprut-SDM1 self-propelled anti-tank gun should receive a number of other equipment of a new type. The project of modernization of self-propelled guns implies the use of a new fire control system (LMS) with enhanced characteristics. It includes a new combined (day and night) gunner's sight, automatic target tracking, a set of sensors for tracking the parameters of the vehicle’s movement and determining weather conditions, etc.

Modernization of the MSA has allowed to increase the accuracy of firing from the main gun, as well as to expand the fire ability of self-propelled guns. In particular, the possibility of firing at air targets moving at low altitudes with low speeds. Thus, SPTP Sprut-SDM1 will be able to fight not only with land equipment, but also with helicopters or unmanned aerial vehicles.

Self-propelled antitank gun "Sprut-SDM1" is the newest development option for the existing combat vehicle operated by the troops. The project of modernization of the existing equipment was developed by the concern "Tractor Plants". One of the main goals of the project was to improve the performance of equipment by changing some of its components. Thus, in the basic version, the Sprut-SD self-propelled gun was based on the chassis of the 934 Object light tank. In the framework of the new project, it was proposed to use the chassis of one of the new serial combat vehicles. Due to this approach, it was possible to create a modern armored vehicle with high mobility characteristics and a complex of rocket-gun armament.


Tower modernized self-propelled guns. Photo Bastion-karpenko.ru


As the basis for the new version of the armored vehicle, the BMD-4M landing vehicle landing gear was selected. This sample has recently entered mass production and is now being delivered to the airborne troops. Thus, bringing the Sprut-SDM1 project to operation in the troops will allow to unify the main samples of the new technology and thereby simplify their use. Despite the use of the new chassis, the overall driving characteristics of the sample remain at the same level. Also there is the possibility of landing by landing or parachute method. The upgraded sample can move both on land and on water.

In addition, the new project provides for some improvements to the existing systems borrowed from the base machine. For example, in the combat compartment of the Sprut-SDM1 self-propelled gun, it is proposed to assemble the units of the updated OMS and some other systems. In the stern of the turret, the installation of a remotely controlled combat module with a PKT machine gun of caliber 7,62 mm is envisaged. The machine gun is controlled from a remote control installed inside the fighting compartment.

The development of the project “STPR“ Sprut-SDM1 ”was completed last year, after which the concern“ Tractor Plants ”built a prototype of the new machine. The first public demonstration of the prototype of the updated self-propelled guns took place at the Army-2015 exhibition. In June of this year, an experienced vehicle showed its capabilities to the command. During the collection of the command personnel of the airborne troops, officers and generals were shown a prototype of a modernized self-propelled anti-tank gun. The demonstration included overcoming obstacles and firing.

Earlier it was reported that the Sprut-SDM1 self-propelled gun is currently being tested. According to the latest data, factory tests are being carried out, which are already nearing completion. In the future, several more inspections are planned, during which all the pros and cons of the prospective sample will be revealed. On 2018, the start of the mass production of new equipment is scheduled. First, the Sprut-SDM1 serial will have to supplement the Sprut-SD, available in the troops, and later it will be a question of replacing older equipment.


On the materials of the sites:
http://izvestia.ru/
http://tass.ru/
http://ria.ru/
http://vestnik-rm.ru/
http://btvt.narod.ru/
Author:
62 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67
    svp67 5 September 2016 06: 49
    +8
    The replenishment of the range of guided missiles will entail a change in the combat vehicle’s ammunition and will require better training for gunners and commanders, and this is good, as development is ongoing and there is no stagnation. The only thing that I do not like so far is the absence of a larger caliber machine gun on this self-propelled guns than 7,62 mm
    1. Meliodous
      Meliodous 5 September 2016 07: 44
      +3
      Quote: svp67
      The only thing that I do not like so far is the absence of a larger caliber machine gun on this self-propelled guns than 7,62 mm

      And with heavy machine guns it’s generally interesting. They not only on the Octopus, but even on the latest tanks (T-90MS and T-14) did not appear. I wonder why?
      1. BARKAS
        BARKAS 5 September 2016 10: 28
        +3
        And with heavy machine guns it’s generally interesting. They not only on the Octopus, but even on the latest tanks (T-90MS and T-14) did not appear. I wonder why?

        what do you think the NSVT remote combat module of what sizes will be?
        1. Gray brother
          Gray brother 5 September 2016 11: 29
          +1
          what do you think the NSVT remote combat module of what sizes will be?

