Military Review

News of the project "Birdies"

37
The development of promising weapons and equipment for the Russian airborne troops is continuing. To date, several new models of various applications have been adopted, and in the foreseeable future, arsenals and equipment will be replenished with new domestic developments. According to recent reports, at the end of the current decade, the newest Pitselov anti-aircraft missile system, designed specifically for the Airborne Forces, will have to appear.


A few days ago there were new reports on the development of such an anti-aircraft system. 2 August, on the professional holiday of the landing, the TASS news agency published some information received from an unnamed source in the military-industrial complex. The source revealed the existing plans, called some features of the promising air defense system, and in addition, announced the approximate dates for the emergence of a new development. At the same time, he did not disclose the main technical characteristics of the combat vehicle and its weapons. In combination with the already known information, new information allows to update the existing picture in a noticeable way.

The source of the TASS news agency said that at the present time the project with the code "Birdies" is at the stage of development work. This phase of the program should be completed by the end of 2019. Already in the 2020 year, it is expected to put the new air defense system on the armament of the airborne troops and establish its mass production. The required number of similar combat vehicles and other similar plans directly connected with the re-equipment of the units remain unknown.



According to the source, the new “Ptitselov” complex will be airborne and airborne, for which it is planned to be built on the basis of the landing gear of the BMD-4M airborne combat vehicle. The combat module of the complex will carry only missile weapons, allowing you to attack air targets at short distances. At the same time, in terms of its combat capabilities, a promising air defense missile system will be twice as large as the systems already in service.

It should be noted that information from an unnamed source in the defense industry in the most serious way changes the already established picture based on previous the news about the "Birdman" project. The development of a new air defense system specifically for the Airborne Forces became known a few years ago, and over the past time, some information about this system has become public knowledge. Apparently, over the past time, the designers of military equipment and the customer managed to significantly revise their plans, as well as change the appearance of the desired anti-aircraft system.

Recall that the first reports on the development of a promising airborne anti-aircraft complex suitable for use in the Airborne Forces appeared in the middle of 2013. It was reported that such a project involved Tula Instrument Design Bureau. At that time, the anti-aircraft complex for the landing force was planned to be built on the basis of the existing Pantsyrya-C1 rocket-cannon. It was assumed that such a machine, having the required mobility, on the battlefield could replace the existing Strela-10 air defense system and portable systems of the Igla family.

At the beginning of May 2016, the name "Birdies" appeared for the first time in media reports. According to the press, obtained from unnamed sources in the defense industry, in the foreseeable future it was planned to create a promising short-range air defense system based on the BMD-4M tracked chassis for arming the airborne forces. There was a high priority of the project, directly related to the features of the fleet of airborne vehicles: this branch of service still operates the systems created about 40 years ago, and therefore, despite the repair and modernization of existing equipment, it needs new anti-aircraft complexes, including special features and special features.

Shortly after the first reports of the ROC "Birdies" information about the possible appearance of a promising complex appeared. With reference to an unnamed source in the Ministry of Defense, the TASS publication wrote that defense industry specialists and the customer were considering the possibility of using various combat modules, including existing models. Thus, the short-range "Birdies" air defense system could get a combat module from the Strela-10 or Pine serial system.

At the end of May last year, the national press clarified the current state of affairs in the project. An unnamed source in the headquarters of the airborne troops told reporters about the start of work on the creation of the "Bird-catcher." At the same time, however, at that time works were at the stage of technical design. Experimental design work had not yet begun. Despite this, the source revealed some details of future rearmament. According to the plans of that time, the “Birdies” air defense missile system was supposed to come into service with anti-aircraft regiments of the Airborne Forces formed a few years ago and replace the material part of the old types they had.

At the end of July last year, the first official statements appeared concerning the further fate of the new anti-aircraft systems. Deputy Commander of the Airborne Forces, Lieutenant-General Andrei Holzakov, revealed the existing plans for the promising techniques such as the Typhoon and the Birdies. According to the general, according to the plan, the new armored personnel carrier and the air defense system will have to appear in the troops already in 2017. However, the deputy commander did not rule out the possibility of revising such plans.

Over the next year, new information on the progress of the “Fowler” project received from officials or unnamed sources has not been received. Only a few days ago, at the very beginning of August, some curious details were published. It should be noted that the recent reports to a certain extent complement the already known data, and in some moments contradict them. All this suggests that over the past year, the project "Fowler" has undergone significant changes, apparently aimed at improving the characteristics and obtaining new combat capabilities.

