Military Review

The weak spot of the US Airborne Forces: problems with the landing of equipment

46

The U.S. Army plans to expand the ability to drop its vehicles, including light combat vehicles. In the near future, the US Armed Forces will announce a competition for the creation of a new airborne landing system.


Increased attention to the issues of landing military equipment in the American army is not accidental. The United States conduct military operations in different parts of the world, regularly deploying around the world, including thousands of kilometers from its borders, a large number of personnel and equipment.

How and what equipment is the US Armed Forces landing?


The weak point of the US Armed Forces in terms of airborne landing of military equipment is parachute systems. Americans can still parachute only light combat vehicles HMMWV (Humvee), LSV and L-ATV, as well as M119 howitzers. The equipment is mounted on special platforms with parachute systems that roll out from airplanes into the air.

The US Army is not able to drop parachutes with heavier equipment, unlike the Russian airborne forces. The only exception at the time was the M551 Sheridan light tank, which was landing using landing platforms, but in 1997 it was withdrawn from the arsenal of the American army. It is possible that the new light tank, developed under the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) program, will be able to replace the Sheridan in the arsenal of the airborne units and it will also be able to land from low altitudes.

For landing of cargoes and equipment of more significant weight, the US Armed Forces have traditionally used the Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System (LAPES). It is about a height of 1,5-3 meters from an S-130 aircraft. As the aircraft approaches, the crew releases the landing gear and drops to a three-meter height at a speed of 210 km / h. A stabilizing parachute is thrown out of the cargo hatch, which ensures the opening of the exhaust parachutes. Further, the cargo platform exits with a small positive angle of attack and is braked by the friction of the platform on the ground and exhaust parachutes.

By the way, the American military command is still in fierce debate about the future of the US airborne troops. One position is to develop them to the level of the Russian Airborne Forces, including creating opportunities for landing military equipment, and the other is to leave everything as it is, or even remove the parachute component, turning the airborne units into airmobiles, the landing of which occurs after landing aircraft.



Improving the capabilities of landing equipment with S-17


Currently, the main US military transport aircraft are the Boeing C-17 and C-130. The technical capabilities of the S-17 aircraft allow the simultaneous delivery of 8 HMMWV - wheeled SUVs.

However, taking into account the weight and dimensions of the vehicles, currently, planes take on board no more than 2 HMMWVs. The command considers this amount of light military vehicles transported to be clearly insufficient. Therefore, the task was set to increase this number to at least 4 machines and create opportunities for their effective landing.



In addition, the United States is testing the ability to drop light multi-purpose armored car JLTV. A year ago, tests were carried out on the basis of the 82nd Airborne Division. According to Wayne G. Lovely, an analyst with the US Airborne Special Operations and Special Operations Department, JLTVs are parachuted and then checked on the ground to see if they were damaged during the landing and whether they can be used in combat.

Author:
46 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67
    svp67 19 May 2020 11: 23 New
    +5
    A fragment of the video on the reset of equipment is interesting. They dumped the equipment, and the personnel both sat and sits, but the ramp is already being raised. Those cars dumped to someone as a gift or are they radio-controlled?
    1. novel66
      novel66 19 May 2020 11: 29 New
      +8
      and the second call, anti-aircraft gunners for joy
      1. Neim xxx
        Neim xxx 19 May 2020 17: 54 New
        0
        And from the first run, many will "land"
    2. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 19 May 2020 11: 45 New
      +9
      Quote: svp67
      A fragment of the video on the reset of equipment is interesting. They dumped the equipment, and the personnel both sat and sits, but the ramp is already being raised. Those cars dumped to someone as a gift or are they radio-controlled?

      Perhaps these are separate exercises. But the main thing is that the US landing forces have long turned into airmobiles. They have serious landing operations are simply not provided.
      1. Doctor
        Doctor 19 May 2020 12: 45 New
        +3
        They have serious landing operations are simply not provided.

        Exactly. Over the past 70 years, we have counted landing operations on the fingers in the Airborne Forces.
        But 260 hours a year on the VDP leaves. To the detriment of tactical, fire and other useful things.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 19 May 2020 15: 03 New
          +3
          Quote: Arzt
          But 260 hours a year on the VDP leaves. To the detriment of tactical, fire and other useful things.