          And where to put ammunition is also a question. And how many shots that BC is enough.
      2. Quzmi4
        Quzmi4 5 September 2016 20: 09
        +2
        Here's another surprising "economy" on "Tucha" - count the number of mortars, the suspicion creeps in that this is the most expensive component of the BTT ...
    2. VP
      VP 5 September 2016 07: 47
      +4
      It is not intended to attack and storm fortified firing points on the forehead.
      Its function is to suppress enemy positions and knock out its BTT.
      125 mm can handle this no worse than 12,7.
      1. svp67
        svp67 5 September 2016 08: 14
        13
        And 12,7 mm NSVT or DShK, on ​​armored vehicles, is generally primarily intended for solving air defense tasks, this is the first.
        Second - SPRUT is an ANTI-TANK gun and somehow they are more often used for direct fire, and for this they must be located on the very front end, where there are many targets for which 12 mm will be just right, and 7 mm can be reserved for more important ones.
        The third - all this fuss, with the appearance of "thermobaric" ammunition in the BC 125-mm PTSAU ammunition suggests that they are going to be used as an assault self-propelled gun, and there, too, for 12mm there will be a case to ensure the operation of the 7-mm.
        All this taken together tells me that a heavy machine gun will clearly not be superfluous to her
        1. Volga Cossack
          Volga Cossack 5 September 2016 08: 55
          +6
          I completely agree!!!! A large-caliber machine gun is necessary ....... and not only as a means of air defense ...... combing something small from an unattainable distance ..... the same jeep as a reconnaissance ....
          1. kytx
            kytx 5 September 2016 18: 44
            +5
            The acquaintance dude recaptured the 1st Chechen tank commander. He said that the KPVT was used much more often than the gun. it turned out to be a very necessary thing, the paired one was not particularly useful.
            1. kytx
              kytx 5 September 2016 18: 50
              0
              and according to sabzh: I don’t really understand why this wunderwafer is needed. neither fish nor meat. IMHO
            2. Quzmi4
              Quzmi4 5 September 2016 20: 07
              0
              What tank was he fighting on? T-10M?
        2. Forest
          Forest 6 September 2016 09: 52
          +2
          ZPU has not been used as an anti-aircraft gun for a long time - now the worst attack helicopter with 4-6 km is attacking.
        3. VP
          VP 6 September 2016 10: 25
          0
          There is no sense in using it as air defense for a long time, now it’s not the second world war, aviation works from other distances and speeds. Yes, and MANPADS in the landing in the kit.
          In battle formations - what is meant?
          He leaves before the trench and targets the adversary’s tank or something?
          So he himself will not stand 12,7 most likely, he does not need such tricks.
          In general, as I understand it, "shob bulo".
          Based on the purpose of the weapon.
  2. Red_Hamer
    Red_Hamer 5 September 2016 07: 14
    +1
    The good news is, let's hope that they will soon be accepted and launched into the series. I wish you successfully pass the test!
  3. Trigger-Happy
    Trigger-Happy 5 September 2016 09: 33
    +2
    Quote: svp67
    Second - SPRUT is an ANTI-TANK weapon and somehow they are more often used for direct fire, and for this they must be located on the "front end"