According to available data, the promising airborne warning system "Birdies", intended for airborne troops, will have the greatest possible unification with the existing serial equipment. First of all, it will be expressed in the use of the tracked chassis of the newest BMD-4M airborne assault vehicle. At the present time, such machines have been adopted and put into series. The use of the existing chassis will, to a certain extent, simplify the operation of the new technology, and will also allow the anti-aircraft complex to be transported by existing military transport aircraft and, if necessary, parachute it.

For obvious reasons, the volume and methods of processing the base chassis are still unknown, and in this context one can only make various predictions. Most likely, in the development of the “Bird-catcher”, the BMD-4М chassis will lose only the tower and the corresponding equipment of the combat compartment, while the hull, powerplant, chassis, etc. will remain the same. As a result, the anti-aircraft machine will retain anti-bullet reservation and a relatively powerful propulsion unit, providing it with high mobility on land and on water.

Requirements in terms of air transportability and the possibility of landing from military transport aircraft make it possible to present approximate dimensions and combat mass of a promising vehicle. Obviously, according to these parameters, the new "Birdies" should not seriously differ from the serial BMD-4M.

In the past few years, the possibility of building the Ptitselov using existing combat modules has been mentioned. The first “candidate” for the role of the source of the required components was the Pantsir-С1 rocket-gun. Later, the possibility of using units and units of the Strela-10 and Pine air defense missile systems was mentioned.

According to the latest reports published at the beginning of this month, the “Birdies” complex will carry only rocket weapons. Thus, direct borrowing of the combat module of the “Pantsir-С1” type without any modifications is excluded. In addition, a TASS source said that in terms of the range and height of target destruction, a promising anti-aircraft complex would be twice as good as the serial systems in service with the Airborne Forces. Such a statement makes it possible to approximately determine the main combat characteristics of the air defense missile system, as well as imagine which of the existing missiles can be used to obtain such capabilities.

Currently, the Strela-10 self-propelled vehicles of several modifications are the most powerful and effective air defense system in the fleet of airborne vehicles. The missiles of these complexes, including the latest models, are capable of hitting targets at ranges up to 5 km and altitudes up to 3,5 km. Thus, from recent news it follows that the airborne "Birdies" can shoot at a distance of 10 km and altitude of 7 km. Combat capabilities of the complex will grow accordingly.

A few years ago, when the first information appeared on the development of a promising anti-aircraft missile (or missile-gun) complex for the airborne troops, the deadlines for completing the design and deployment of mass production were not specified. The first reports on this subject indicated only an indefinite foreseeable future. Only in the summer of last year, the Airborne Troops Command for the first time indicated the exact date. According to the statements of the deputy commander, the first samples of the “Ptitselov” were to be sent to the troops as early as 2017. However, recent reports speak directly about changes in existing plans and a noticeable postponement. So, the stage of development work is now expected to be completed only at the end of 2019.

It can be assumed that during one of the first stages the project encountered some difficulties, the result of which was the complication and delays in the work. In addition, we cannot exclude another scenario, in which at a certain stage the requirements for the project were seriously reworked, with corresponding consequences for the work schedule. Anyway, now there is every reason to believe that the plans announced last year have not been implemented, and, as a result, the deadlines for completing the main work on the topic “Birdies” have shifted noticeably.

What will be the consequences of changing the schedule of work - one can only guess. However, such news may be an occasion for optimistic forecasts. The postponement of key events at a later date allows us to assume a noticeable revision of an existing project, implying the most serious increase in performance and expansion of capabilities. As a result, the armed forces can get a more advanced anti-aircraft system, even a few years later than previously announced terms.

The main result of the successful completion of the Poultry project, planned for the end of the current decade, will be the re-equipment of the air defense units of the Russian Airborne Forces. At the same time, the project will have another interesting feature. The result of ongoing work will be the appearance of the world's first anti-aircraft missile system, immediately developed for the transport and parachute landing of a military transport aviation. Existing systems for this purpose can be transported by air and land in the required manner, but specialized equipment that initially has such capabilities is not yet available.

According to current plans, by the end of this decade, the anti-aircraft gunners of the airborne troops will have to use complexes of existing models. With 2020, the deliveries of new equipment of similar purpose, characterized by higher performance and greater flexibility of use, will have to start. The emergence of such air defense missile systems will lead to a natural increase in the combat potential of the airborne forces and will allow them to more effectively accomplish the combat missions of one kind or another.


