Military Review

MA-1 Survival Rifle Survival Rifle (USA)

21
In 1949, the US Air Force received a small-caliber collapsible rifle, the M4 Survival Rifle, which was proposed as a hunting rifle. weapons and means of self-defense for pilots in distress. In 1952, the pilots received a similar system M6 Survival Weapon. The development of the original idea was continued, and a few years later an order appeared to adopt the MA-1 Survival Rifle rifle.


At the beginning of the 1950s, the M6 combined rifle, which had sleek and rifled barrels, was built upon the order of the USAF. Depending on the type of game, the downed pilot could use an .22 Hornet cartridge with a bullet or a shotgun M35 caliber .410. The gun could be folded and occupied the minimum place in a portable emergency reserve. The M6 Survival Weapon product differed from its predecessor in enhanced performance and other capabilities, but the army soon found it necessary to create a new, similar sample.


One of the experienced rifles ArmaLite MA-1


Just two years after adopting the M6 rifle, the command of the air force ordered the development of a new survival weapon. The corresponding contract was obtained by the newly founded company ArmaLite, at that time it was a structural unit of the aircraft manufacturer firm Fairchild Aircraft. The technical assignment for a new weapon was similar to the previous ones. The contractor had to create a light and compact magazine rifle for an existing small-caliber cartridge.

Initially, the project of a perspective rifle received the working designation AR-5, which corresponded to the internal nomenclature of the developer company. Later, in the 1956 year, according to the test results, the rifle was put into service, with the result that it received a new name - MA-1 Survival Rifle (“Survival Rifle MA-1”).

Taking into account the basic requirements of the customer, the engineers of ArmaLite, headed by Eugene Stoner, proposed a fairly simple rifle design. The AR-5 project involved the use of a number of simple and mastered solutions, complemented by several new ideas. In particular, it was planned to make a collapsible rifle, which allowed to reduce its dimensions in the transport position. In addition, the weapon had to have a special butt, allowing to do without separate bags or carrying cases.


Receiver and butt closeup


ArmaLite AR-5 rifle had the most simple layout. In the center of the product was a compact receiver with a bolt group and a trigger mechanism. Her front end had attachments to mount the barrel, and a plastic butt joined to her back. In the combat position, the rifle was distinguished by sufficiently large dimensions, but in the transport configuration it was compact and lightweight.

Part of the main parts of the weapon was placed in the receiver with recognizable external contours. Interestingly, subsequently, stem boxes of a similar shape were used in new projects by J. Stoner. To accommodate the shutter was intended the upper part of the box, made in the form of a cylinder of the required diameter. In the right side of the cylinder there was a window for ejection of liners. Behind him, an L-shaped groove for the bolt handle was provided. From below, a rectangular casing was attached to the cylinder, the front part of which contained the receiving shaft of the store, and the rear one was used to install parts of the firing mechanism.

To improve performance, it was proposed to use materials resistant to corrosion. The main parts of the weapon were made of stainless steel or aluminum, and the butt with the back plate should be made of plastic and rubber.


Disassembled rifle


The rifle received a rifled barrel caliber 5,7 mm for a small-caliber central ignition cartridge .22 Hornet (5,7х35 mm R). The barrel had a length of 14 inches (mm 355) or 62 caliber. The thickness of the walls of the trunk decreased in the direction of the muzzle. In the muzzle of the barrel there was a collar with a front sight, the breech got a nut for fastening on the front of the receiver. To reduce the size and weight of the weapon, the barrel had no protection.

The AR-5 / MA-1 rifle received the simplest sliding bolt with turn locking. The bolt group performed in the form of a cylindrical unit, freely moving inside the receiver. To control the movement of the shutter was proposed using a curved handle in the back. Before the shot, the barrel was locked using several lugs. Inside the gate there was a moving drummer and an extractor.

A simple trigger type trigger mechanism was used. Fire control was carried out using a traditional trigger, derived under the receiver. Security provided by a fuse blocking the work of USM. His lever was placed in the back of the receiver, directly above the upper cut of the butt.

The rifle from ArmaLite was supposed to use a small-caliber .22 Hornet cartridge. For the storage and supply of such ammunition in weapons was developed a compact box magazine with four cartridges. The store was placed in the reception shaft of the front location and was fixed with a latch. It is curious that the control lever of the latter was located on the front of the guard - just before the trigger.


