Military Review

"Sprut-SDM1" against the background of analogs. Is Russia ahead of its opponents?

107

New old realities



It can be assumed that the division into light, medium and heavy Tanks after World War II went into oblivion. However, in the XNUMXst century, new realities have made themselves felt: first of all, we are talking about the so-called mobile war, when the role of airborne units is constantly increasing.

This is understood both in Russia and in the West. In the 90s, US military analysts viewed a large number of formations with heavy armored equipment as a vestige of the Cold War. For future conflicts, it was planned to create new highly mobile formations that could be deployed as quickly as possible anywhere in the world using Boeing C-17 Globemaster III military transport aircraft.

So in 2003, what we know as Future Combat Systems (FCS) appeared: de facto it is an attempt to create completely new US ground forces based on the principle of network centricity, mobility and ultimate unification. Under Barack Obama, the program was curtailed. A whole family of new combat vehicles, including infantry fighting vehicles, light tanks, self-propelled guns, went into oblivion.


Despite the complete failure of the FCS program, lately this direction is increasingly come back... Russia is among the countries that have advanced the farthest in creating light and well-armed combat vehicles.

Scheduled tests


The main Russian development in this area is the new Sprut-SDM1 light tank. The car has a long история... The deliveries of its predecessor, Spruta-SD, were stopped in 2010, after several dozen cars were produced. Obviously not what its creators would like, but now it seems that things have moved off the ground. On August 21, it became known that the new Sprut-SDM1 light tank was transferred for state testing. "High-precision complexes" of the state corporation "Rostec" handed over the modernized prototypes of the "Sprut-SDM1" tank for state tests. Over the next one and a half years, the vehicle will be tested in the field in the military formations of the RF Ministry of Defense, ”said Rostec.

According to TASS, the tank should be tested in sea and high altitude conditions. The tests will take place at different air temperatures: from -40 to +40 degrees Celsius. “Based on the results of state tests, the design documentation for the new tank will be approved with the assignment of the letter O1, which will allow starting serial production. Subsequently, based on the results of the work of the interdepartmental commission, the vehicle will be recommended for adoption by the Russian army, "Rostec said.


According to the head of "High-precision complexes" Alexander Denisov, in terms of firepower, the vehicle will not be inferior to the main battle tanks T-80 and T-90. Thanks to the 125-mm gun 2A75 "Sprut-SDM1", it can fight almost all existing and future tanks. It is possible to use 9M119M1 guided missiles, in which armor penetration is up to 900 millimeters or 800-850 behind dynamic protection.

In addition to the cannon, the vehicle has a coaxial 7,62-mm machine gun and a remote-controlled weapon station with another 7,62-mm machine gun with 1000 rounds of ammunition. With regard to mobility, then, according to the developers, it will be comparable to the performance of the BMD-4M airborne assault vehicle. The new "Sprut" can be dropped by landing or parachuting with the crew on board. In addition, he can, without preliminary preparation, overcome water obstacles in waves of up to three points and at the same time fire at the enemy.

Tight competition


Let's try to understand how the domestic car looks against the background of analogues.

Firepower. If we talk about firepower, then, as you can see above, the tank has solid capabilities, being at the level of its competitors or even surpassing them. So, "Sprut-SDM1" has a much more powerful armament than the Turkish light tank Tulpar, equipped with a 105-mm cannon. In addition, the Russian vehicle has two machine guns against one of the conventional Turkish counterpart. It surpasses the Russian tank and the rather famous Turkish-Indonesian combat vehicle Modern Medium Weight Tank (MMWT), also equipped with a 105 mm gun.


The future, however, is preparing a number of surprises. In April, the American General Dynamics and the US Army held a public demonstration of a prototype of the new Griffin II light tank, developed as part of the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) program. And in 2018, BAE Systems showed the M8 Armored Gun System (AGS) combat vehicle, also created under this program. According to the terms of the competition, the vehicle must receive 105 or 120 mm cannon armament and the most advanced electronics. That is, in terms of firepower, it will be at least comparable to the Octopus.