    something tells me that on the "front end" to live for him no more than the time of arrival of the projectile. He has only bullet reservations. It was made for the Airborne Forces in order to give firepower (and mobility) in the fight against enemy equipment. Still very interested in the percentage of destruction of moving targets at maximum range and in motion? Comment on who is in the topic .....
    1. svp67
      svp67 5 September 2016 09: 51
      0
      The stated probability of hitting targets is 90%, but a lot depends on the gunner ... On a moving target - the equipment is guaranteed to hit a target moving at a speed of 25 km per hour
      1. jjj
        jjj 5 September 2016 10: 26
        +2
        It is thought that this "front end" vehicle will live longer than a towed weapon. And the armor, which is, from the fragments will save better than the absence thereof. Well, the "front end" is now about the same as now in Syria. And so the gun moves by itself, floats by itself
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 5 September 2016 13: 03
          +1
          Or maybe not pervert with towed and self-propelled anti-tank guns, but go along the global path: self-propelled anti-tank systems with heavy anti-tank systems?
          1. AUL
            AUL 5 September 2016 19: 56
            0
            This we went on even with Khrushchev. Let's not step on the same rake again!
          2. mr.redpartizan
            mr.redpartizan 5 September 2016 20: 23
            0
            We already have self-propelled anti-tank systems - "Shturm" and "Chrysanthemum".
    2. mr.redpartizan
      mr.redpartizan 5 September 2016 20: 26
      0
      In a collision with tanks, it can manage to take several shots before destruction. When shooting from an ambush, the results will be better, but the car will not live very long, in this case. The best way to protect Sprut-SDM1 will be to install KAZ on it.
  4. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 5 September 2016 09: 39
    0
    12,7, apparently they can’t install or the module is not needed or it is large in size.
  5. max702
    max702 5 September 2016 10: 31
    +8
    To be honest, the very appearance of this technique raises doubts about its effectiveness .. If this is a tank destroyer that works with direct fire on the "ancestor", then the question is, how will it fight back? Shot and walked away? Well, this is great, but only with the abundance of anti-tank weapons on the modern battlefield, they somehow give grounds for the success of this approach .. Minimal external influence and this device will be disabled, and therefore the combat mission is not completed and as a result of loss .. Like a classic The Octopus self-propelled gun will not be able to work with the wrong armament complex, but as a tank destroyer only at long distances .. But the possibility of this raises great doubts .. We all watched the tank biathlon where the best crews on SPECIALLY prepared equipment were beating into the white light as a pretty penny in PERFECT CONDITIONS! And here we have a much lighter chassis (physics cannot be fooled), and the crews are far from the best of the best. A specialized "chrysanthemum" can cope with AT tasks more efficiently, but as a self-propelled gun the same "Vienna", and in a complex all these tasks with limited resources can be easily pulled by a standard BMD-4M .. Just prepare QUALITY crews .. The high-explosive effect of a 100mm gun is close to 120mm "Vena", especially when using modern shells, the anti-tank defense tasks will be completely solved by the guided missile included in the BMD ammunition (750mm armor penetration is enough for an ambush shot) .. Alas, the creation of the "Octopus" pursues two tasks, this is a state order (money for the development and production ) and the pride of the generals (big cannon) and, perhaps, ROLL back against the background of all this .. As for me, this is the dispersion of funds and forces on an unnecessary regular BT unit with extremely dubious effectiveness ..
    1. Gray brother
      Gray brother 5 September 2016 11: 31
      0
      and ka she will retaliate?

      No way. Shot, set the smoke (if necessary) and quickly dumped.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 5 September 2016 11: 49
        +2
        Somewhere it was already. Oh yes, the 50s, the line of French LT - AMX-13.

        They also wanted to use them in this way: shot AZ - and dumped. Reality quickly destroyed these dreams: those who bought these tanks Israel fought one war with them - and quickly sold out the survivors. Alas, it turned out that security is more important than firepower. As they wrote on waronline:
        The main thing is that when a 100-mm projectile hits, the AMX-13 armor didn’t just break through - the tank unfolded, in the sense of its construction being completely destroyed and the crew died completely.
        1. Gray brother
          Gray brother 5 September 2016 12: 15
          +2
          Somewhere it was already. Oh yes, the 50s, the line of French LT - AMX-13.

          Because they used it as a regular tank, let's use the Chrysanthemums as well - the same will be.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 5 September 2016 12: 46
            +6
            Then why would the "octopus" have a gun? Isn't it easier not to cuddle up and not invent "unique and not having analogues in the world"Tank destroyer, but use conventional SPTRK?

            The fact is that a cannon tank destroyer cannot operate outside the target's visibility zone (the crowbar does not fly around the corner and cannot be remotely guided from the remote control). In the extreme case, it generally works on direct fire. And since she sees the goal, then the goal will see her. If the first projectile did not hit the target, then the cardboard tank destroyer will not survive.