Receiver and bolt, right view


Of particular interest is a butt designed specifically for a survival rifle. For greater convenience of holding weapons and firing, it was proposed to use the traditional form of a butt with a pistol protrusion on the neck. At the same time, J. Stoner and colleagues envisioned several interesting innovations that simplified transportation and storage of the rifle.

Plastic butt had a U-shaped in terms of the front of the neck, covering the receiver. A long screw passed through the internal canal of the neck, which is necessary for assembling a rifle before firing. It was proposed to rotate this screw with the help of a large cap placed under the pistol projection. Inside the butt provided a couple of large compartments. The first was made in the form of a tube and differed a great length. The second had increased size, but went to a lesser depth. The first compartment was designed to store the trunk, the second - for the receiver with the store. Both compartments were covered with a removable rubber butt pad.

The low-power cartridge and limited firing characteristics made it possible to get by with the simplest sights. An unregulated fly was placed on the muzzle of the trunk. In the back of the receiver there was a small upper ridge, inside which there was a rear sight with a ring.


Left view of the same units


The AR-5 / MA-1 rifle should be stored in a disassembled state. In this case, the barrel and receiver were located in a sealed butt. It is curious that the light butt with large cavities filled with air had a positive buoyancy and could hold on to water. In addition, he protected metal parts from external influences.

When folded, the survival rifle had a total length of 368 mm with a height of no more than 150 mm and a width of several centimeters. The size of the weapon in such a state was determined solely by the dimensions of the stock. In the form assembled and ready for shooting, the AR-5 had a length of 806 mm. The mass of weapons, regardless of the current state, was only 1,2 kg. A medium-power cartridge (muzzle energy of no more than 1100 J) did not give a strong recoil, but allowed to shoot at small and medium game at distances to 150 m.

In preparation for the hunt, the downed pilot had to remove the butt plate from the butt and remove the weapon assemblies from it. The receiver was inserted into the front slot of the butt and was fixed in place with a screw passing through the neck. The barrel was connected to the box with a large cap nut. After completing the assembly, the shooter could install a magazine, raise a weapon and make a shot at game.

Prototypes of a new rifle for the air force were manufactured and submitted for testing in the 1955 year. They successfully coped with all the checks, with the result that next year a new command order appeared. Well-proven weapons adopted by the US Air Force. The order of adoption also introduced a new official designation - MA-1 Survival Rifle. In the near future, the first order for mass production of rifles was to appear.


Rifle butt


ArmaLite has begun preparations for the release of new survival rifles, but further preparatory work has not gone. After the adoption of the MA-1, it became clear that the air forces simply do not have the financial ability to order a significant amount of new weapons. Responsible persons tried to find funding for such purchases, but did not succeed in this. The result was a very strange situation. The survival rifle met all the requirements and was put into service, but the customer did not purchase a single serial product. This situation persisted for some time, after which the military department notified the rifle developer of the impossibility of signing a contract for the purchase of mass-produced items.

According to some reports, the company ArmaLite by this time managed to make plans for the near future. According to them, the Pentagon was to be the launch customer for the AR-5 / MA-1 rifle. Further it was supposed to continue the release of weapons, but for other customers, including for the withdrawal to the civilian market. However, the absence of the expected order of the military did not allow to fulfill all these plans. An interesting rifle at first could not get into military units, and then she could not get to the shelves.

The developers, not without reason, considered their survival rifle a successful model of small arms, designed to occupy a specific niche. However, the lack of state order forced them to abandon a good project. Shortly after the army finally abandoned the purchase of the MA-1 series rifles, ArmaLite found an elegant way out. Based on the existing product AR-5, a new sample of a different class was created.


Cavities in the butt: left for the barrel, right for the receiver


The rifle, originally intended for the US Air Force, was noticeably redone. While preserving the basic layout decisions and some elements of the design, the new weapon received automatic equipment, due to which it became the category of self-loading rifles. In 1958, a new rifle was introduced to the market under the commercial designation AR-7. Unlike its predecessor with manual reloading, the new rifle was able to go into series and remained in operation for a long time. In addition, she even managed to get into service with one of the countries.

