Russian Airborne: on the verge of a possible

59
The Russian Armed Forces in mid-July 2018 held regular exercises of the airborne troops. These paratrooper exercises have become one of the largest in Russia over the past 20 years. To conduct exercises, three aviation the regiment stationed in the Pskov, Orenburg and Rostov regions, transferred soldiers and military equipment thousands of kilometers from home. Large-scale paratrooper exercises took place in the Ryazan region.

In large-scale exercises in the Ryazan region, more than a thousand military personnel, dozens of military transport aircraft, various armored vehicles and artillery were involved. As part of the exercises, the paratroopers stormed the enemy's airfield, freed settlements, and also forced the Oka in its narrowest place, not far from Ryazan. Also, as part of the exercise, the BTR-MD “Shell” tracked armored personnel carrier was dropped. This combat vehicle is being tested in the military with the 2015 of the year, the landing of an armored personnel carrier with the landing force was considered successful.



According to Andrei Serdyukov, commander of the Airborne Forces of Russia, X-YUMX military transport aircraft Il-47MDM, more than 76 personnel and 1200 units of equipment, were parachuted during paratroop landing. Everything that the Russian defense industry can offer paratroopers today was demonstrated in the sky, on land and on land. Separate pride - parachutes of the new generation. According to the instructor of the Center for Special Parachute Training of the Russian Ministry of Defense Alexei Yushkovsky, the kit includes a parachute system, a helmet, oxygen equipment, a cargo container, a navigation system.



However, according to Izvestia journalists, these exercises have demonstrated both the possibilities and the obvious limits of the capabilities of modern Russian airborne troops. At this time, there are two airborne and two airborne assault divisions, as well as four airborne assault brigades, a separate special-purpose brigade, and a number of training and auxiliary units. At the same time, all combat units in both air assault and airborne units are fully trained for parachute landing, and paratroop units and subunits are equipped with special airborne assault vehicles - airborne BTR, airborne combat vehicles, etc.

At the same time, the structure of the Russian military air force today is about 120 military transport aircraft IL-76 - these machines are the main ones during the parachute landing of Russian airborne troops. In the recently completed training exercises, 47 of such aircraft were involved, which were enough to land less than an airborne regiment, including two battalions with armored vehicles. Proceeding from this, it can be noted that the entire fleet of Il-76 military transport aircraft will be enough to land less than two regiments with all the standard set of weapons and military equipment for one flight using the parachute method.

The problem of the lack of aviation technology for parachute landing of airborne units existed and was realized even in Soviet times. According to military experts, in order to parachute the landing of only one Soviet airborne division, it was necessary to raise into the sky at least 5 military transport aviation divisions. Given the quantitative composition of the military transport aviation of the USSR Air Force, the parachute landing of one division was the limit of their capabilities in the event of a large-scale armed conflict, while taking into account possible opposition from the enemy.



In practice, paratroopers in the post-war years, with the exception of a whole series of tactical episodes, were not used in the Soviet Union. In this plan, the operations of the Airborne Forces - in Czechoslovakia in the 1968 year and in Afghanistan in the 1979 year, which were carried out with the use of a landing landing, were most famous. In the course of the subsequent war in Afghanistan, as well as the two Chechen wars, the airborne units were either used as airborne assault formations, disembarking from helicopters, or as ordinary infantry, moving on trucks, armored vehicles or on foot.

In comparison with foreign armies, the Russian Federation currently has the most numerous and prepared parachute units. Their number clearly exceeds the capacity of the fleet of military transport aircraft. This state of affairs raises certain questions about the effectiveness of budget spending, given the high cost of parachute training for personnel and specialized amphibious equipment for the Russian budget. At the same time, the significant limitations that are imposed on the combat capabilities of the landing craft, lead to the fact that, when operating on the ground as ordinary infantry, the paratroopers' units are quite inferior to the motorized infantry, who have not only greater firepower, but also a greater range of weapons and weapons available to them military equipment.

It is not possible to change the current state of affairs with the lack of landing facilities in the foreseeable future. This would require a multiple increase in the number of helicopter transport units - for the transfer of air assault units and an increase in the number of military transport aircraft. This problem has been understood for quite some time. At the same time, the traditional high political weight of the Airborne Forces of Russia (since the beginning of the 1990-s) hinders the radical reformation of this kind of troops and forces them not to touch the existing structure. At the same time, plans for a significant reduction in the Airborne Forces with their transfer to the ground forces were being hatched at a time when the Russian Defense Ministry was headed by Anatoly Serdyukov, and the Chief of General Staff was Nikolai Makarov. Their plans were never realized.