Security. The Russian car and its analogues mentioned above are in different weight categories and have correspondingly different degrees of protection. The weight of "Sprut-SDM1" is 18 tons, which is much less than the weight of the aforementioned Tulpar, which weighs about ten tons more. In turn, the mass of the Griffin II. according to some sources, it is at all "immodest" 38 tons. The survivability of light tanks will never be compared to the MBT, but there is little doubt that the protection of vehicles created within the framework of Mobile Protected Firepower will be better than that of the Sprut, which has bulletproof armor. It is important to mention that the Americans want to equip their light tank with an active protection complex (KAZ): now the Israeli KAZ is being actively installed on the Abrams by the US ground forces. As far as one can tell, the Americans are completely satisfied with its capabilities.


"Sprut-SDM1" will hardly ever receive such systems: this will dramatically increase the mass and price of the combat vehicle, which does not fit into its concept and modern Russian economic realities.

Mobility. Thanks to the 450 horsepower engine, the maximum speed of the "Sprut-SDM1" on the highway is 70 kilometers per hour. The power reserve of the car is 500 kilometers. Relatively small weight and dimensions make it possible to transport "Sprut" on military transport aircraft without serious problems. aviation Il-76 and parachute it. The analogs have very similar mobility readings, but the Russian car has an important advantage - it can swim well. This versatility will surely interest potential buyers. It is worth saying that the mobility indicators should be considered from the point of view of the concept of using light tanks: they can have significant differences in different countries.


On the whole, Sprut-SDM1 can hardly be called something revolutionary. Nevertheless, it is a potentially successful, useful and well balanced combat vehicle. With a relatively low mass, it has impressive firepower, which, together with advanced electronics, makes the Octopus a dangerous enemy on the battlefield. The tank is inferior to light Western (and not only) counterparts in terms of security, however, the developers of the Russian vehicle have never put this indicator at the forefront.
Author:
107 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. We are for our
    We are for our 26 August 2020 18: 19 New
    -27
    "Sprut-SDM1" against the background of analogs.
    Briefly about "Sprut-SDM1" - has no analogues in the world.
    1. KCA
      KCA 26 August 2020 19: 52 New
      +4
      It does not, and there will be buyers, in Southeast Asia the old PT-76 pukers are still in good standing, but here the 125mm caliber
  2. ved_med12
    ved_med12 26 August 2020 18: 20 New
    +8
    The author, could you somehow sign the photos?
    1. Grandfather
      Grandfather 26 August 2020 19: 07 New
      -6
      Quote: ved_med12
      The author, could you somehow sign the photos?

      and what is there incomprehensible?
  3. Alexga
    Alexga 26 August 2020 18: 26 New
    0
    This versatility will surely interest potential buyers.

    It seems that the moral of the article is contained in this phrase. But it would be curious to look at this unit on a forest tank road. laughing
    1. KCA
      KCA 26 August 2020 19: 59 New
      10
      Do you know the DT-75 tractor? almost 3 million were produced, weight 7,5 tons, engine up to 95 horses, how well it feels on a forest road cannot be described briefly, but the Octopus has 450 horses, the DT-shka is fully loaded Ural weighing under 20 tons will carry it through the forest, and here there are 4 times more horses
      1. Alexga
        Alexga 26 August 2020 20: 14 New
        -7
        it's not about engine power. This is a BMP-BMD with a four-meter piece of iron weighing several tons that goes beyond the size of the car. What will happen to her suspension? An ordinary tank and an infantry fighting vehicle in the pits shakes so that "mom, do not cry"! I'm not talking about the mass of ammunition inside the volume yet. And this is with the usual chassis. I don’t believe it will go to my army. Most likely, for the Arabs, there is a desert.
        1. KCA
          KCA 26 August 2020 20: 35 New
          +5
          So a long time ago, tanks turned the cannon to the stern, really they were so stupid that they could shoot forward with a cannon through the forest, then break trees on propaganda videos beautifully, and a normal mechanic drive along the forest, but the road will go, and so as not to swing, you can drive not 40 km / h, and 10
          1. Alexga
            Alexga 26 August 2020 21: 38 New
            -8
            I, of course, excuse me, but you try to drive in the tower, with your back in the direction of travel, at least 20 km through the forest. It will be interesting to hear what you have to say to the creators of this unit.
            1. vadimtt
              vadimtt 27 August 2020 09: 07 New
              +4
              The octopus has a rather advanced hydropneumatic suspension (and you try to transfer the impulse of an anti-tank gun to the ground with a chassis weight of only 18 tons), everything is fine with forest roads.
        2. psiho117
          psiho117 26 August 2020 21: 05 New
          +1
          Quote: AlexGa
          Most likely, for the Arabs, there is a desert.