ArmaLite’s special weapons failed to reach mass production and use in the military. As a result, it was not possible to test it in real or close to real conditions. Taking into account the peculiarities of operating previous survival systems, it can be assumed that with the help of MA-1 a downed pilot could successfully hunt small game and wait for rescuers with less problems. However, low-power cartridge and manual reloading would hardly have helped the pilot to fight off the attacking enemy.

The AR-5 / MA-1 Survival Rifle survival rifle was originally designed for use by pilots who had to wait for help. This requirement in the most noticeable way influenced the design of the weapon, and also affected some of its characteristics. All the engineering tasks were successfully solved, and the rifle was put into service. However, financial difficulties led to a specific finale. The order for rifles did not follow, and the development company had to rework the project to meet the requirements of the civilian market. And the already revised version of the rifle could not only interest buyers, but also reach full and long-term operation.


On the materials of the sites:
https://armalite.com/
http://weaponland.ru/
https://ammoland.com/
https://ar15.com/
https://thefiringline.com/
http://google.com/patents/USD179499
Author:
Photos used:
Milsurps.com
21 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Monarchist
    Monarchist 28 November 2017 19: 24 New
    +6
    The author, thank you for the interesting information. Stoner is a master at interesting developments, which is confirmed by this rifle. Although in my opinion 22 gauge is somewhat controversial, because she is a pilot
    it will be necessary not only to get birds, but is such a bullet capable of stopping a bear or a wild boar?
    Although 1100 Joules should be enough.
    In the Russian Federation there is also a rather curious development of the so-called “TP82 survival pistol has been produced since 1986. It has three barrels: horizontal smooth-bore 32 caliber to protect predators and fire signal flares. The lower rifled caliber is 5,45. The kit comes with a machete with butt pad for abutment on the shoulder. length: 360 mm, width 42 mm, weight with a butt 2,4 kg. Firing range with a butt: 35 m shot and 200 m bullet (Blagovestov: "That's what they shoot in the CIS")
    1. bouncyhunter
      bouncyhunter 28 November 2017 19: 39 New
      +3
      I join in the words of gratitude to the author. hi
      1. mirag2
        mirag2 28 November 2017 22: 47 New
        +1
        There are no pictures at hand, I recall our gun for astronauts. It was different.
        1. bouncyhunter
          bouncyhunter 29 November 2017 17: 49 New
          +2
          Quote: mirag2
          I remember our gun for astronauts

          Are you about TP-82?
    2. CTABEP
      CTABEP 29 November 2017 20: 55 New
      0
      A bear or an experienced wild boar was so afraid to shoot it. But in addition to the birds, there are bunnies, all sorts of gophers, badgers, and a young pig is quite possible to beat. Total is still better than hunting with Colt M1911 :).
    3. gladcu2
      gladcu2 30 November 2017 22: 02 New
      +1
      In the North American market, there is an improved automatic .22 small-caliber rifle for sale under the index AR-14. With two stores for 10 rounds and a little loose. Everything is capacious in the butt case of positive buoyancy.
      The cost is about 220 USD.

      And also there is a .22 ruler that just disassembles into two halves, but has a good carrying bag behind.
      Bloggers review two rifles without finding one hundred percent preference for any. I would choose a ruger in case of hiking. A pilot or lumberjack would most likely take the AR-14. Throw in the trunk and score.

      Can a .22 caliber be protected from a bear, fill up a boar or a deer?

      The answer may be. There are a lot of video confirmations on YouTube.
  2. Mika_blin
    Mika_blin 28 November 2017 20: 02 New
    +1
    An interesting cycle, thanks to the author.
  3. Old26
    Old26 28 November 2017 22: 18 New
    +1
    Quote: Monarchist
    In the Russian Federation there is also a rather interesting development of the so-called "survival pistol TP82 produced since 1986.