At the same time, the need to reduce military spending in the Russian budget requires a review of the current state of affairs. Taking into account the capabilities of the Russian military transport aviation and its quantitative composition, the optimal number of paratrooper units is estimated at 1-2 regiments, while they do not need specialized armored vehicles with the possibility of landing: the most likely tactical assaults during local wars and conflicts do not imply parachute throwing military equipment. If necessary, armored vehicles, up to the main combat tanks, can be transferred to airfields in the traditional landing way, for which the presence of BTR-D and BMD is optional.

At the same time, airborne assault units should form the basis of the airborne troops, which will be used as part of the interspecific groupings of troops. This would reduce the combat strength of the Russian Airborne Forces to one division, including the 1-2 paratroopers and the 1-2 airborne assault regiments, as well as four airborne assault brigades of regional subordination. Taking into account the fact that various units of special forces and marine units of the Russian Navy also have airborne assault training, this will still require a substantial increase in the transport capabilities of the Russian Air Force. However, such reinforcement is already possible to carry out in a very reasonable time and with reasonable monetary costs, which would allow the most efficient use of all available amphibious units. At the same time, taking the existing structure of the Armed Forces and the political weight of the Airborne Forces as part of them, one must be aware that such radical changes are unlikely in the foreseeable future, they are unlikely to be solved by anyone, Izvestia notes.

Despite this, the revision of the role and capabilities of the Airborne Forces in modern Russia is still underway. The airborne troops are increasingly viewed as elite, best-trained and equipped with quick-response units that can replace infantry units in combat conditions. In fact, we are talking about elite infantry, which, among other things, has the necessary level of parachute training. It is in this context that the reinforcement of airborne units by tank subunits carried out in the past few years should be considered.



According to Major General Viktor Kupchishin, Deputy Commander of the Airborne Forces for Work with Personnel, the firepower of the airborne troops will be significantly enhanced by reorganizing the tank companies into full-fledged tank battalions. About this on Thursday, 26 July, the general told reporters "Interfax". According to him, the task of reforming tank companies into tank battalions has been set by the leadership of the Russian Defense Ministry and no one doubts that it will be successfully implemented. Already in 2018, the Russian Airborne Forces will receive the upgraded main battle tanks T-72B3, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu spoke about this at the beginning of March. In addition to tanks, paratroopers will receive in 2018 more than 30 upgraded artillery systems, BMD-4М, BTR-MDM and howitzer D-30. Receiving a tank battalion, the airborne assault brigades become even closer to the motorized infantry, which also have one tank battalion in their staff.

According to Shoigu, in the airborne forces in 2018, it is planned to complete the formation of three tank battalions, EW units and unmanned aerial vehicles. According to Andrei Krasov, deputy head of the defense committee of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, tank battalions will increase the combat capabilities of the paratroopers. Of course, the Airborne Forces remain mobile, but among the tasks that are assigned to them today, there are also actions as part of or as separate land groups. According to Krasov, the T-72B3 tanks, which will receive the Russian Airborne Forces, if necessary, can also be transferred by rail and sea transport.

Information sources:
https://iz.ru/767550/ilia-kramnik/granitcy-vozmozhnostei
https://www.1tv.ru/news/2018-07-13/348636-masshtabnye_ucheniya_vdv_prohodyat_v_ryazanskoy_oblasti
http://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=486853
59 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +12
    2 August 2018 05: 51
    Twice crossed paths with paratroopers in exercises and both times won ... Against anti-missile units of the missile forces, they are not very ...
    1. +2
      2 August 2018 14: 37
      Quote: Vard
      Twice crossed paths with paratroopers in exercises and both times won ... Against anti-missile units of the missile forces, they are not very ...

      If I understand you correctly, then the green berets should be "not very" against you laughing laughing
      1. +1
        2 August 2018 18: 59
        Faced with these ... already after serving in the army ... so to speak in private ... The devil is not so terrible as he is painted ... The common thing for all these specialists is to jump quickly, and until they come to their senses, run away .. .
  2. +4
    2 August 2018 06: 09
    For me, the landing party just needs to have a large supply of personnel ... if only because if (God forbid) have to fight seriously, they will have to be almost harder than other types of troops ...
    1. MPN
      +2
      2 August 2018 15: 00
      Quote: alex-cn
      For me, the landing party just needs to have a large supply of personnel ... if only because if (God forbid) have to fight seriously, they will have to be almost harder than other types of troops ...

