Military Review

"Reincarnation" BMD-1

24
Despite the seeming impeccability of the so-called concept. airborne assault vehicle, the operating experience of the first machine of the line clearly showed that a number of improvements are required. First of all, the claims concerned the BMD-1 armament. Therefore, the next vehicle of the family - the BMD-2 - received a new automatic gun of a smaller caliber and an updated anti-tank missile system. The rest of the construction BMD-2 was almost entirely similar to the first armored vehicle of the family. However, the second version of the airborne assault vehicle did not fully meet modern requirements at that time. At this time, the problem was solved in the most drastic way: we developed the car again. But it happened at the very end of the eighties, when the domestic defense industry and the armed forces gradually entered into the far from the best period of their stories. In 2004, the next assault vehicle, called BMD-4, was adopted, which also failed to reach a large series. Thus, most of the airborne combat vehicles currently in the ranks are decently outdated BMD-1 and BMD-2. Among other things, this means that the fighters of the airborne troops have many problems of various kinds and are not able to conduct normal and effective actions in the conditions of modern combat.

BMD-1 shoots PCT (http://otvaga2004.narod.ru)


It is expected that in order to create several unified armored platforms a new assault vehicle will be created. However, a platform-based BMD will appear no earlier than 2015 or 2016 of the year, and then only in the form of a prototype, and the defense capability must be maintained now. The only way out, although it can be considered partly surrogate, is to modernize the existing fleet. Due to the fact that now there are about one and a half thousand assault vehicles of various modifications in the ranks, the re-equipment of the old technology looks like the most convenient, fast and cheap way to maintain combat capability. In this regard, 29 in March of the current year on the state website for posting information on public procurement of the Ministry of Defense posted information about the new open auction. The Russian Defense Ministry is ready to pay a very lump sum for the overhaul of 135 machines BMD-1, while simultaneously bringing them to the state of BMD-2.



In the course of the required works, the obsolete BMD-1 will have to get a new gun turret with a set of related equipment, new communication systems and a number of other equipment, which has been put on domestic BMD, starting with the second model. Consider the nuances of this modernization in more detail. In the tower BMD-1 73-mm 2A28 “Thunder” gun was placed with ammunition in 40 shells. One 7,62-mm PKT machine gun was paired with it, and two more of the same samples were mounted as a course weapons. The total ammunition ammunition 7,62x54R was 4000 pieces. The turret also housed the 9M14M Malyutka anti-tank guided missile launcher. There were three missiles in the laying inside the machine. As you can see, for its time (the end of the sixties - the beginning of the seventies) BMD-1 had a fairly powerful and modern weapon. However, for the purposes that the machine was supposed to carry out, such weapons were not fully suitable. Incidentally, the creators of infantry fighting vehicles also faced the same problem at about the same time. Based on this, in the late seventies work began on a new version of BMD. The differences of the second family car from the first concerned mainly towers and weapons. So, to effectively combat lightly armored targets at distances from half a kilometer, as well as to destroy the calculations of anti-tank missile systems, a 30-mm 2A42 automatic cannon was mounted in a new design turret. The smaller caliber of the new gun made it possible to place 300 rounds of ammunition in the combat compartment, which, among other things, should have allowed the crew not to worry so much about saving ammunition, as in the case of the Thunder and forty shells to it. The PKT machine gun coaxial with the cannon (2000 rounds) was preserved in the tower, and the number of course machine guns was halved. The customer decided that one machine gun would be enough. Its ammunition is less than a thousand rounds. To combat tanks a bracket was mounted on the roof of the BMD-2 tower for mounting the 9M111 Bassoon or 9M113 Competition anti-tank complex. Regardless of the specific type of missile, three transport and launch containers with them can be transported in a machine. In addition to the BMD-2 armament itself, the first of the domestic vehicles of this class received the weapon stabilization system of the 2E36-1 model. The periscope sight 1PN22M1 on the BMD-2 gave way to the periscope BPK-1-42 and anti-aircraft PZU-5. In addition to the turret and weapons, the BMD-2, created on the basis of the BMD-1, received a number of new systems. In particular, the radio station R-123M and the intercom R-124 were changed to R-173 and R-174, respectively.