    Since 2006, this pistol is no longer in the NAZ astronauts.
  4. shuravi
    shuravi 28 November 2017 23: 21 New
    0
    A weapon of survival for peacetime. For use by crews in hostilities is unsuitable.
  5. Me 262
    Me 262 28 November 2017 23: 32 New
    0
    Of all the options considered, I would have gone to the forest to survive, but it’s not clear why there isn’t a place for ammunition in the butt, although then buoyancy would have been lost.
  6. shuravi
    shuravi 28 November 2017 23: 46 New
    0
    By and large, with the development of PSO and emergency communications, this type of weapon has lost its relevance.
  7. bistrov.
    bistrov. 29 November 2017 07: 14 New
    0
    The decision to put everything together in the stock is indeed interesting, but not without drawbacks: the cartridges need to be stored separately, and the cartridge itself is very low-power, a little more powerful than the famous 22 LR. What can be killed from such a gun? Is that a gopher or a squirrel? Even to kill the jackal, you need to get into the head. It’s better to have a full-time army pistol, at least it is always with you. Again there is an additional supply unit for the rear, which causes inconvenience in the supply of ammunition. Such weapons should be under a full-time army and standard hunting cartridge.
  8. Old26
    Old26 29 November 2017 11: 27 New
    +2
    Quote: shuravi
    By and large, with the development of PSO and emergency communications, this type of weapon has lost its relevance.

    Do not tell. A couple of years ago, the Soyuz descent vehicle landed abnormally, missed 400 km. It’s good that summer, it’s good that steppe. And in the winter in the taiga would collapse, then. And here for 3 or 4 hours they did not know anything about the fate of the crew, until the commander got in touch on cell phone. And you say relevance has lost this weapon. You know, such a weapon will never be redundant. Remember how in the "White Sun of the Desert" Abdullah says - it’s good when you have a dagger and bad when it is not at the right time. So here
    1. shuravi
      shuravi 29 November 2017 13: 02 New
      0
      So what? For any connection and search helicopters rule. The need for hunting weapons is almost zero.
      And for the crews of combat aircraft. such little balls are not needed at all.
  9. Old26
    Old26 30 November 2017 22: 20 New
    +1
    Quote: shuravi
    So what? For any connection and search helicopters rule. The need for hunting weapons is almost zero.
    And for the crews of combat aircraft. such little balls are not needed at all.

    Never mind. But if there is no connection? What then? You can wait for the rescuers both a day and two. With an emergency landing, you can fly so far that they can search for a long time. Landing "Sunrise-2" is very indicative in this sense. And thank God that after that there were no such landings. But reckon that all the time it will be so - it's still not worth it.
    An airplane accident (if it is a fighter) is of course unlikely to happen somewhere in the area where days or weeks will be searched. But long-range and military transport aircraft can be anywhere. And not always the gun will be the weapon that is needed.
    1. gladcu2
      gladcu2 1 December 2017 01: 56 New
      0
      Keep in mind that in the USA and Canada there are a lot of private small airplanes. Which make landings on forest lakes.
      Yes, and all sorts of road workers and foresters are full. When to travel at a speed of 100 km per hour on asphalt and not meet a single oncoming car for an hour.
      He went. I know.
  10. shuravi
    shuravi 1 December 2017 01: 53 New
    0
    Quote: Old26

    Never mind. But if there is no connection? What then?


    Sorry, but not in the thirties or even fifties. Communication should be. Like PSO helicopters.


    You can wait for the rescuers both a day and two. With an emergency landing, you can fly so far that they can search for a long time. Landing "Sunrise-2" is very indicative in this sense. And thank God that after that there were no such landings. But reckon that all the time it will be so - still not worth it.


    Two days you can hold out on the NAZ.


    An airplane accident (if it is a fighter) is of course unlikely to happen somewhere in the area where days or weeks will be searched. But long-range and military transport aircraft can be anywhere. And not always the gun will be the weapon that is needed.


    And where did I talk about one gun?
    In addition to a pistol, a military pilot also needs an automatic rifle. Ideally, under a single cartridge with a gun.
  11. Old26
    Old26 1 December 2017 08: 05 New
    0
    Quote: shuravi
    Sorry, but not in the thirties or even fifties. Communication should be. Like PSO helicopters.

    Comrad !! Should it be or is - this is how you yourself understand TWO BIG DIFFERENCES. In NAZ there is a RS, the EMNIP is called Komar, but it has a range of about 10-15 km. I cited as an example the emergency landing of the "Union" a couple of years ago. He did not descend along a regular trajectory, but along an emergency ballistic trajectory. And he sat not where they were waiting for him. 4 fly hundreds of kilometers. And it's good that it was
    1. Summer
    2. He did not leave the planned landing path, but walked in its plane

    And it is corny LOST. And despite the presence of both PSO and the presence of communication means at these PSOs, they could NOT FIND until the commander himself got in touch via a CELL telephone. Well, how would there be no network, what then to do, and how long then would the rescue expedition last? And they sit in the winter and not in the Kazakhstan steppe, but somewhere in the taiga? Or in the mountains, how did one of the "Unions" land emergency? No, comrade, you won’t convince me. Communication and search and rescue services are good, but having weapons in NAZ will never hurt.