      Here, here, and the author writes some garbage
      At the same time, the need to reduce military spending of the Russian budget requires a review of the current state of affairs. Taking into account the capabilities of the Russian military transport aviation and its quantitative composition, the optimal number of parachute assault forces is estimated at 1-2 regiments, while they do not need specialized armored vehicles with the possibility of landing
      Like, they still have to be immortal ...
    2. +2
      3 August 2018 23: 00
      Quote: alex-cn
      For me, the landing party just needs to have a large supply of personnel ... if only because if (God forbid) have to fight seriously, then they will have to be almost harder than other types of troops ..

      Well, they are not small numerically. And yes, the experience of all the recent wars - from the Second World War to both Chechen wars - says that landing has sustained very high losses - that’s where the morale is sharpened, to stand to the end, despite the losses, having, by and large, only light weapons.
  3. +3
    2 August 2018 07: 15
    And in our region in the city of Kirzhach last week a new plant for the production of parachutes, including for equipment, was opened. Here's a gift for Airborne Forces Day.
  4. +3
    2 August 2018 07: 27
    At the same time, the base of the airborne troops should be airborne assault units, which will be used as part of interspecific groupings of troops. This would make it possible to reduce the combat strength of the Russian Airborne Forces to one division, which includes 1-2 paratrooper assault and 1-2 paratrooper assault regiments, as well as four airborne assault brigades of district subordination.


    Gold words! 1 DDBB in the district subordination and 1 VDD (albeit 4 regimental composition) as a reserve of the Supreme Commander.
    1. +7
      2 August 2018 10: 43
      Yeah! All over the world they are struggling with the creation of airmobile troops, because, they are the basis of forces operating on distant theater. And taking into account the size of our beloved Motherland, one platoon of young people on the greats armed with tactical slingshots is enough for us!
      Schaub was empty for you! Sofa experts !!!
  5. +7
    2 August 2018 08: 12
    I ask you not to be offended or to throw a shit at me, but with the modern development of air defense, the landing troops will be shot down in flight and the losses will be such
    1. +5
      2 August 2018 08: 33
      To do this, you need to develop the Air Force, because with air supremacy the Airborne Forces will show themselves at 100%, otherwise it is very difficult to deliver units to the landing site.
      1. 0
        2 August 2018 08: 39
        I agree with you, but where is this development?
        1. 0
          2 August 2018 10: 45
          In the theater of the good pope Carlo!
        2. 0
          2 August 2018 20: 26
          Yes, there are questions, especially in Belarus.
          If it is so difficult with the Su-57, then you need to increase the supply of Su-30, 35
    2. 0
      2 August 2018 10: 37
      Well yes! They are still wrapped in Molotov cocktail bottles, and will rush alone to break through the embrasure.
      When such opinions are heard, one involuntarily wants to ask, did you even go to school in NVP classes?
      1. +1
        2 August 2018 11: 06
        Of course I was, and where did you get so smart
    3. 0
      2 August 2018 13: 38
      Well, here’s how to look of course .. it’s necessary to act correctly. transport vehicles should go almost immediately after the destruction of air defense in this sector ... and be accompanied by fighters ... and this is a large-scale offensive of almost front-line level
  6. +3
    2 August 2018 08: 29
    A plane like IL-76 is now considered one-time? Threw out a hundred people and nothing else? He brought one tank and immediately left at the landing site. Poltyschi people with at least some armor and guns in today's realities are very significant force. Structurally sophisticated equipment raises more questions, although I don’t remember that in the United States they made special armored personnel carriers for landing.
    1. SOF
      0
      2 August 2018 08: 53
      Quote: EvilLion
      And does an aircraft like Il-76 be considered disposable now?

      ... and how many "walkers" in a row will this vehicle be able to make across the Pacific Ocean to the most likely theater of operations, given the resource, counteraction of the enemy’s air defense and air forces ....?
      .... we are not holding such a contingent of airborne forces to conquer Western Europe ... right?
      1. +2
        2 August 2018 10: 49
        What are we going to storm the mattress? But have the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation already become ineffective? Or did Honduras spoil us in a night vase?
        1. SOF
          0
          2 August 2018 18: 13
          Quote: sib.ataman
          But have the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation already become ineffective?