On the materials of the sites:
http://tass.ru/
http://rg.ru/
http://ria.ru/
http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/
http://bastion-karpenko.ru/
Author:
Photos used:
Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
37 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Amurets
    Amurets 8 August 2017 06: 59
    +4
    According to current plans, by the end of the current decade, anti-aircraft gunners will have to use existing models.

    Julitta goes_ someday will be. And it will be the same as with the S-350 Vityaz air defense system. Since 2016 it has been in service ?????????
  2. tchoni
    tchoni 8 August 2017 07: 28
    +4
    The combat module of the complex will carry only missile weapons, allowing you to attack air targets at short range.
    I'm afraid it will be a "pine" land. those. banal "willow" on the turret. And the noise will be like about 500 ....
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 8 August 2017 07: 41
      +5
      Quote: tchoni
      I'm afraid it will be a "pine" land. those. banal "willow" on the turret. And the noise will be like about 500 ....

      I'm afraid between the “Pine” and “Verba on the turrets” there is a huge difference.
      1. tchoni
        tchoni 8 August 2017 13: 17
        0
        The point is not a little difference, but in the principle itself. SAM is small
      2. tchoni
        tchoni 8 August 2017 13: 56
        0
        short range everyone can offend. The only way to survive for such air defense systems is to be inconspicuous and high-performance. I am afraid that they are again blinding a worthless machine, which cannot hide or fight properly and stands like a cast-iron bridge.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 8 August 2017 14: 17
          +2
          The Airborne Forces are currently armed with only MANPADS and Strela-10. The latter can only be landed landing method.
          As far as I understood, “Ptitselov” should become an “advanced” analogue of “Strela-10MN”, allowing parachute landing.
          No more and no less.
          As for hiding, the “Pine” has no active airspace tracking systems. Only optics and heat.
          1. tchoni
            tchoni 8 August 2017 16: 00
            0
            I understand all this very well. It’s just that these complexes will not give any substantial increase to the air defense capabilities of the airborne assault units of the airborne forces. Almost the same effect can be achieved by additionally equipping MANPADS units. Is that something like pine more effectively fights with drones. Although, again, the ability to fight this evil, as they say, has the same "willow" .... But, this is my personal IMHO.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 8 August 2017 16: 13
              0
              Quote: tchoni
              Almost the same effect can be achieved by additionally equipping MANPADS units.

              Not sure. "Pine" still works at ranges up to 10 km. Unlike "Willow" is able to work against helicopters in the "ambush hang" mode. It can work against UAVs and against weapons like cruise missiles.
              1. tchoni
                tchoni 8 August 2017 19: 18
                0
                Quote: Spade
                Unlike "Willow" is able to work against helicopters in the "ambush hang" mode.

                This mode has never been a problem for MANPADS with TGSN. They usually do not have a target selection mode for speed.
                Quote: Spade
                Unlike "Willow" is able to work against helicopters in the "ambush hang" mode.

                Nsli believe the Internet at the "willow" range of about 7 km. Different sources say differently. And the willow drones, as I understand it, shot down already in a combat situation. There was even an article, pomnitstso.

                But, in general, they have a large, specially trained head in their headquarters. So let them think ...)
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 8 August 2017 20: 32
                  0
                  Quote: tchoni
                  This mode has never been a problem for MANPADS with TGSN.

                  It was. And a big problem. Because the GOS simply does not see the helicopter in a position behind the shelter. When one radar is visible.

                  Quote: tchoni
                  Nsli believe the Internet at the "willow" range of about 7 km.

                  And at "Helfaer" when used from a helicopter, 9 km.

                  Quote: tchoni
                  And the willow drones, as I understand it, shot down already in a combat situation.

                  You are confusing something.
                  And the article was about the "Shell"
                  1. tchoni
                    tchoni 9 August 2017 09: 47
                    0
                    Quote: Spade
                    And the article was about the "Shell"
                    https://topwar.ru/121802-rossiyskie-voennye-predo
                    tvratili-ataku-na-damask-primeniv-noveyshiy-pzrk.
                    html Here is a link for you. If you dig into the news feed, you will also find a message about the delivery of "willow" to Russian roadblocks in order to protect against UAVs.
                    Quote: Spade
                    And the article was about the "Shell"

                    How do you imagine this? Is there a concrete wall on the battlefield and an ace helicopter pilot in a combat situation controlling the hovering to within a few centimeters? And a dimensionless fuel tank? Completeness. "ambush" in this form is more of a fantasy than a fait accompli. One way or another, the helicopter due to obstruction should appear all. at least for launch. And, since we are talking about radar target detection - give yourself the trouble to think: who will they see before: a large iron box or a couple of soldiers?
                    Quote: Spade
                    And at "Helfaer" when used from a helicopter, 9 km.