          And in a giant plus for psychological
          1. Doctor
            Doctor 19 May 2020 15: 15 New
            +3
            And in a giant plus for psychological

            The question is very interesting, important and acute. After all, the existence of the Airborne Forces as a branch of the armed forces is at stake.

            A lot of things give a plus to the psychological, from equestrian sports to poker.
            Sailing sailors also rested for a long time and insisted on the need to work under sail, this type develops courage and dexterity.
            As a result, when they arrived at the fleet, the young officers did not go down to the engine rooms at all and vaguely presented the capabilities of ship engines.

            To teach what is needed in war is the main principle.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 19 May 2020 15: 18 New
              +4
              Quote: Arzt
              The question is very interesting, important and acute. After all, the existence of the Airborne Forces as a branch of the armed forces is at stake.

              If the Georgians blocked the tunnel, they would have to use parachute landing.
              Neither through Krestovy, nor through Abkhazia would have time.
              1. Doctor
                Doctor 19 May 2020 15: 22 New
                +3
                If the Georgians blocked the tunnel, they would have to use parachute landing.
                Neither through Krestovy, nor through Abkhazia would have time.

                Good example. And who would dare to send? Tu-22 was sent.
                Besides. I would venture to suggest that the Georgians would be doing the landing.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 19 May 2020 15: 25 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Arzt
                  Good example. And who would dare to send?

                  No wonder the paratroopers were pulled into Beslan.
                  With the highest probability they were going to be thrown somewhere near Java, if the 19th division could not take control of the tunnel.
                  1. Doctor
                    Doctor 19 May 2020 15: 32 New
                    +2
                    With the highest probability they were going to be thrown somewhere near Java,

                    Again, how would this end? One of the Su-25s was shot down just over Java.
                    Several IL-76s in the Georgian air defense zone ...
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 19 May 2020 15: 44 New
                      +5
                      Quote: Arzt
                      One of the Su-25s was shot down just over Java.

                      Friendly.
                      There were no Georgians.
                  2. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 20 May 2020 12: 27 New
                    0
                    Quote: Spade
                    With the highest probability they were going to be thrown somewhere near Java, if the 19th division could not take control of the tunnel.

                    EMNIP, 135 SMEs sat at the tunnel without one battalion (peacekeeping) - as an official reserve of peacekeepers, designed in case of an aggravation of the situation. So the army team would have managed to take control of the tunnel.
                    And with the Airborne Forces there was a leapfrog: they worked out exercises with the legend of "helping peacekeepers", the personnel returned to the PPD ... and immediately the order came "unstick dumplings, smoke into the chimney, firewood - to the original!"- to urgently return back. Just because there was nothing more to quickly strengthen the 19th and 42nd infantry divisions - the nearest division of the Ground Forces was in Volgograd.
                    Well, and besides, the Airborne Forces, at least during exercises, worked out assistance to peacekeepers.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 20 May 2020 15: 05 New
                      0
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      EMNIP, 135 SMEs sat at the tunnel without one battalion (peacekeeping) - as an official reserve of peacekeepers, designed in case of an aggravation of the situation. So the army team would have managed to take control of the tunnel.

                      Well yes. In the area of ​​Lower Zaramag. But they immediately advanced to Java, and there was control at the 2nd battalion of 693 regiment.

                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      Just because there was nothing more to quickly strengthen the 19th and 42nd motorized defenses

                      For example, 429 regiments were not even touched. And he’s in Mozdok, and this, I’m sorry, three hours by car to the northern portal of the tunnel
                2. ltc35
                  ltc35 19 May 2020 20: 35 New
                  +1
                  You took a chance. Honor and praise to you. Landing operations are always thought out to the smallest detail. In the Airborne Forces, the value of human life is elevated to the rank of a priority task, but we are ready to take risks. Moreover, most often justified. And the courage and decisiveness in the Airborne Forces definitely does not hold. And the Georgians are not the kind of rival who can easily "beat" hi
              2. Aaron Zawi
                Aaron Zawi 19 May 2020 17: 47 New
                0
                Quote: Spade

                If the Georgians blocked the tunnel, they would have to use parachute landing.
                Neither through Krestovy, nor through Abkhazia would have time.