          ... and you imagine, for a second, that the strategic nuclear forces have become ineffective ... dream up ..... (before, nuclear weapons were also considered fiction, and then again ... and ....) .... and it turns out that we, having a bunch of elite troops, are unable to defeat the most real likely enemy on its territory .... because of the inability to get there and ... the inability to drag tactical aircraft there ....
      2. +2
        3 August 2018 08: 21
        Which Pacific Ocean, have you reviewed Red Dawn? :) What kind of booby will drop the landing in the USA, in isolation from the means of supply?
        You need to be more modest. :)
        Here is the Baltic states. There are airfields and ports. Points where, in theory, NATO assistance could come. This is where the troops will drop. Maybe to Poland. :)
        1. SOF
          0
          3 August 2018 17: 27
          Quote: abc_alex
          Which Pacific Ocean, have you reviewed Red Dawn?

          .... I understand that "Liberation" is not in trend ...? :)
          ... hypothetically ..... nuclear weapons failed. The adversaries came to us ... apparently from where .... as usual, got in the face .... rolled back to their homeland, across the ocean ......
          ...what next....? ... and then we will tell them that who will come to us with a sword ......
          ... in short ... you don’t envision a second Berlin .... or we’ll take motorized gunners .... on pontoons, across the Bering Strait ....?
          1. 0
            7 August 2018 15: 49
            :)

            Yes, it is possible to Berlin, but why through hostile Poland? :)
            It is possible and on the shore of the enemy, but only if you solve the issue with the support of the mat. part. Elementary, ammunition will end, what they shoot there?
    2. +10
      2 August 2018 11: 20
      Parachutes should be left to the MTR and reconnaissance, the rest due to saving on parachute training for helicopters it would be an order of magnitude more useful for landing .. Special forces in Afghanistan implored the leadership to give them turntables for dowels because they weren’t very happy .. But no one gave them. Slowly, it begins to reach the leadership that there will be no mass landings and landings on the coast, and this is why tanks and other normal means of amplification are massively going to the Airborne Forces and the MP .. It would be interesting to know how many people died due to the specific landing technique in the conflicts? For more than 70 years, the landing has not been observed, and air defense systems are becoming more effective .. It may be enough to spend an elite human resource due to the fantasies of military figures of past wars ..
    3. 0
      2 August 2018 11: 56
      Quote: EvilLion
      And does an aircraft like Il-76 be considered disposable now? Threw out a hundred people and nothing else?

      Actually, yes. In the event of war, any equipment is considered disposable, first of all - an airplane. Returning to the base is not considered as the norm, but as a "nice bonus".
      And 500 people IL-76 will not be transported, a maximum of 400 and then not paratroopers or armed soldiers, but just a soldier, without full calculation. For 500 soldiers is 50+ tons, which exceeds the capabilities of IL-76. Well, just the area of ​​the compartment is not enough to accommodate. Even with the second deck.
      1. +1
        3 August 2018 08: 30
        Here you are an expert :) IL-76 carries not 500 and not 400, but 225 soldiers or 126 paratroopers. It's not a load capacity, but the fact that it’s simply not rammed there anymore :)
        1. +1
          3 August 2018 08: 44
          Quote: abc_alex
          Here you are an expert :) IL-76 is not lucky 500

          Where did I write this?
          and not 400
          It's not about the load

          This I did not express myself very clearly. About 400, I also did not say anything. I simply hinted that the participant would look at least at the carrying capacity when evaluating the number of people being transported.
          more there simply is not rammed :)

          What did I write? Reread.
  7. +3
    2 August 2018 09: 50
    hi ... The Russian Armed Forces in mid-July 2018 held the next exercises of the airborne troops.

    soldier ... Happy Birthday Airborne! drinks
  8. +2
    2 August 2018 11: 00
    And the American marines, also not particularly connected with the sea, move to the theater on the Hercules.
    1. +2
      2 August 2018 11: 01
      And the "cavalrymen" on the "Abrams" ...
      1. +2
        2 August 2018 12: 13
        Quote: rruvim
        And the "cavalrymen" on the "Abrams" ...