                    Here I am about the same. To have an advantage, you need to have a range of two times more. For real launch ranges are always different from polygon ones.
    2. sivuch
      sivuch 8 August 2017 08: 28
      +6
      Well, if they put pluses for this, then this already speaks of the level of the forum.
      What is common between Sosna’s command guidance (r / com + laser / com) and Verba’s homing (IR + UV + opt)?
    3. Bongo
      Bongo 8 August 2017 08: 42
      +3
      Quote: tchoni
      I'm afraid it will be a "pine" land. those. banal "willow" on the turret. And the noise will be like about 500 ....

      Initially, in the middle of the 90's short-range air defense system, Sosna was developed under the guided missile principle of the "laser path".
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 8 August 2017 10: 52
        +1
        Laser beam control. As a well-established Swedish complexes from SAAB. Well, or as in the Soviet / Russian anti-tank systems
        "Laser trail" is still not a very scientific definition created by advertising specialists of the Tula KBP. Who faced the fact that Narot confused laser beam control with guidance on laser radiation reflected from the target by means of semi-active LGSN
  3. Fei_Wong
    Fei_Wong 8 August 2017 07: 49
    +2
    Purely missile weapons for landing anti-aircraft complex - this is a fatal flaw, scrape. A gun is necessary, even if only one. Otherwise, versatility is lost, dependence on supply increases by an order of magnitude, and paratroopers need literally every barrel that can work on the ground.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 8 August 2017 07: 55
      +3
      Quote: Fei_Wong
      paratroopers need literally every barrel, which can work on the ground.

      That is the problem. To put cannon armament on such a machine is guaranteed to receive "inappropriate" use of the machine and its non-optimal placement in battle order.
      1. Fei_Wong
        Fei_Wong 8 August 2017 08: 13
        +3
        Yeah. Is it better to have a defenseless and useless bucket to exhaust the supply of missiles (taking into account the fact that you can’t cram them into airborne equipment)?
        It’s always better to have more features than be a castrate do not possess them.
        And the target / non-target - so in the war, you know, even from the Katyusha they fired directly at the tanks (rolling them into the pits) - and nothing, no one complained about the "non-optimal placement". In war they do not fight strictly according to the brochures-manuals. They use everything that is possible for victory. And situations there are continually unforeseen. Therefore - "it is better to have than not to have."
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 8 August 2017 08: 34
          +4
          Quote: Fei_Wong
          Yeah. Is it better to have a defenseless and useless bucket to exhaust the supply of missiles (taking into account the fact that you can’t cram them into airborne equipment)?

          Even after the reserve of missiles is exhausted, a “defenseless and useless bucket” will severely limit the capabilities of enemy aircraft and UAVs by the very fact of their existence.

          Quote: Fei_Wong
          And the target / non-target - so in the war, you know, even from the Katyusha they shot directly at the tanks (rolling them into the pits) - and nothing, no one complained about the "non-optimal placement"

          Blah blah blah...
          I was personally present at the, let’s say, incident when, having a tank company in the rear hitting a pimp, stick men with large stars and stripes on their pants drove out a direct fire 2S3, they say, the projectile is more powerful with her. And the self-propelled gun "caught" only "Fly", but she, unlike the tank, was enough for her eyes. One mechanic who survived was able to crawl out of the car despite the shell shock.
          They used, damn it, “all that is possible for victory” .... And it is very likely that they got another hanging bag on their chest instead of prison bunks, or at least retiring.

          Quote: Fei_Wong
          It is always better to have more opportunities than to be a castrato not to possess them.

          Well so go to work with a chainsaw in a backpack. Suddenly you will need it, and you without a chainsaw ...
          1. Fei_Wong
            Fei_Wong 8 August 2017 09: 13
            +2
            Quote: Spade
            Well so go to work with a chainsaw in a backpack. Suddenly you will need it, and you without a chainsaw ...