                A landing without heavy equipment? request
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 19 May 2020 19: 07 New
                  0
                  Quote: Aron Zaavi
                  A landing without heavy equipment?

                  So what to do?
                  Do not abandon the peacekeepers.
                  BMDs, Ossetian tanks. And wait for the breakthrough of units of the 19th and 42nd divisions in the Georgian Military
                  We were very lucky that the Georgians were adventurous and greedy.
        2. sen
          sen 20 May 2020 03: 41 New
          +1
          Over the past 70 years, we have counted landing operations on the fingers in the Airborne Forces.

          Not only in our country, but in the USA. March-April 2003, war in Iraq. In it, the American Airborne Force took part in almost its entirety, but no major airborne operations were carried out. Unless, when the North coalition grouping was created in the friendly Kurdish Autonomous Region, the separate 173rd Airborne Brigade did not want to be simply delivered by air to the Bashur airfield, but dropped by parachute (964 people + 10 heavy platforms with equipment). To ensure this landing, a detachment of "Alpha" "green berets" and service personnel (14 people) were delivered to the airfield in Bashur in advance by airplanes, who assessed the terrain and deployed a communications installation. The Americans justified this parachute release by saving time and the small capabilities of the airfield. Ours arranged something similar in Bessarabia in 1940.
          1. riwas
            riwas 20 May 2020 04: 17 New
            +1
            March-April 2003, the war in Iraq.

            There was another landing in Afghanistan, but not of the Airborne Forces, but of low-level rangers from the 75th Regiment (about 100 people) in the area of ​​Kadagar on the night of October 20, 2001 was carried out with the aim of capturing a field airfield and one of protected shelters of the Taliban spiritual leader Mullah M. Omar. The operation was not successful and lasted only a few hours. But the Americans, true to the principle of making a show of everything, organized a live broadcast of this landing on television.
      2. Zeev Zeev
        Zeev Zeev 19 May 2020 13: 30 New
        +2
        Well yes. They landed in 2003 in northern Iraq, captured the airfield with the help of the Kurds, and began to carry heavy equipment there with transport aircraft under the guise of fighters. Absolutely not serious.
      3. svp67
        svp67 19 May 2020 14: 47 New
        +1
        Quote: Aron Zaavi
        They have serious landing operations are simply not provided.

        The landing troops are better than any other, that they can be used in different ways, can be planted with formations and units, and can also be deployed ...
    3. Civil
      Civil 19 May 2020 13: 43 New
      +2
      With the current level of spread of man-portable air defense systems, the mass landing of paratroopers is a dubious step. Maybe for this reason, the tanks were given to the Airborne Forces.
    4. The comment was deleted.
  2. Igor Borisov_2
    Igor Borisov_2 19 May 2020 11: 24 New
    +2
    Immediately I remembered the video with the "Hummers" breaking into a cake laughing
    1. novel66
      novel66 19 May 2020 11: 28 New
      +2
      and hope to continue ...
  3. Doccor18
    Doccor18 19 May 2020 11: 33 New
    +1
    Not only can they not solve the problem with the airborne landing systems, there is nothing to drop. Armored vehicles for the Airborne must first create. Sheridan is already 30 years old, but nothing has come to replace him. BMD, light self-propelled guns, MLRS and so on ....
    1. Hagen
      Hagen 19 May 2020 12: 29 New
      +5
      Quote: Doccor18
      Armored vehicles for the Airborne must first create.

      It is very obvious that equipment like our BMD and armored personnel carriers is not held in high esteem in the US Army. In the armies of the West, there has long been a trend towards strengthening the reservation of military equipment of motorized infantry and units. It is unlikely that it would occur to them to send infantry into battle on vehicles whose armor does not hold 12,7 in a circular. Their modern armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles are confidently moving towards the masses in 20 tons. IMHO
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 19 May 2020 15: 39 New
        0
        Quote: Hagen
        in the US Army is not held in high esteem. In the armies of the West, there has long been a trend towards strengthening the reservation of military equipment of motorized infantry and units. It is unlikely that it would occur to them to send infantry into battle on vehicles whose armor does not hold 12,7 in a circular.