        Well, Duc, these cavalry units were rearmed for tanks without renaming (by the way, a cool tradition, we would have to learn from them), and they were not mounted on horses (a complete analogy with the transfer of paratroopers from air delivery to ground equipment).
        "Air cavalry" is also not quite that. Just a figurative sense, cavalry has for centuries been the most mobile branch of the army.
  9. +4
    2 August 2018 11: 23
    That's when such "wise men", armed with an accountant's calculator, start broadcasting about the development prospects and budget savings, so right away I want this expert to brush this calculator on the dumb head and send it somewhere to the accounting website. If you are only going to save, then you and the army will be like the current Naglia, or even worse, the Cape Verde Islands!
    Full-scale engagement of the Airborne Forces is expected only in conditions of a large-scale war! When large-scale wars begin, the country immediately mobilizes the existing fleet of all types of vehicles suitable for the needs of the army: on water, land and in the air (the author, not in a jeep, spend an hour in a bullshit?).
    Back in the early 2000s, I'm not talking about the 90s and 80s, NATO has repeatedly conducted exercises involving civilian passenger and transport aircraft! And during our war, conscience will not allow us to attract civilian equipment? Or do you have nothing to drive to Antalya or Sharm Al-Sheikh?
    Airborne Defense Ministry of the Russian Federation and so are the reserve of the Supreme! As the most combat-ready and maneuverable (which is very rare for any army in the world!). To create, prepare and arm them is very difficult, it requires a great combat experience and considerable funds! And you can ditch with a stroke of the pen! Even Marshal Taburetkin did not dare to take such a “feat”! So his head, nevertheless, was not clamped between his legs!
    1. +5
      2 August 2018 12: 03
      When it became necessary to deliver MTC for the Syrian group, it turned out that there were no boats for this. Military: several old BDKs. Civilians - all bulk carriers and skaters with a neutral flag. I had to buy decommissioned Turkish bulk carriers. But in America, which we hated, during the operation “Desert Storm”, up to 30% of the civilian fleet (rollers, container ships, bulk carriers converted for transportation of equipment) and even cruise ships for transporting personnel were involved. Yes. Owners and shipping companies paid. But a penny, according to the laws of wartime. But we didn’t even find any ships for the Syrian Express. I had to buy junk from Turkey.
    2. +7
      2 August 2018 14: 56
      Quote: sib.ataman
      That's when such "wise men", armed with an accountant's calculator, start broadcasting about the development prospects and budget savings, so right away I want this expert to brush this calculator on the dumb head and send it somewhere to the accounting website.

      Right! Why count the money? Let us again produce thousands of types of MBTs in thousands, build a zoo for submarine projects, and equip exclusively with airborne landing equipment of the Airborne Division, without being able to throw more than one of them. It just ends with sausage trains and the sale of meat by registration, as in the early 3's.
      Quote: sib.ataman
      Back in the early 2000s, I'm not talking about the 90s and 80s, NATO has repeatedly conducted exercises involving civilian passenger and transport aircraft! And during our war, conscience will not allow us to attract civilian equipment?

      And how many planes suitable for landing technology are in the domestic civilian sector? I suggest that one of the largest operators of the freight transportation market is the state airline 224 Flight Detachment, which is the commercial structure of the BTA itself.
      Quote: sib.ataman
      Airborne Defense Ministry of the Russian Federation and so are the reserve of the Supreme! As the most combat-ready and maneuverable (which is very rare for any army in the world!).

      When did the Airborne Forces last land with parachutes in a combat situation?
      And isn’t it better to re-equip the airborne forces with normal airborne military equipment instead of using general-purpose airborne assault equipment with expensive airborne and airborne BMDs, leaving paratroopers in a pair of battalions per division?
      1. 0
        3 August 2018 08: 40
        . When did the Airborne Forces last land with parachutes in a combat situation?