          The Arabs do not really need goslings, there would be more wheeled chassis fit.
          1. Alexga
            Alexga 26 August 2020 21: 39 New
            -1
            there would be more wheeled chassis fit.

            This jeep on wheels in the desert looks cool, and a heavy car does not like sand.
            1. psiho117
              psiho117 26 August 2020 21: 46 New
              -1
              Well, yes. laughing
              Question, and Octopus, what is he? wassat wassat wassat
              1. bayard
                bayard 26 August 2020 23: 45 New
                10
                Quote: psiho117
                Question, and Octopus, what is he?

                Floating.
                For the desert - the very thing. yes bully
                1. psiho117
                  psiho117 27 August 2020 03: 22 New
                  +6
                  First of all, it's still lightweight.
                  With a powerful engine. The thrust-to-weight ratio of 28,3 is good for tracked vehicles. So, everything is in order with his passability on the sand.
                  1. bayard
                    bayard 27 August 2020 03: 28 New
                    +2
                    Quote: psiho117
                    First of all, it's still lightweight.

                    That's right . yes
                    Quote: psiho117
                    So, everything is in order with his passability on the sand.

                    That is why the Arabs are so fond of the BMP-3 in their deserts.
                    They wanted to fall in love with the Hindus in their highlands, but decided to dig deeper themselves. Apparently the pessimists of our site scared away all buyers.
                    You need to be careful with the clients of our military-industrial complex, they also know how to read Russian. bully
          2. YOUR
            YOUR 27 August 2020 03: 58 New
            -1
            All for sale?
            Only 36 units of all modifications were produced for their Army. Let me remind you that it has been produced since 1984. The most actively produced from 1984 to 2010. Can you calculate or help how many units were produced per year? If you display the arithmetic mean, then a little more than one piece per year.
            1. EvilLion
              EvilLion 27 August 2020 08: 54 New
              +1
              Probably because the army doesn't really need it. And not only ours, not a single light tank project over the past 40 years has been successful, except that the BMP-3 in this capacity took place.
              1. YOUR
                YOUR 27 August 2020 10: 00 New
                +2
                If not, then the question is why they are modernizing, for what purpose they are investing money.
                1. Alexga
                  Alexga 27 August 2020 11: 01 New
                  +1
                  And this is the easiest way to "master" the allocated money. There are many examples of this in the military-industrial complex.
                  1. YOUR
                    YOUR 27 August 2020 11: 13 New
                    0
                    Unfortunately this is the case. How much has already been promised, but things are still there. Starting with the Su-57 and ending with rearmament to another rifle and combat ammunition. And the repair of ships is a parable in tongues. Quickly, the only so beloved Shoigu's form was introduced. Furanki, and a jacket with gold embroidery ..
                    1. EvilLion
                      EvilLion 27 August 2020 16: 55 New
                      +2
                      In fact, a clear program was announced for the Su-57 with the number of purchases and terms. Because its necessity does not raise questions.
                      1. YOUR
                        YOUR 28 August 2020 03: 37 New
                        0
                        In fact, these dates have been postponed since 2015. It is not enough to voice it, it is necessary to do it, and this is a problem and a problem not only with the Su-57. Oil and gas workers have no problems.
                      2. YOUR