    Quote: shuravi
    Two days you can hold out on the NAZ.

    Two - can you hold out? And the three? Or a week? When the Soyuz boarded an emergency in the Altai mountains it was impossible to get close to it. The helicopter couldn’t; an avalanche stopped the foot rescue squad. And if this happened again, as an example, in the taiga? How many would you be looking for if the SA flew away at 1000 kilometers from the planned trajectory?

    Quote: shuravi
    And where did I talk about one gun?
    In addition to a pistol, a military pilot also needs an automatic rifle. Ideally, under a single cartridge with a gun.

    But the thing is that NAZ is not specifically designed for aircraft types: this one for a fighter, this one for an interceptor, this one for long-range or transport aircraft, and this one for helicopter pilots. The difference between the truckers and transporters in the presence of boats in them. Both individual and boats for the whole crew.
    Military pilots, of course, in conditions of hostilities can take a machine gun with them, and not in conditions of hostilities? It will be necessary to manage, sorry, what is in NAZ.
    Ideally, how do you write under a single cartridge? The question is, under what? If under the automatic, then you can imagine the mass-overall dimensions of such a gun. If under a pistol, then what will be the fighting qualities of such a machine?
    Yes, and the NAZs themselves periodically still should be changed. That is what they do by testing with the same astronauts. The same two-blade aviation knife from NAZ is precisely those same thirties that you wrote about when speaking about communication
    1. shuravi
      shuravi 1 December 2017 10: 22 New
      0
      Quote: Old26

      Comrad !! Should it be or is - this is how you yourself understand TWO BIG DIFFERENCES. There is a RS in NAZ, the EMNIP is called Komar, but it has a range of about 10-15 km.


      Komar is not a radio station, but an automatically triggered beacon, which includes the P-855-UM radio station.
      The radio station itself is very outdated, which they planned to replace in the late eighties, but their hands did not reach after the subsequent events.
      The only “time” to do is to exclude the detection of its signal by satellites.
      That's why now such a headache with the search. It’s good that in most cases the landing site is known and it is possible to quickly locate aircraft and helicopter systems (with obsolete radio compasses by the way). Otherwise, your word is cellular communication.
      So it’s not needing to invent inventions, but complexes of detection and communication.




      I cited as an example the emergency landing of the "Union" a couple of years ago. He did not descend along a regular trajectory, but along an emergency ballistic trajectory. And he sat not where they were waiting for him. 4 flew hundreds of kilometers. And it's good that it was
      1. Summer
      2. He did not leave the planned landing path, but walked in its plane

      And it is corny LOST. And despite the presence of both PSO and the presence of communication means at these PSOs, they could NOT FIND until the commander himself got in touch via a CELL telephone. Well, how would there be no network, what then to do, and how long then would the rescue expedition last? And they sit in the winter and not in the Kazakhstan steppe, but somewhere in the taiga? Or in the mountains, how did one of the "Unions" land emergency?


      Read above.

      No, comrade, you won’t convince me. Communication and search and rescue services are good, but having weapons in NAZ will never hurt.


      Hunting nafig is not necessary. Better food supply instead.

      Two - can you hold out? And the three? Or a week? When the Soyuz boarded an emergency in the Altai mountains it was impossible to get close to it. The helicopter couldn’t; an avalanche stopped the foot rescue squad. And if this happened again, as an example, in the taiga? How many would you be looking for if the SA flew away at 1000 kilometers from the planned trajectory?


      The supply of NAZ should be enough. And I repeat, it is necessary to improve the means of communication and detection.
      But to become a camp and hunt, the crew should not. This is just ridiculous these days.

      But the thing is that NAZ is not specifically designed for aircraft types: this one for a fighter, this one for an interceptor, this one for long-range or transport aircraft, and this one for helicopter pilots. The difference between the truckers and transporters in the presence of boats in them. Both individual and boats for the whole crew.
      Military pilots, of course, in conditions of hostilities can take a machine gun with them, and not in conditions of hostilities? It will be necessary to manage, sorry, what is in NAZ.