        And when was the last time in a combat situation the Strategic Missile Forces were used? Do they also multiply by zero? :)
        The problem with our airborne forces is that a third of the fleet in more than 300 Il-76s of Russia has been left. Less than half of this hundred was allocated for the needs of the Airborne Forces (moreover, EMNIP are not their own sides, but the involved BTA aircraft).
        It is not necessary to reduce the airborne forces, but to build new aircraft. Otherwise, after some time we will read the same articles about the uselessness of airborne connections in general, since the two remaining BTA aircraft are museum exhibits and cannot take off. :)
  10. +7
    2 August 2018 11: 23
    Firstly, with the holiday of the Airborne Forces Day and the anniversary!
    Secondly: my brother served in the Airborne Forces in Ganja, during the famous Sumgayit "events" with genocide against the Armenian population. They tried to protect the population as best they could. No IL-76s were used. Then they were transferred to Tbilisi, where there were riots. Time magazine then wrote: "The Russian paratrooper was chasing a Georgian old woman, holding a sapper blade in her hands. But she managed to escape ...".
    My brother commented then, almost 30 years ago: "Russian paratroopers do not chase old women. They are infected at chocks, if they are enemies. And with their bare hands, without any sapper shovel."
    Happy Airborne Forces !!!
  11. +2
    2 August 2018 11: 30
    Happy holiday Desantura !!!!!!!!!!!
  12. +4
    2 August 2018 12: 03
    Airmobile and airborne troops are not the same thing. Airborne forces always balance on the verge of necessary sufficiency. Without the Airborne Forces in the RF Armed Forces there is no romanticism. Happy holiday, romance!
  13. +2
    2 August 2018 12: 32
    A well-trained military is generally an expensive thing, especially the Navy. Maybe optimize them? Or why take a steam bath, lie under the United States, they say we bow to you, you are our roof. And to reduce the population, so that only enough for the service staff ... And the economy will flourish ...
  14. +1
    2 August 2018 13: 16
    Well, the number of US airborne forces is more ...
    1. +3
      2 August 2018 15: 02
      The United States can transfer its own airborne forces for two flights by helicopters that are registered as airborne. And this is without aviation.
      Now attention is the question. For how many flights can Russia drop by any means (having collected all the helicopters that are available in the army, and the entire BTA) all available troops that have an entry in the name of the landing?
      If the Airborne Forces have become just well-trained infantry, then why buy aluminum on tracks?
      1. +1
        2 August 2018 16: 09
        Quote: demiurg
        helicopters that are listed for the Airborne. And this is without aviation.

        How interesting. How long have helicopters ceased to be aviation?
        1. +1
          2 August 2018 16: 46
          Will you not find fault with grammatical errors? Or maybe answer the question?
          1. 0
            2 August 2018 18: 37
            Quote: demiurg
            Will you not find fault with grammatical errors?

            Maybe I will, if I want. But this is not grammatical. Here is the opinion. that "the girl is not homo sapiens sapiens."
        2. 0
          2 August 2018 18: 04
          Quote: Avis-bis
          How interesting. How long have helicopters ceased to be aviation?

          Apparently, by "aviation" the Air Force was understood. smile
          Because the adversary has multi-purpose and transport helicopters - this is the army. But transport planes are the Air Force (there are only about a hundred helicopters at the Air Force - VIP evacuators and transportation of military vehicles to the silos of ICBMs; moreover, these helicopters are the ancient Twin Hueys of the very first episode of the early 70s).
          1. 0
            2 August 2018 18: 39
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Quote: Avis-bis
            How interesting. How long have helicopters ceased to be aviation?

            Apparently, by "aviation" the Air Force was understood. smile

            I don’t know what the “demiurge” is seen there, but the definition of “aviation” is unambiguous and uniform for all the most “high-tech” languages ​​- this is an aircraft heavier than air. To which the turntables belong without any reservations. And he turns out that a helicopter is either a kind of airship, or something ballistic. Epic: landing is planted in a capsule and catapulted from a hefty frontdibole to the desired theater.
            1. 0
              3 August 2018 03: 43
              I will just repeat my question. For how many flights the BTA and army aviation (absolutely everything that is listed on paper) will be able to carry the entire personnel of the troops that we have as landing.
              1. 0
                3 August 2018 06: 33
                Quote: demiurg
                I will just repeat my question. For how many flights the BTA and army aviation (absolutely everything that is listed on paper) will be able to carry the entire personnel of the troops that we have as landing.

                Why do you address this question to me? I had a question for you: "With what fright are helicopters not aviation?" You did not answer.
              2. 0
                3 August 2018 08: 59
                We conditionally 100 IL-76 is 1230 paratroopers per flight. Or 400 units of paratroopers. We don’t take An-22, there are few of them, this An-124 is just for landing. Count the rest yourself.
                1. 0
                  3 August 2018 18: 24
                  Quote: abc_alex
                  parachute

                  Hmm ...
      2. +1
        3 August 2018 08: 50
        . Their US Airborne can transfer over two flights with helicopters that are registered for the Airborne. And this is without aviation.