                        YOUR 28 August 2020 03: 49 New
                        0
                        As if in pursuit. Back in February last year, it was announced that the production of the Su-57 will begin on 29.05.2019/2020/2021, recall today's date? More than a year has passed and things are still there. True, something vaguely flashed again that production will begin in XNUMX or XNUMX.
                      3. Alex777
                        Alex777 28 August 2020 11: 32 New
                        0
                        Have you forgotten that the first production Su-57 crashed?
                        Asking why is a very good reason.
                        And in general, what does the article about Octopus have to do with the Su-57?
            2. IS-80_RVGK2
              IS-80_RVGK2 27 August 2020 12: 34 New
              +1
              Bam! Bam! And past. Neither the Octopus nor the BMP-3 are ever light tanks. First tank destroyer, second infantry fighting vehicle with self-propelled guns capabilities.
          3. Zementbomber
            Zementbomber 16 September 2020 07: 26 New
            -1
            Well, count - how much is needed for just two self-propelled ptadn? With the current states - even 36 pieces. - lot.
      2. Boris Chernikov
        Boris Chernikov 26 August 2020 23: 56 New
        +1
        Why not? Old Octopus passed the state and this one will pass .. it is important that for the army and export, the version should be on a cart from the BMP-3 and even preferably in the Dragoon version ... the protection is maximum, the mass is less than 25 tons
  • ved_med12
    ved_med12 26 August 2020 18: 26 New
    +2
    With KAZ, the possibility of being accompanied by infantry disappears and greatly increases the cost of a unit!
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 26 August 2020 21: 08 New
      +7
      Quote: ved_med12
      With KAZ, the possibility of being accompanied by infantry disappears and greatly increases the cost of a unit!

      You collapsed from an oak, a tin can galvanized into attack, accompanied by infantry? That is, the Octopus, in your opinion, should go ahead or in battle formation of the attacking infantry, and support it with fire, so what?
      Tin-plate angry
      1. rudolff
        rudolff 26 August 2020 21: 26 New
        12
        In the case of the Airborne Forces and the Marine Corps, this is exactly the case. For the simple reason that other equipment may not be there.
      2. ved_med12
        ved_med12 26 August 2020 21: 32 New
        +6
        Good! And what, then, is its general purpose, in your opinion, as part of the DShB? fire support "from over the hill"? The point then in TWO machine guns?
        1. psiho117
          psiho117 26 August 2020 21: 43 New
          +5
          Quote: ved_med12
          And what, then, is its overall goal, in your opinion, as part of the DSB? fire support "from over the hill"?

          Exactly. Long arm, so to speak. Surely you've heard the army saying about the best sniper rifle? bully
          Sense then in TWO machine guns?

          Xs. I don’t understand myself, but, apparently - self-defense.
          In theory, we need 12,7mm, but our logic is often not all right. Therefore, for some reason we have two 7,62mm.
          1. bayard
            bayard 27 August 2020 00: 17 New
            0
            Quote: psiho117
            ... Long arm, so to speak. Surely you've heard the army saying about the best sniper rifle?

            That is why "Sprut" is positioned as a "self-propelled anti-tank gun" - firing from cover, from a camouflaged position and following the advancing orders to maintain fire.
            Quote: psiho117
            In theory, we need 12,7mm, but our logic is often not all right. Therefore, for some reason we have two 7,62mm.

            Apparently it just did not fit - there is very little space on the tower cover.
            1. psiho117
              psiho117 27 August 2020 11: 45 New
              0
              Quote: bayard
              Apparently it just did not fit - there is very little space on the tower cover.