            And for fire support of the infantry of the OFS-s, it is better to use a 120-mm "nona" and a 100-mm BMD cannon.
          2. Quzmi4
            Quzmi4 5 September 2016 20: 12
            0
            Yes, the security of the Chrysanthemum is an order of magnitude greater than that of the Octopus ...
      2. max702
        max702 5 September 2016 12: 05
        +7
        And why then the most complicated and mego expensive MSA no less expensive weapon, tank shells .. How will it then differ from the standard BMD-4M, which will also shoot, deliver smoke and leave ... In terms of armor penetration, cumulative shells that Octopus and BMD are practically equal. . What is good "Octopus" is that it will be able to directly press the enemy firing points BUT! It will itself be an excellent target during this, and if the tank armor allows you to ignore some threats, then the Octopus armor will not survive anything more than 12.7mm .. And again, such a nuance is complete uselessness when using a DB in an urbanized area .. Yes, in an open field still there will be good chances due to maneuverability, a powerful weapon (long arm), but in any locality there is trouble .. The aiming angles are scanty, the auxiliary weapon is weak (BMD has 30mm) ... I will repeat again, it turned out to be an expensive narrowly specialized single-use machine .. In my look better than the planned funds for the purchase of "octopuses", even for finishing the BMD-4M (MSA, shells, protection) and especially for TRAINING crews ..
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 5 September 2016 12: 55
          +2
          Heh heh heh ... there is one more nuance - TUR will always lose ATGM on armor penetration. For TUR are limited by the caliber of the guns and the maximum projectile length in the AZ / MZ.
          And the SPTRK does not have such a limitation - even if you shoot "Spike". smile
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 5 September 2016 13: 58
            0
            Just Reflex M is already outdated - you need something newer.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 5 September 2016 15: 18
              0
              How much "Reflex-M" do not feed? and the "Chrysanthemum" is still thicker. smile

              The warhead of 9M123 is 8 kg versus 4,5 kg for the Invar-M.
              Speed ​​- 400 m / s versus 284 m / s.
              Penetration - 1250 mm versus 900 mm.
        2. Gray brother
          Gray brother 5 September 2016 12: 55
          0
          armor penetration cumulative shells that Octopus that BMD are almost equal

          Are sub-caliber equal, too? Remedies do not stand still; today, few people can be surprised by the cumulative effect.
          .. What is good about "Octopus" is that it can crush enemy firing points with direct fire BUT!

          In fact, his main task is to shoot armored vehicles.
          1. max702
            max702 5 September 2016 18: 47
            +1
            And for what to compare subcaliber? Look at the statistics of 80% of the losses of armored vehicles is precisely cumulative ammunition .. they have reached such perfection today that they cover sub-caliber shells like a bull sheep .. Especially at long distances .. Firstly, in BT at a distance of over 1.5 km, it is problematic to get into a tank (see tank biathlon), secondly, the armor penetration with the distance of the subcaliber comes to naught .. The cumulative of such a problem is devoid of such a problem, for him at least 5 km at least 25 is the main thing to hit .. but here there are too many options for adjustment, target designation and so on ... the subcaliber projectile is devoid of all this .. the blank is good in classic tank attacks, but how many of them have there been over the past decades? Consequently, there are very big doubts in such an anti-tank vehicle as "Octopus" .. the same specialized "chrysanthemum" will be much more effective ... And in the mind the finished BMD-4 with a sensible crew for the tasks of the Airborne Forces is more than sufficient.
    2. Trigger-Happy
      Trigger-Happy 5 September 2016 11: 40
      0
      In fairness, it must be said that industry does what the military asks. Or what they can, but the military needs to decide whether they need it or not.
    3. mr.redpartizan
      mr.redpartizan 5 September 2016 20: 38
      +3
      This is not a tank destroyer in the usual sense, but a light amphibious amphibious tank. In terms of mobility, firepower and fire control system it corresponds to the T-90A tank, and in terms of protection - the BTR-80. Without KAZ installation, the car and crew are suicide bombers.
  6. Trigger-Happy
    Trigger-Happy 5 September 2016 11: 48
    0
    Quote: svp67
    The stated probability of hitting targets is 90%, but a lot depends on the gunner ... On a moving target - the equipment is guaranteed to hit a target moving at a speed of 25 km per hour

    this is interesting, is there a stabilized target tracking machine, if it is not there, then this is the 80s. Keeping a point on the target at a distance of 5 km, while being on the move yourself, is very, very difficult. Yes, and the hit must have to a specific point in the same tank, so that it is guaranteed to incapacitate.
  7. snc
    snc 5 September 2016 12: 06
    +1
    It would be better for the reflex to add speed than range, 5 km, and so it was enough.