From the exhibition “Engineering Technologies-2010” in Zhukovsky (June 30 - July 4 2010) (http://otvaga2004.narod.ru)


According to various estimates, the replacement of weapons and electronics increased the combat potential of the combat vehicle by 1.5-2 times. However, this gain in efficiency could be a reason for pride only during the adoption of the BMD-2 into service, that is, in the mid-eighties. The BMD-3 that followed the “Deuce” had weapons similar to it, but the undercarriage was significantly improved: a new, more powerful engine, a new transmission, etc. For several reasons, as already mentioned, the BMD-3 was never able to completely replace the previous cars of its family. At the same time, information about weapons and BMD-2 and BMD-3 systems suggests that upgrading the BMD-1 to the BMD-2 state is a rather interesting "substitute" for the landing vehicle of the third model. But in general, primarily due to the 60's undercarriage of development, the modernization of the BMD-1 looks, if I may say so, by remaking a more outdated machine into a less obsolete one.

The installation of the Bakhcha combat modules developed by the Tula Instrument Design Bureau is a much more promising option for reworking outdated machines. What is interesting, in contrast to the installation of towers from BMD-2 on BMD-1, Bakhcha can make a much more powerful and efficient machine from all versions of airborne combat vehicles, from first to third. Moreover, a tower with a 100-mm 2A70 launcher, 30-mm 2A42 automatic cannon and a PKT machine gun in terms of armament can make an BMD-1 BMD-4. Perhaps, even despite the high cost of Bakhchi, this option of modernization is clearly not to be overlooked. At the same time, the dimensions of the combat module may not fit into the “footprint” on the BMD-1 and BMD-2. Probably, this is indeed the case and it is for these reasons that the Ministry of Defense is going to bring the landing vehicles of the first model only to the state of BMD-2, but not higher. Yet such a modernization may not be sufficient. First of all, questions are caused by electronics and sighting devices. The universal (day / night) sight BOD-1-42 can hardly be called modern - its characteristics, especially at night, by today's standards leave much to be desired. Fortunately, in the technical assignment for the order, the Ministry of Defense indicated that it was necessary to equip the modernized machines with newer equipment. In particular, the BOD-2-42-01 and ROM-8 sights, the 2-36-6 electric armament stabilizer and the P-168-25У-2 radio station. Thus, to some extent, the Ministry of Defense still intends to improve the characteristics of the machines being upgraded to BMD-2, albeit within reasonable limits.

From the exhibition “Engineering Technologies-2010” in Zhukovsky (June 30 - July 4 2010) (http://otvaga2004.narod.ru)


On April 19, the deadline for submitting bids for the repair and modernization of the first batch of BMD-1 units from 135 units is over. The very same auction will be held on the second of May. Shortly thereafter, all the relevant contracts will be signed and the exact amount of funding and the timing of the order will be known. Then it will be possible to build our assumptions and draw conclusions with greater confidence. True, the basic “morality” of the order is clear now: in the absence of a large-scale new machine, the refinement of a certain number of old ones will definitely not be superfluous or useless and, ultimately, will necessarily affect the increase in the combat potential of the airborne troops.