        Oh my god ... What can the United States "drop by helicopters"? A hundred shooters with light weapons? And the maximum then throw them a couple of jeeps on the external sling. Read what these brave guys were doing in Iraq. They did not carry out any independent tasks, the only function was reconnaissance and target designation in the interests of the Air Force.
        And there is no US airborne. They have airmobile units in the army.

        And now just imagine a caravan of Chinukov, a leading US assault in front of the defending side. With jeeps hanging on ropes. What do you think, how many of these collective farmers will reach the landing point?
        1. +1
          3 August 2018 10: 35
          Quote: abc_alex
          And now just imagine a caravan of Chinukov, a leading US assault in front of the defending side. With jeeps hanging on ropes. What do you think, how many of these collective farmers will reach the landing point?

          Approximately as much as will fly in the caravan of IL-76. With equal opportunities to the enemy.
          1. +1
            3 August 2018 10: 53
            Quote: Alexey RA

            Approximately as much as will fly in the caravan of IL-76. With equal opportunities to the enemy.

            Well, in fairness: for the downing of helicopters, the enemy has much more options for weapons than for the downing of IL-76.
          2. 0
            3 August 2018 17: 50
            Approximately as much as will fly in the caravan of IL-76. With equal opportunities to the enemy.

            This is how you came to such a conclusion, can you explain? For example, the cruising speed of IL-76 is 750-800 km / h, the cruising speed of Chinook is 230 or a little more than km / h. In your opinion, the chance to get from anything on these machines is equal? For reference, in Afghanistan, Chinook in a completely commercial quantity shot down from RPG-7. Can you imagine that someone shot down an IL-76 in this way? :)
            With equal (and very low) capabilities of the enemy, the Chinukov caravan will collect on its own everything that can shoot upwards from an object's air defense to hand-held small arms. At the same time, for example, the probability of getting into IL-76 from a BMP-2 cannon is zero, but they can easily close up to Chinook with proper dexterity. For a helicopter caravan, the entire range of weapons from 12,7 mm machine guns starting will be dangerous.
            1. +1
              3 August 2018 23: 06
              The problem is generally in response to fire from the ground - and, by and large, without much difference, ropes or parachutes are landing. If you crush the enemy from the air + throw troops in the "clean" area and giving time to put in order the position = then everything is ok.
  15. +1
    2 August 2018 15: 33
    Landing !!! Nobody except YOU !!! Happy holiday !!!
  16. +1
    6 August 2018 20: 23
    Quote: wicked pinnochio
    I ask you not to be offended or to throw a shit at me, but with the modern development of air defense, the landing troops will be shot down in flight and the losses will be such


    This has been said since WWII, but nevertheless they are used for their intended purpose until now. Almost in all conflicts and wars, paratroopers are parachuted. that during the events in Czechoslovakia, our paratroopers parachuted, although this was exactly the case. The capture of airfields was carried out by parachute landing. After which it was already possible to land the main forces by landing on captured airfields and the subsequent capture of cities.
    Quote: Avis-bis
    Quote: EvilLion
    And does an aircraft like Il-76 be considered disposable now? Threw out a hundred people and nothing else?

    Actually, yes. In the event of war, any equipment is considered disposable, first of all - an airplane. Returning to the base is not considered as the norm, but as a "nice bonus".
    And 500 people IL-76 will not be transported, a maximum of 400 and then not paratroopers or armed soldiers, but just a soldier, without full calculation. For 500 soldiers is 50+ tons, which exceeds the capabilities of IL-76. Well, just the area of ​​the compartment is not enough to accommodate. Even with the second deck.

    3 hundred in full outfit quite fits on 2 decks. But this is for landing landing.
    Quote: abc_alex
    We conditionally 100 IL-76 is 1230 paratroopers per flight. Or 400 units of airborne parachute equipment. We don’t take An-22, there are few of them, this An-124 is just for landing. Count the rest yourself.

    Yeah damn, we have Ila carry 12 paratroopers laughing In the course of Ana, 5, and God forbid, that they bring one paratrooper winked In Il, when parachuting, 126 paratroopers are deployed, but during combat landing there will be a regular parachute assault company. Without armor, of course.
  17. 0
    6 August 2018 22: 35
    Quote: “According to Andrei Krasov, deputy head of the Russian State Duma’s defense committee, ... the T-72B3 tanks that will receive the Russian Airborne Troops can also be transported by rail and sea if necessary.”
    Now, a comment on the quote: Who until now, except for the aforementioned deputy head of the committee, did not realize that tanks could be transferred both by rail and by water?