    If we were to modernize, then the gun had to be set from Almaty, as the most powerful we have now in this caliber, because even with an ambush, the crew of the Octopus against the modern MBT will have only 1 shot, after which you must immediately dump.

    The very Octopus, as well as the entire armored vehicles of the Airborne Forces, vitally need KAZ.

    The very concept of a light tank is in doubt (yes, it’s not a self-propelled gun in any way, the weapon from MBTs with small elevation angles in a rotating turret on a tracked armored chassis is a tank)
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 5 September 2016 13: 01
      +6
      Quote: snc
      If we were to modernize, then the gun had to be set from Almaty, as the most powerful we have now in this caliber, because even with an ambush, the crew of the Octopus against the modern MBT will have only 1 shot, after which you must immediately dump.

      If you put a powerful cannon from the "armata", then the "dumping" of the "octopus" from the position will occur automatically - after the first shot it will be carried away by the recoil. laughing
      1. snc
        snc 5 September 2016 18: 51
        0
        Put the muzzle brake and everything will be fine. Initially, they wanted to put it on Octopus, but then they did it with other measures.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 6 September 2016 10: 45
          0
          Muzzle brake on a lightly armored tank destroyer?
          Monsieur knows a lot about perversions ... smile

          The only defense for this tank destroyer is stealth. And here we put on it a dust / snow cloud generator that fires with every shot.
          1. snc
            snc 7 September 2016 11: 51
            0
            What's the difference between creating a dust cloud in front of you or on the sides? Look on YouTube reporting Annanews from Syria, what clouds of dust are raising the "secretive" (in your opinion) T-72. With such a caliber, stealth can be said goodbye after the first shot, with or without a brake. By the way, does the muzzle brake on the PT-76 bother you?
  8. uskrabut
    uskrabut 5 September 2016 14: 20
    +2
    Maybe I don’t understand something. Octopus is an anti-tank self-propelled gun designed for landing. That is, it can be parachuted, like a regular BMD. This is a weapon for the Airborne Forces, to conduct operations behind enemy lines. I don’t understand why such a self-propelled gun tank gun?
    1. chenia
      chenia 5 September 2016 15: 20
      +3
      The use of airborne forces (units, formations) occupation of territory, favorable areas and bridgeheads at 150-500 km from the main forces. The lesson should (planned) take place (though it happens in any case) without special expenditures of forces and means. There should not be a layered defense, just guarded by some objects.

      The second stage is the retention until the approach of the main forces-defense .. Here we must bury our ears. In view of the shortage of artillery, the presence of BMD with 100 mm Bahchi and Octopus, which is both a PT system and support artillery, is justified. He does not go into any attacks. He made several shots from the trench, the veil changed position and again with a new (prepared) fire. No stabilizers are needed, but a variable clearance is needed (digging a trench less).

      As a 125 mm PT system with a "crowbar" PBS is the most reliable.

      In the late 80s, they wanted to create a tank destroyer for the ordinary infantry (project Sprut-SV). did not make it.

      And now, instead, towed (self-propelled), open 6 tons Octopus -B - the basis of our anti-tank defense (anti-tank reserve regiment and above).

      I must say right away that ATGMs can be satiated (they are still full of ordinary units).
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 5 September 2016 16: 13
        0
        Quote: chenia
        The use of airborne forces (units, formations) occupation of territory, favorable areas and bridgeheads at 150-500 km from the main forces. The lesson should (planned) take place (though it happens in any case) without special expenditures of forces and means. There should not be a layered defense, just guarded by some objects.

        PMSM, if we have an adversary with whom we can arrange an airborne landing at 150-500 km from the main forces, then conventional ATGMs will be enough to combat its reserves.
        And in a war with an enemy, against which the Airborne Forces will need a 125-mm tank destroyer, there will be no landing. Because the VKS outfit required to push the landing force into a profitable area will be much more useful to isolate this area until the approach of "heavy" or "medium" army units. Or to ensure the landing of dshbr.
        1. chenia
          chenia 5 September 2016 17: 24
          0
          "it is necessary to ensure complete and reliable suppression of enemy air defense systems" indeed, this can only be ensured against Honduras.

          But in the conflict of interests of serious powers for third countries, there are cases when someone is first and sneaker. and the latecomer appeals to the world community. So, the existence of airborne compounds is justified. And just in case you need to have a whole set of tools.