Sources:
http://www.vestnik-rm.ru/news-4-1036.htm
http://zakupki.gov.ru/pgz/public/action/orders/info/common_info/show?notificationId=3061441
http://otvaga2004.narod.ru/otvaga2004/arm-russia-bmd.htm
Author:
24 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. vylvyn
    vylvyn April 23 2012 08: 41
    +5
    The landing party needs a machine that fully meets the requirements - it came, saw, inherited.
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 April 23 2012 09: 36
      +9
      we need a machine that meets the requirements of not the Ministry of Defense (parquet generals and managers), but the Airborne Forces. It is possible to conduct an anology from the Great Patriotic War when the designers came to the front and asked the military how the car was fighting, what needed to be fixed, what to finish and fix.
      1. Slayer
        Slayer April 25 2012 00: 43
        -4
        In general, BMD and BMP are contradictory vehicles, after the 2nd World War the Americans have abandoned them by switching to Hamers. In urban conditions, just a target for shooting is worth a lot of money. Yes, such machines are needed, but only in the field. In the conditions of the city, such a machine will not say that it is useless, it’s just very expensive, and the chance of destruction is very great.
        1. vylvyn
          vylvyn April 25 2012 13: 44
          +1
          I agree on the point that the machine is effective only in the field. All weapons and "eyes" are directed almost only forward. Side and rear projections are blind and unarmed, which negatively affects when following in a convoy when ambushed and during hostilities in populated areas. IMHO it will not be superfluous to put on the rear projection of the hull a removable AGS-17 "Flame" and a firing point detection system by the sound of a shot such as Owl or Boomerang. But how to put it all, it's up to the designers
  2. Zerstorer
    Zerstorer April 23 2012 10: 36
    +5
    Quote: "You need a car that meets the requirements not of the MO (parquet generals and managers), but the Airborne Forces." The customer will still be MO. From the Airborne Forces will require a technical specification for the development of BMD. Quote: "You can draw an analogy with the Great Patriotic War when the designers came to the front and asked the military how the car was fighting, what needs to be fixed, what to finish and fix." No one has canceled military trials yet. The whole question is what kind of BMD our airborne forces need. And in general, in what form do we need the Airborne Forces is also a question. And this is very important. If we transform them into rapid response brigades, without the requirement to conduct airborne operations, then normal armored vehicles of the BMP type are more relevant there.
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 April 23 2012 10: 39
      0
      And in general, in what form do we need the Airborne Forces is also a question. And this is very important.

      + good
    2. Cynic
      Cynic April 23 2012 18: 58
      -1
      Quote: Zerstorer
      And in general, in what form do we need the Airborne Forces is also a question.

      Yeah, that means
      Quote: Zerstorer
      no requirement to carry out airborne operations

      It’s not the case with those economists who at times prove that the army is expensive. and since it’s expensive, the army is not needed.
      By the way, I strongly advise you not to meet with Uncle Vasya’s guys.
      bully
  3. frol
    frol April 23 2012 12: 40
    +1
    The airborne midway park should be renewed.
    only talk about rearmament. everything turns into a mess on the example of individual parts. new developments are needed (we have smart design bureaus) and full-scale rearmament!
    only foreign armies are arming ...
  4. Alekseev
    Alekseev April 23 2012 13: 04
    +5
    Replacement of modern weapons and military equipment is necessary. But it is greatly limited by the country's resources.
    At present, in my opinion, another problem is no less, and maybe more, relevant. It is necessary to make sure that soldiers and officers in the units can use at least 80% of the potential of what is available, perfectly master the tactics of combat use of their weapons.
    And a little outdated one should not rush to cut it, but modernize it (see the example of Israel, the European one is not needed, no one threatens it) and use it so that, if necessary, it would be possible to mobilize 2-3 million "infantry".
    It's complicated. We need an order that is sorely lacking now. But in this situation, we will be able to defend (not capture others) our Homeland in local internal riots (populate compactly, for example, 5-6 million migrants, and, according to the scenario of Kosovo, how will nuclear weapons and cruise missiles help here?) threats without brandishing an unpredictable nuclear club.
  5. frol
    frol April 23 2012 13: 16
    0
    re-equipment is necessary on a full-scale basis. Yes, and new developments would not hurt. For this, we still have decent design bureaus. And recently, there has been a complete show of re-equipment on the example of individual units. Money is laundered only. Foreign armies are obtained!
    and why everyone writes like "will do, re-equip" everything in the future number. At least once all the old equipment would be replaced with a new one!
    Airborne - BATTLE MACHINES NEEDED AND REQUIRED !!!
  6. AK-74-1
    AK-74-1 April 23 2012 14: 31
    +4
    And I liked the BMD-1. It is lighter than the BMP-1. More interesting in driving. Exercised on both. Therefore, there is an opinion that the rapid reaction forces, and under this definition I bring the Airborne Forces and the Marines, it is necessary to have on the platform of the existing BMD with variable clearance, powerful, mobile and floating.
    In conventional motorized rifle battalions, it is necessary to have BMPs based on the new Armata platform.
  7. Serkoff
    Serkoff April 23 2012 14: 45
    +5
    Interestingly, and finally put the stove? Or again to bask in the power?
  8. Per se.
    Per se. April 23 2012 18: 29
    +2
    BMD-1, of course, is already an old development, but in NATO and now there is nothing equal to it in the airborne units. Upgrade the car, it will still serve before the replacement.
    1. slas
      slas April 23 2012 23: 02
      +2
      Quote: Per se.
      but in NATO even now there is nothing equal to it in the airborne units.