      NAZs are equipped for specific flight areas.

      Ideally, how do you write under a single cartridge? The question is, under what? If under the automatic, then you can imagine the mass-overall dimensions of such a gun. If under a pistol, then what will be the fighting qualities of such a machine?


      Ideally, an 7,62 x 25 cartridge. Which is also called an underrated cartridge. The one that is to TT, PPSh.
      In Afghanistan there was a sensible attempt to arm crews removed from TT and PPS depots.
      But it turned out that the TT does not fit in the regular pocket of the overalls (which, in principle, was easily eliminated), but the saddest thing is the lack of single-shot mode at the faculty.
      As a result, we got the Kalashnikov sawn-off shotgun.

      Yes, and the NAZs themselves periodically still should be changed. That is what they do by testing with the same astronauts. The same two-blade aviation knife from NAZ is precisely those same thirties that you wrote about when speaking about communication


      Not only NAZy change, but the entire system of PSO. And most importantly, senior management in it. Which is so bony and stupid that it could not even systematize the Afghan and Chechen experience.

      Anticipating the question, I answer immediately:

      Back in the days of Afghanistan, it was found that rescue of a crew in distress over hostile territory is possible in the next 30 minutes, then the chances of getting them alive are sharply reduced.
      The most effective way is to pick up on the go.
      How it was done:
      - the strike group was instructed to keep 20% of the ammunition of the main armament and not less than 80% of the rifle and cannon, so that in the event of an emergency, immediately, while the comrades were hanging out on the slings, to clean the place of their landing.
      - helicopters of the search and rescue group were on duty not on the ground, but in the air, with an 5-minute approach to the place of work of the strike group
      - search and rescue group helicopters took off and went into the area before the strike group took off
      - the route to the target and back to the attack group was laid so that the search and rescue group helicopters could reach the disaster area on the route in 10 minute interval
      - during take-off, search and rescue group helicopters occupied the readiness No. 2 of the backup search and rescue group helicopters and, in the event of an emergency, immediately took to the air
      - the optimal composition of the search and rescue group, two (pair) Mi-8 and four (link) Mi-24 cover
      - in case of special complexity of the area of ​​work, the duty link of the Su-25 attack aircraft was appointed, which in case of an emergency immediately went up in the air

      And hardly anywhere, which commander violated this order, the corpses were taken out at best.

      What happened in Syria:
      - the strike group laid out everything in the target area, because when one of the planes was shot down, they could not help the comrades when they were shot in the air
      - helicopters of the search and rescue group were on duty not on the ground (damn kerosene, saved !!!)
      - two Mi-8 and only two Mi-24 were assigned to the cover group
      - the Mi-24 couple was physically unable to build a "carousel", which led to the loss of one Mi-8, one of the PDG fighters (parachute landing group) and the shameful failure of the entire rescue operation as a whole
  12. Old26
    Old26 1 December 2017 16: 56 New
    0
    Quote: shuravi
    Komar is not a radio station, but an automatically triggered beacon, which includes the P-855-UM radio station.
    The radio station itself is very outdated, which they planned to replace in the late eighties, but their hands did not reach after the subsequent events.
    The only “time” to do is to exclude the detection of its signal by satellites.
    That's why now such a headache with the search. It’s good that in most cases the landing site is known and it is possible to quickly locate aircraft and helicopter systems (with obsolete radio compasses by the way). Otherwise, your word is cellular communication.
    So it’s not needing to invent inventions, but complexes of detection and communication.

    I agree with radio communications, although to be honest, a layman in this matter. But there is that which is. I already spoke about the change of “iron” in NAZ, when they were going to change the warehouse to “Werewolf”, and the triangular machete to “Taiga”. Well, TP-82 at Vepr
    That the landing site is known is good. But NAZ is always developed on the basis of an EMERGENCY landing

    Quote: shuravi
    Hunting nafig is not necessary. Better food supply instead.

    Maybe better. But just how much more food? How much will they look for? Day, two, ten? Will there be enough food for this? And if, God forbid, the lander flies somewhere in the ocean, even near the islands? Also the calculation of the food reserves in the apparatus?


    Quote: shuravi
    The supply of NAZ should be enough. And I repeat, it is necessary to improve the means of communication and detection.
    But to become a camp and hunt, the crew should not. This is just ridiculous these days.