        Dear, the Americans sent their paratroopers into battle on unarmored HMMWV
        Before you try to kick Russia, learn the materiel ...
        laughing
        1. Hagen
          Hagen 19 May 2020 16: 36 New
          -1
          Quote: Spade
          Dear, the Americans sent their paratroopers into battle on unarmored HMMWV
          Before you try to kick Russia, learn the materiel ...

          How do you like this materiel? Have you looked into the ABC book for a long time?
          ".... The US Army has entered into an agreement for the supply of military off-road vehicles with Oshkosh Defense. The firm will receive $ 6,75 billion for the production of 17 thousand vehicles. Subsequently, the contract can be expanded to 55 thousand vehicles and $ 30 billion payment.

          Many large companies participated in the tender, in particular the supplier of the former Army Hammers (HMMWV) AM General and the defense company Lockheed Martin.

          The US military opted for a car called the L-ATV (Light combat all-terrain vehicle, or “light combat SUV”) from Oshkosh. This car weighs about seven tons and is larger than the Hammer.

          The technical assignment implied the construction of a light, fast and maneuverable off-road vehicle that would protect passengers from explosive devices - it was the large losses of the US Army personnel in Afghanistan that caused the abandonment of the Hammer, who had been "in service" for 30 years ... "
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 19 May 2020 16: 38 New
            +3
            Quote: Hagen
            ".... The US Army has entered into an agreement for the supply of military off-road vehicles with Oshkosh Defense. The firm will receive $ 6,75 billion for the production of 17 thousand vehicles. Subsequently, the contract can be expanded to 55 thousand vehicles and $ 30 billion payment.

            And?
            Does this deny the fact that the American paratroopers fought on the HMMWV?
            Once again, MATCH
            1. Hagen
              Hagen 19 May 2020 17: 32 New
              -1
              Quote: Spade
              Does this deny the fact that the American paratroopers fought on the HMMWV?

              They once rode on horses. That is why I spoke about the "trend to strengthen the reservation", which is in contradiction with parachute landing. There were hamers, I do not deny, but in limited quantities they are being liquidated today. If you do not bear in mind intelligence and other specialties, then the usual airborne units are equipped with the M2 Bradley BMP. So, yes, "Once again, MATCH."
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 19 May 2020 18: 47 New
                +2
                Quote: Hagen
                They once rode horses

                We are not talking about "once", we are talking about now.
                Active SV brigades: 11 on the Bradley BMP, 7 on the Strykers, and 13 (thirteen!) On the HMMWV
                National Guard: 5 on the Bradley BMP, 2 on the Strykers, and 20 (twenty!) On the HMMWV

                Quote: Hagen
                That is why I spoke about the "trend to strengthen the reservation", which is in contradiction with parachute landing.

                Matrimony laughing
                Do you know why 1129-mm mortars are in the spare parts for self-propelled mortars of the M81 battalion level, and 60-mm mortars in the vehicles of the company
                Just because they don't care about sofa trends, they are preparing their infantry for airmobile operations. That is, not to "strengthen the booking" but to action without booking at all.


                Quote: Hagen
                If you do not mean reconnaissance and other special equipment, then conventional airborne units are equipped with the M2 Bradley BMP.

                laughing laughing laughing laughing laughing
                None of the five airborne brigades have a single Bradley BMP
                At all
      2. Tavrik
        Tavrik 19 May 2020 15: 59 New
        +1
        And there is. Here the contradiction begins between the growth of the mass of technology and the need to drop it. Wangyu, that from Airborne divisions will gradually move to the Airborne Battalions. Or there will be only one very light airborne battalion in the Airborne Division, and the rest will be airmobile or whatever, but with normal heavy armored personnel carriers (BMP, BMD, etc.)
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 19 May 2020 15: 15 New
      0
      Quote: Doccor18
      Not only can they not solve the problem with the airborne landing systems, there is nothing to drop. Armored vehicles for the Airborne must first create. Sheridan is already 30 years old, but nothing has come to replace him. BMD, light self-propelled guns, MLRS and so on ....