      agree
  9. Alex 104
    Alex 104 April 23 2012 18: 31
    0
    to the previous one, about power correctly noticed)).
    But essentially any mechanic will tell you - the engine needs to be changed!
  10. GRU Special Forces
    GRU Special Forces April 23 2012 23: 44
    +1
    The Airborne Forces need such a machine to cross the strait of berengov to create a bridgehead in Alaska in the further successful attack on the states
    1. Diman
      Diman April 24 2012 01: 16
      +1
      GRU Special Forces: The Airborne Forces need such a machine to cross the strait of berengov to create a bridgehead in Alaska in the further successful attack on the states

      Good thought good But there is such a technique: IL-76. yes With the help of it, the entire line of beshek will easily cross this strait.
      1. Dr. Pilyulkin
        Dr. Pilyulkin April 24 2012 13: 15
        +1
        This is also a good idea! wink
        But the US has air defense. And you can swim at night without too much noise. wink
  11. Manshtein_1
    Manshtein_1 April 24 2012 08: 18
    +2
    I will express my purely personal opinion. The Airborne Forces need a light, mobile car with a good automatic gun, modern types of ATGMs, and most importantly, communication and surveillance equipment. The tasks have to be solved in many different ways and under different conditions.
  12. Kostjan
    Kostjan April 25 2012 18: 11
    0
    For some reason, everyone forgot the main advantage of this machine - to land with the crew inside and almost immediately begin to perform specific tasks. And we have fairly normal BMPs and armored personnel carriers floating on the kroynyak there is an escho PT-76
  13. NickitaDembelnulsa
    NickitaDembelnulsa April 26 2012 10: 17
    0
    Is it just cheaper to develop a new base for upgrading the old model, or to buy completely new BMD?
  14. radikdan79
    radikdan79 10 May 2012 00: 33
    0
    why not the designers visit the combat units, and not find out what the paratroopers need, and not listen to the loud statements of ministers that are far from the REAL needs of the army ?! and this concerns not only the Airborne Forces, but the whole army as a whole
  15. MrBoris555
    MrBoris555 11 May 2012 01: 26
    +1
    What can I say, before the new BMD, this modernization is enough - cheap and angry, so to speak. And about the city battle, there are soldiers for this to cover the flanks of the vehicle. 30 mm is enough for the enemy infantry fighting vehicle for the eyes, the only negative is if you put the brackets for the launchers, so put on both sides of the tower, then there will be a launcher of 4 missiles, and this is better than 2 ..
  16. bask
    bask 22 August 2012 21: 30
    -2
    Why create an airborne airborne infantry fighting vehicle. If during the entire history of the Airborne Forces in combat conditions the BMD has never been disengaged 1 2 3 4 there is absolutely no reason why they cannot be protected. .Echo of the Cold War.