            If you wanted to fuss, then you did not succeed. ^ _ ^
            Because I just go. True, not with a chainsaw, but with an adjustable wrench "Practician". But he is usually always with me when I'm out of the house.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 8 August 2017 10: 54
              0
              Here ... You have no chainsaws with you ... Well, how do you feel so useless? And if a tree falls at the entrance to your house, but you don’t have a chainsaw?
              1. Fei_Wong
                Fei_Wong 8 August 2017 11: 07
                +3
                I just don't need a chainsaw. I need a wrench. Like Ptitselov, you need a simple, modest gun. Keep the chainsaw for yourself. It is overrated, very niche and it has a lot of technical problems. A wrench - it is convenient in any situation. To untwist, twist, serve as a lever, a hammer, give a reptile in the face.
    2. sivuch
      sivuch 8 August 2017 08: 31
      +4
      Well, then you give a universal caliber of 57 mm and shoot at everything that moves, from armored vehicles to drones. The only thing is that ACS should be at a different level
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 8 August 2017 10: 49
        +2
        Quote: sivuch
        Well, then you give a universal caliber of 57 mm and shoot at everything that moves, from armored vehicles to drones. The only thing is that ACS should be at a different level

        Yeah ... and all this - in the landing option. laughing
        The 57 mm radar and ACS will already require a minimum chassis from the Buk. And even from the T-72. On a landing landing gear they will fit only individually.
        1. sivuch
          sivuch 8 August 2017 18: 35
          +1
          Actually, an accordion weighs 150 kg - not so much. And by ACS, I had in mind a few other things. Until recently, air defense officers had their own automated control systems, which did not come into contact with combined arms (which, in principle, didn’t exist) or artillery. But now, when the main threat is not manned aircraft, but any small crap like ASP, UAVs, all kinds of harpies , and in terrible quantities, then everything that can reach the range and ceiling must be involved in air defense tasks. And for this, it is necessary to somehow carry out the target allocation
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 8 August 2017 19: 00
            +1
            Quote: sivuch
            Actually, an accordion weighs 150 kg - not so much.

            And so it usually seems at first: think, put the radar at 150-200 kg - and get ZSU. smile
            And then it begins: the reinforced HV and GN drives for the guns (for the ZSU the BMP aiming speeds are insufficient) drag the reinforcement of the structure and mechanics (because the loads at such accelerations are completely different + the turret is heavier due to the radar, OEC and reinforced gun mechanisms), followed by it becomes necessary to strengthen the onboard power supply network (for drives are eating more + there are new consumers such as radar, SUAZO, all kinds of devices for integrating ZSU into the network, enhanced ventilation, because all these devices actively convert electricity to heat, etc.). And all this is mass, and most importantly - volumes.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 8 August 2017 20: 48
              +2
              In fact, everything is much more complicated.
              Roughly speaking, the task of hitting an air target with firing from an anti-aircraft artillery mount is to put a "cloud of gaps"
              We increase the caliber to 57 mm, and therefore increase the range, and therefore increase the flight time.
              The "sheaf of trajectories" of the maneuvering target is larger, therefore the volume of the "cloud of breaks" should be increased. In an extensive way, this is "cured" only by an increase in rate of fire (although an increase in caliber usually leads to the opposite) and an increase in the number of trunks. And in the end, the cost of conventional shells fired, together with the cost of the resource spent on their shooting, will exceed the cost of a guided missile.

              There is also an intensive way - guided sub-caliber projectile with the ability to remotely change the time of detonation already in flight. Like the Italians. But there is also a problem: the time when the cost of the queue becomes greater than the cost of a guided missile will come even earlier.
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 9 August 2017 10: 08
                0
                Quote: Spade
                Extensively, this is “cured” only by an increase in rate of fire (although an increase in caliber usually leads to the opposite) and an increase in the number of trunks.

                Yeah ... after which the theoretical designers are reminded that the chassis is not rubber, but the ZSU with the BK is not needed for 2-3 army targets. smile
                Quote: Spade
                There is also an intensive way - guided sub-caliber projectile with the ability to remotely change the time of detonation already in flight. Like the Italians. But there is also a problem: the time when the cost of the queue becomes greater than the cost of a guided missile will come even earlier.