      The author simply did not ask about the real state of affairs.
      Contrary to his statement, "Unlike the Russian Airborne Forces, the US Army is not able to drop heavier equipment with parachutes."
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 19 May 2020 15: 25 New
        +1
        BTR Stryker weighing over 17 tons. BMD-4 is almost 3 tons lighter. So the Americans are landing heavy equipment ... Perhaps questions as parachute systems?
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 19 May 2020 15: 35 New
          0
          Quote: Doccor18
          Perhaps questions as parachute systems?

          Questions in a full-time organization. For the American paratroopers it is not special, as for us. All five paratrooper brigades of the American army (three in the 82nd division, one in Italy and one in Alaska) have the staff of the light infantry brigade tactical group.
          1. Doccor18
            Doccor18 19 May 2020 15: 44 New
            +1
            Conclusions in the course of commenting on this article clearly diverge from the meaning of the article itself.
            "The Weak Point of the US Airborne Forces: Problems with Airborne Equipment" ....
            If the weak point is the staff of the units, then all the questions to the command, and not to the design engineers.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 19 May 2020 15: 54 New
              +4
              Quote: Doccor18
              If a weak spot - this is the state units

              Why "weak point"?
              The Americans believe that for the capture of the airfield, its preparation for the reception of troops by landing method, protection and defense, it is quite enough "light" units
              And this is where the strength of the American army comes in. Their ground forces are virtually completely air transportable. And 605 Air Force transport aircraft can do this (45 Galaxy, 222 Globmasters and 338 Hercules).
  4. Kalmar
    Kalmar 19 May 2020 12: 07 New
    +7
    Is parachute landing still in fashion? There is a feeling that already during WWII large-scale landing operations most often ended in nothing (plus huge losses).
    1. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins 19 May 2020 12: 22 New
      12
      Well, generals like to look at the sky in parachutes! This is mass! The beauty! Feeling of power! They love parades, drill reviews ... What would all be a thread ...
      In our company, there was a "flight" when the battalion commander discovered that in the model bedside tables the notes were leaning against different walls - in some to the left, in others to the right! The corresponding order followed.
  5. sabakina
    sabakina 19 May 2020 12: 14 New
    0
    For landing of cargoes and equipment of more significant weight, the US Armed Forces have traditionally used the Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System (LAPES). It is about a height of 1,5-3 meters from an S-130 aircraft.

  6. smaug78
    smaug78 19 May 2020 13: 20 New
    +3
    Another "onilitega" from Polonsky. The level of Felkenhauer and Sokolov, only with a patriotic flavor ...
  7. Recoil
    Recoil 19 May 2020 13: 21 New
    +3
    My opinion is not a paratrooper - they are not mentally prepared for our concept of the use of airborne forces. After all, we have every operation - a one-way ticket. Airborne Forces - suicide squad. And we have the appropriate technique. And they love themselves. BPM - under 30 tons, there is no talk of landing in the technique.
    1. val43
      val43 19 May 2020 13: 43 New
      +7
      And rightly so!
    2. Ryazan87
      Ryazan87 19 May 2020 13: 45 New
      +6
      they are not mentally prepared for our concept of using airborne forces

      or mentally. Understanding the outcome of such operations when confronting any enemy of equal value, and at the same time not spending money on the development of a line of airborne equipment with cardboard armor.
    3. Lopatov
      Lopatov 19 May 2020 16: 23 New
      -1
      Quote: Rollback
      they are not mentally prepared for our concept of using airborne forces

      Maybe not ready.
      But they carry out combat landings. Even when you can do without them, according to Russian experts
      And our airborne forces are used exclusively as infantry. What are they absolutely not intended for.
  8. eklmn
    eklmn 22 May 2020 19: 47 New
    0
    “The US Army is not able to drop parachutes with heavier equipment, unlike the Russian airborne forces,”
    I would not be so categorical. Because the US was able to parachute an ICBM (combat missile!) From an S-5 aircraft. And it was already in 1974. Those. if they need it, then they can, if it is not necessary, they will wait ...
    Video here:
    https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/watch-the-air-force-launch-an-icbm-in-mid-air-from-the-back-of-a-c-5