          And by the way, so that the Airborne Forces would not stand idle in a serious war, they were loaded with tanks. Let them learn to fight as "heavy" infantry.

          And the reserve for motorized rifles must be changed. The ATGM battery and 1-2 T-12 batteries (or Octopus-b) are somehow not modern - it’s a pity for the calculations.

          Topic Sprut SV (tank destroyer) naturally in a new form must continue.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 5 September 2016 18: 05
            +1
            As the war on 08.08.08/76/XNUMX showed, even in a conflict with a second-third-order state, one can run into serious air defense systems. And the civil war among our neighbors showed what happens to the IL-XNUMX if the enemy has at least MANPADS.

            In the event of a conflict of big powers over any country, our opponents have a huge bonus in the form of a network of bases around the world. Alas, they will always be closer.
            In addition, in such conflicts it is often only necessary to indicate your presence. And for this, and the usual parachute airborne battalion is enough. The rest can be delivered by landing method - up to T-72B3
            1. chenia
              chenia 5 September 2016 19: 01
              0
              They have a bonus, but the spirit may not be enough. Remember Kosovo, Pristina.

              Naturally, the seizure of the airfield can be carried out by an Airborne Forces unit or special forces, it has already happened. But just in case, the General Staff thinks the "introduction" was more tangible.

              But the creation of a tank destroyer is long overdue. Against a slowly flying ATGM, it’s always possible to come up with some kind of interference of any kind or a charge of a red-hot shot in the direction of releasing it, etc.

              But scrap is a serious thing.
              IT can be heavier and not swim. But to have a blade for self-digging (variable clearance by default). the upper part is reinforced, a powerful tank turret, all types of protection, and no stabilizer is needed. crew of 2 people. (mech.vod and commander) - do not go on the attack, the sectors of fire are defined, well, the HF will tell you. to have a paired KPVT- for a weak BT to beat. (Marder and Bradley can be treated to the 125th). KV and KR vehicles (of course, companies and not batteries already) must have ATGMs, with the ability to hit helicopters).

              Wash cheap and cheerful.