                And why shoot a long burst in the presence of guided ammunition? DART - this is essentially the same SAM, for which the role of a launch accelerator and a marching engine is performed by a combination of a "sleeve with a propelling charge-barrel".
                The Italian firing in the 2013 bursts of "10 rounds per target" was carried out, as I understand it, as test ones - to determine the number of shells that were fired by the SS on the target.
                And at a cost ... it was reported that the "anti-aircraft analogue" of DART - RAM SAM - is much more expensive.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 9 August 2017 10: 56
                  0
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  DART - this is essentially the same SAM, for which the role of a launch accelerator and a marching engine is performed by a combination of a "sleeve with a propelling charge-barrel".

                  No way. There is a remote fuse. So the same “cloud of gaps. True, more accurate and compact.
                  Therefore, the problem is actually the same. High speed is “compensated” by a smaller number of fragments due to the fact that the projectile is sub-caliber. Fewer shells - their high cost.

                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  "anti-aircraft missile analog" DART - SAM SAM

                  It's kind of like a missile to defend against artillery ammunition, C-RAM. And such people do not know how to work normally on highly maneuverable goals.
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov 8 August 2017 10: 56
        +1
        Quote: sivuch
        Well then you give the 57 mm universal caliber

        There still the projectile should be very "advanced" and at the same time expensive. Like the Italians. Otherwise, it is useless.
  4. The comment was deleted.
    1. Fei_Wong
      Fei_Wong 8 August 2017 09: 22
      +1
      Quote: vnord
      Well, only the psychological effect, but for tanks in x ...

      The history and exploits of our soldiers must be known. And leave your speculations to yourself.
      Here, offhand, please study: https://rg.ru/2015/04/29/rodina-legenda.html
      "... the driver of the combat vehicle, t. Yermilov, while repelling a counter attack of tanks and infantry of the enemy from an open fighting position when firing direct fire, corrected the electrical equipment of the combat vehicle when shelling enemy tanks. Thanks to skillful and cold-blooded actions, he provided a timely salvo, the counterattack was repulsed and hit by 3 enemy tank. "

      "... the battery, where the commander of a fire platoon, Comrade Trachtengerts, was given the task to repel the enemy's counterattack near Pavlovka - infantry to the battalion with the support of 17 tanks. The platoon's installations were put into open firing position. Under fire from the enemy tanks, the platoon launched a volley on enemy infantry and tanks, showing exceptional restraint of the commander and all personnel. As a result, the volley destroyed more than 30 soldiers and shot down the enemy's 5 tanks. "

      More: http://www.opoccuu.com/katyushi-protiv-tankov.htm
      On July 22 of 1942, in the battle north of Novocherkassk, Moskvin’s division, which had been transferred to the Southern Front by that time and included in the 3 Rifle Corps, destroyed two 11 tanks with two direct salvos in 1,1 installation, whereas it was a good result for the anti-tank division from 18 guns was considered the defeat of two or three enemy tanks
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 8 August 2017 10: 57
        0
        You forgot to specify the calibers. And the type of tanks.
  5. Alvul
    Alvul 8 August 2017 19: 33
    +1
    This is in order to transfer closer to the airfields, so that aviation does not take off particularly? And while quickly and quickly run away from ground armored vehicles?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 8 August 2017 20: 33
      +1
      Quote: AlVul
      This is in order to transfer closer to the airfields, so that aviation does not take off particularly?

      In this case, it is better to use MANPADS.
  6. Ilya_Nsk
    Ilya_Nsk 9 August 2017 13: 29
    0
    I don’t know what will happen to the shell if it is dropped with a parachute ..
  7. Pelican
    Pelican 10 August 2017 17: 32
    0
    Googled the topic, even intrigued. There are two candidates. Carapace-C2 (the one without guns) and Pine. Judging by the shifted adoption dates by 2020, apparently they decided to do it under the Pine. It is easier to screw it to the BMD and it will be more reliable.
  8. viktor007
    viktor007 15 August 2017 15: 42
    0
    max firing range of modern Helfair -20km, when firing from an drone, albeit from 10km, I wonder what exactly this unit can cover, and how it will survive.
    if you count on confrontation with outdated equipment of the third world countries, then yes everything is OK, but modern weapons can also be bought there,
    in short, it is not clear against whom this system is needed.
  9. egsp
    egsp 30 August 2017 22: 25
    +1
    the normal development of airborne equipment is hindered by the dogma of mandatory airborne landing. Really, well, who has landed large formations since the Second World War? And then it was not effective and basically a failure. Why is this? The experience of recent conflicts shows that the Airborne Forces are used as ordinary infantry, only more mobile. Maybe it's time to descend from heaven to earth?