    I repeat the question. How long is the food supply in NAZ enough? For a day, for two, for three (if you save)? It is impossible to predict in advance where the lander will land and for how many days its reserves will last. Improving communications can and should. But then again, to what extent? The descent vehicle should not have a priori with a range of 1000 km. She is not needed there. Need a walkie-talkie, which direction-finding and which will come out means of salvation. But what dimensions should such a walkie-talkie be? Will she fit in NAZ? Indeed, in this case, the option begins to be compared, what fit into the NAZ and what I would like to have

    Quote: shuravi
    NAZs are equipped for specific flight areas.

    Extremely unlikely. There may be various options for NAO, I do not exclude this, but most often there is that NAO, which is currently in service with various services. It is unlikely that our logistics are so well developed that pilots of the Southern Military District are given one NAZ, and pilots of the Eastern Military District are completely different. The details may vary, but no more

    Quote: shuravi
    Ideally, an 7,62 x 25 cartridge. Which is also called an underrated cartridge. The one that is to TT, PPSh.
    In Afghanistan there was a sensible attempt to arm crews removed from TT and PPS depots.
    But it turned out that the TT does not fit in the regular pocket of the overalls (which, in principle, was easily eliminated), but the saddest thing is the lack of single-shot mode at the faculty.
    As a result, we got the Kalashnikov sawn-off shotgun.

    As you can see, comrade, even an ideal is sometimes not achievable. The pocket could, in principle, be redone, no one doubts this, but PPP will not succeed in making a single shooting mode. What does it mean. what weapons in NAZ are hardly applicable ...

    Quote: shuravi
    Not only NAZy change, but the entire system of PSO. And most importantly, senior management in it. Which is so bony and stupid that it could not even systematize the Afghan and Chechen experience.

    Anticipating the question, I answer immediately:

    Back in the days of Afghanistan, it was found that rescue of a crew in distress over hostile territory is possible in the next 30 minutes, then the chances of getting them alive are sharply reduced.
    The most effective way is to pick up on the go.
    How it was done:
    - the strike group was instructed to keep 20% of the ammunition of the main armament and not less than 80% of the rifle and cannon, so that in the event of an emergency, immediately, while the comrades were hanging out on the slings, to clean the place of their landing.
    - helicopters of the search and rescue group were on duty not on the ground, but in the air, with an 5-minute approach to the place of work of the strike group
    - search and rescue group helicopters took off and went into the area before the strike group took off
    - the route to the target and back to the attack group was laid so that the search and rescue group helicopters could reach the disaster area on the route in 10 minute interval
    - during take-off, search and rescue group helicopters occupied the readiness No. 2 of the backup search and rescue group helicopters and, in the event of an emergency, immediately took to the air
    - the optimal composition of the search and rescue group, two (pair) Mi-8 and four (link) Mi-24 cover
    - in case of special complexity of the area of ​​work, the duty link of the Su-25 attack aircraft was appointed, which in case of an emergency immediately went up in the air

    And hardly anywhere, which commander violated this order, the corpses were taken out at best.

    What happened in Syria:
    - the strike group laid out everything in the target area, because when one of the planes was shot down, they could not help the comrades when they were shot in the air
    - helicopters of the search and rescue group were on duty not on the ground (damn kerosene, saved !!!)
    - two Mi-8 and only two Mi-24 were assigned to the cover group
    - the Mi-24 couple was physically unable to build a "carousel", which led to the loss of one Mi-8, one of the PDG fighters (parachute landing group) and the shameful failure of the entire rescue operation as a whole

    Kamrad! I think that the issues of crew rescue in the combat zone depend very little on which NAZ they have. There, in fact, the time factor is extremely important. As for the means of saving the crews of aircraft and spaceships during the period when they are not involved in hostilities - this is completely different. It’s one thing to save the crew of an airplane (helicopter) when enemies come out in 10-20 minutes and it’s completely different when the ship fell in a deserted area and it’s not
  13. garri-lin
    garri-lin 2 December 2017 22: 36 New
    +1
    The first logical pattern. Against the background of those presented in the previous parts of the cycle, it looks almost a masterpiece.
    The next step is to optionally add a removable barrel with an integrated silencer and a convenient canvas bandoleer so that both on the belt and over the shoulder and on the butt and on the forearm.