              And try to get IT in the trench when only peeps
    2. iAi
      iAi 29 December 2016 00: 07
      0
      Yes, we all do not understand something in the modern docrine of the use of troops.
      I suppose that Octopus, as a tank destroyer, will not land in the rear to a well-armed enemy, but in an EMPTY PLACE for its occupation!
      An empty place may be your own rear in the vast Siberian expanses that need to be protected.
      Another variant, this is the rear of a weak enemy, can also be considered an empty place.
      In any case, the purpose of using this product is to form the lines of defense and support the Airborne Forces.
      (I suppose that the 100mm Bakhcha combat modules will be removed from the BMD-4M and put new ones with a 57mm gun, so there is a need for a 125mm gun.)
  9. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 5 September 2016 15: 02
    +5
    Colleagues are a 125mm self-propelled anti-aircraft gun on a floating chassis and landing. He has no tasks to attack in the first line. Airborne forces usually operate in the rear areas. And HE shells for rear operations are just as important as BPS. Airborne simply gave a powerful 125mm gun.
    1. max702
      max702 5 September 2016 18: 58
      +1
      What's the point? A landmine of 100mm STANDARD BMD-4 guns DOESN'T LESS POWERED BY a 125MM TANK TANK SYSTEM .. And plus a 30mm machine gun ... And all this with excellent aiming angles, an excellent resource, and not a high cost of ammunition ... For which an airborne defense is expensive and highly specialized inefficient combat unit? Think of it, besides the money for the development and manufacture, the colossal expenses for the maintenance of training supply a completely different type of BT ..
      1. mr.redpartizan
        mr.redpartizan 5 September 2016 20: 48
        +2
        Octopus-SDM1 is based on the BMD-4M chassis. A 125 mm 2A46 caliber gun is much more powerful than a 100 mm 2A70 cannon with a low initial projectile velocity and can fire armor-piercing projectiles.
      2. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 6 September 2016 12: 30
        +1
        100mm ceased to arrange as a PT means and power of HE projectile. Against modern armored vehicles help ATGM caliber from 125mm. And the HE shell of a 125mm cannon is much more powerful and there are shells with an air blast and ready-to-use striking elements.
        1. max702
          max702 7 September 2016 10: 43
          0
          I'm talking about the HE shell again! And not about the sub-caliber! Due to the fact that the OFS 100mm gun has thin shell walls (due to the low pressure when fired), its power is equal to the standard 122mm HE shell! Just like NONy's 120mm projectile is wounded by the HE power of a standard 152mm projectile .. A tank shot, due to the heavy loads at the time of the shot, is forced to be made in thicker walls of the projectile itself, and therefore with less explosives .. On the battlefield, BT is FIRST a means of supporting an infantryman, and not a tank destroyer ... somehow they began to forget about it, although in recent years it is the infantryman who carries the main threat to any type of enemy equipment ... When the United States faced this problem, it very quickly threw uranium sub-caliber weapons out of the Abrams' ammunition crowbars and for not having the best used cumulative shells, urgently developing and producing tank HE shells .. Once again, regarding the armor penetration of the 125mm APCR projectile on the Octopus gun, open Wikipedia and see .. And what do we see there? 350mm homogeneous armor .. And how does this fit with the 750mm cumulative 100mm gun? Of course, Wikipedia is still a source, but still ...
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 7 September 2016 11: 32
            0
            And you look again about breaking through the cumulative 125mm and breaking through the PTURs 125mm and compare with 100mm. About HE: the thickness of the shell of the HE shell affects the penetration of solid barriers, as well as the initial velocity of the shell. At the same time, the shell of a smoothbore gun contains less explosives than the equivalent shell of a rifled gun and has worse accuracy when firing from closed guns.
        2. max702
          max702 7 September 2016 10: 43
          +1
          I'm talking about the HE shell again! And not about the sub-caliber! Due to the fact that the OFS 100mm gun has thin shell walls (due to the low pressure when fired), its power is equal to the standard 122mm HE shell! Just like NONy's 120mm projectile is wounded by the HE power of a standard 152mm projectile .. A tank shot, due to the heavy loads at the time of the shot, is forced to be made in thicker walls of the projectile itself, and therefore with less explosives .. On the battlefield, BT is FIRST a means of supporting an infantryman, and not a tank destroyer ... somehow they began to forget about it, although in recent years it is the infantryman who carries the main threat to any type of enemy equipment ... When the United States faced this problem, it very quickly threw uranium sub-caliber weapons out of the Abrams' ammunition crowbars and for not having the best used cumulative shells, urgently developing and producing tank HE shells .. Once again, regarding the armor penetration of the 125mm APCR projectile on the Octopus gun, open Wikipedia and see .. And what do we see there? 520mm homogeneous armor .. And how does this fit with the 750mm cumulative 100mm gun? Of course, Wikipedia is still a source, but still ...
  10. Crown
    Crown 5 September 2016 17: 54
    0
    What difference does it have to peel at the enemy? The main thing would be what.
  11. Alekseev
    Alekseev 5 September 2016 21: 45
    +1
    Quote: svp67
    tells me that a heavy machine gun will obviously not be superfluous to her

    hi
    Absolutely so!
    All the more, it is not possible to carry NSVT on oneself ... It weighs, if memory serves, only 25 kg. And electric drives for guidance (not to put in the 21st century the ancient ZPU, "coping" with which is very difficult.) Is a long passed stage.
    Here, I think, the negligence of the military commanders, which are in this case.
    They would like to know how G.K.Zhukov being deputy. The Ministry of Defense and the Minister dealt with the issues of bringing to standard BTR-152.
    And a very good car for its time turned out to be a car. Still in some places in service.
  12. kytx
    kytx 5 September 2016 23: 21
    0
    Quzmi4,
    well blurted out instead of nsvt indicated kpvt, was mistaken. it is clear what was meant by the kk-machine gun on the turret. stupid irony about t10 is inappropriate IMHO. I can’t clarify what exactly he fought on now. a funny joke.
  13. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 6 September 2016 14: 41
    0
    100mm ceased to arrange as a PT means and power of HE projectile. Against modern armored vehicles help ATGM caliber from 125mm. And the HE shell of a 125mm cannon is much more powerful and there are shells with an air blast and ready-to-use striking elements.
  14. snc
    snc 7 September 2016 11: 59
    0
    chenia,
    Get in the trench? Easy! For anti-tank systems, even getting into the relatively small tower of the Octopus when it is stationary is not a problem. And a landmine with a remote detonation can fly ...
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 8 September 2016 11: 18
      0
      A tower in the trench needs to be seen ....