              Yes well, there would be a desire.
              And a modern module with a 12,7mm machine gun is a really necessary thing on any armored vehicle
              1. Alex777
                Alex777 28 August 2020 11: 35 New
                0
                For the landing party, ammunition unification is also a topic.
                2 machine gun caliber or 1?
                1. psiho117
                  psiho117 28 August 2020 12: 18 New
                  0
                  Quote: Alex777
                  ammunition unification

                  Far-fetched: the landing party has regular NSV and Kordy, there is NSVT on tanks, so the supply of 12,7mm cartridges is still necessary.
            2. Alex777
              Alex777 28 August 2020 11: 41 New
              0
              That is why the Sprut is positioned as a "self-propelled anti-tank gun"

              In the squiggles of our rules for naming weapons systems, it matters who exactly ordered the development.
              EMNIP, those who ordered the development of the Octopus, can only order self-propelled guns. And in life, the Octopus is a light tank. Something like this. hi
      3. Hagen
        Hagen 27 August 2020 09: 02 New
        +1
        Quote: psiho117
        Octopus, in your opinion, should go ahead or in battle formation of the attacking infantry,

        Speaking of the Octopus as a light tank, they generally think that way. What, you're right, is absurd. We must first of all proceed from the tasks and the alleged enemy. Today, in the attack of any unit of a potential enemy, for every eight shooters, we will at least see one BMP / armored personnel carrier with 20-40 mm weapons. And it will be a difficult obstacle to pass. BMD-4 armor is bulletproof, only. Obviously, even the M-2 will take it on board, which is even put on jeeps today. If such a machine is to be made, then only for reconnaissance units of the Airborne Forces, landing on parachute systems. A light tank that can be landed must have armor that is resistant to cannon shells mounted on armored vehicles of motorized infantry units, i.e. 20-40 mm. That is, there is a need to develop a completely different tank, as an option that we do not have. Or use Terminator 3 with 57mm guns instead.
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 27 August 2020 09: 34 New
          0
          Change the hull from BMD to BMP 3 with maximum attachment and you will get a light tank.
          1. Hagen
            Hagen 27 August 2020 10: 37 New
            0
            Quote: garri-lin
            Change the hull from BMD to BMP 3 with maximum attachment and you will get a light tank.

            The body of the BMP-3 from the forehead holds 30x165, "they" have a stronger cartridge, 30x172. So, anyway, a new case is needed. Moreover, the landing force is fighting with open flanks.
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 27 August 2020 10: 53 New
              +1
              Well, if you make a full-fledged light tank, then yes. The only question is why. If you do ersatz. Although it is not necessary either.
        2. psiho117
          psiho117 27 August 2020 12: 13 New
          +1
          Quote: Hagen
          BMD-4 armor is bulletproof, only. Obviously, even M-2 will take it on board.

          Still worse.
          At BMD (and Octopus, respectively), the board does not hold fragments of even 85mm mines, not to mention 120mm, which they will, in 70% of cases, suppress the self-propelled guns that have discovered themselves. The forehead holds neither 14,5mm, nor 23mm, nor 30mm - and these are the most common calibers from which it will "fly." And yes, the BMD's forehead holds 12,7 krupnyak only from 500m ...

          The experience of fighting in the LPR is as follows: BMD 1-2-3 showed their disastrous vulnerability to enemy fire.
          Each time they entered the battle (regardless of the side of the conflict), the result was the same: irrecoverable losses in 80% of cases. It remains just a crumbly burnt metal.
          Quote: Hagen
          A light tank that can be landed must have armor that is resistant to cannon shells mounted on armored vehicles of motorized infantry units, i.e. 20-40 mm

          Everything depends on this notorious airborne capability. I think it is already clear to all understanding people - to make a more or less protected, and at the same time, an airborne vehicle is now unrealistic.
          However, I will be objective - although I don't like it, the BMD has its advantages:
          An indisputable advantage of the car is the possibility of its rapid airlifting, as well as BMDs are easily transported using army trucks (Ural, Kamaz) due to their low weight. In addition, the car is not bad on the water and floats. Using BMD as a mobile firing point more or less allows you to save it.
          But in the case of combined arms combat, the result is the same:

    2. would
      would 27 August 2020 09: 46 New
      +3
      KAZ eliminates the possibility of infantry escort


      However, the T-14 "Armata" is not aware of this. Let the Israeli comrades say about the Merkava.
      1. ved_med12
        ved_med12 27 August 2020 15: 20 New
        0
        Tactical and technical characteristics of KAZ "Arena"
        Range of speeds of the hit targets: 70-700 m / s
        Azimuth Protection Sector: 270 °
        Detection of flying targets: 50 m
        Complex reaction time: 0,07 s
        Ammo Quantity: 22
        The size of the danger zone for the escort infantry: 30 meters.
        Power Consumption: 1 kW
        Supply voltage: 27 V
        Mass of the complex: 1100-1300 kg
        The volume of the complex equipment inside the tower: 30 dm ^ 3
  • The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 26 August 2020 18: 26 New
    +3
    I do not want to look like a jingoistic patriot, but I think that the car is worthy and unique in its weight category.
    1. Olddetractor
      Olddetractor 26 August 2020 19: 02 New
      +1
      The machine is excellent and has nothing to do with the patriotism. The troops will decide everything
      1. cat Rusich
        cat Rusich 26 August 2020 23: 17 New
        +3
        Dmitry, what enemy is it supposed to fight on the Sprut? - MBT "Abrams"? - BMP "Bradley"? Conversation about the ANTI-BULLET "armor" - the "bearded cart" with the DShK punches into the side of the Octopus. ATGMs with a high-explosive warhead can also suppress the "firing points". BTR-80 with 14,5mm KPVT can penetrate the Octopus in the frontal ... Many will say that the Octopus will not go to the front line ... but where will the Octopus be? - do you need a "gun" to suppress "firing points"? - 2S1 "Gvozdika" - 122mm howitzer gun, bulletproof armor, floating, BK 40 rounds, firing range 15,2 km, there is UAS "Kitolov-2M" - only does not jump with a parachute ...
        1. Mikhail Tynda
          Mikhail Tynda 26 August 2020 23: 53 New
          +7
          Will be with "Abrams" and "Bradley" if necessary. The Octopus is not a tank. It is a self-propelled anti-tank gun, lightly armored, with the ability to drop. And her tactics are appropriate. It's not even a light tank! He shot, changed position as quickly as possible, took a new one. In this case, the calculation is protected from small arms bullets and shrapnel. That's all.
          1. cat Rusich
            cat Rusich 27 August 2020 00: 07 New
            -1
            Mikhail, maybe "Chrysanthemum-S"? - firing range up to 6 km - farther than BOPS at "Sprut" ...
            1. Mikhail Tynda
              Mikhail Tynda 27 August 2020 00: 12 New
              +2
              May be. But apparently it's not all that simple. And we do not all know and understand. Rockets are great. But with their + and -
              1. cat Rusich
                cat Rusich 27 August 2020 00: 27 New
                +4
                Mikhail, IF with "rockets" - "... it's not so simple ..." - what's so simple about "Octopus"? - "PT Octopus cannon" operates at a maximum of 2 km ... "Chrysanthemum-S" operates at 6 km, "Carnation" at 15,2 km (we use UAS "Kitolov-2M" for accuracy, and guidance, for example, through a UAV). "... we do not know and understand everything ..." - how did the Sprut-SD SPG turn into the Sprut-SDM1 "light tank"? BMP "Bradley М2А3" with 25mm automatic cannon М242 Bushmaster with cartridge М919 penetrates 37mm at 2 km ...
                1. garri-lin
                  garri-lin 27 August 2020 01: 01 New
                  +2
                  Why Carnation if there is Nona and her heirs? Why Chrysanthemum if there is a Cornet on the chassis? Octopus is a direct fire of the Airborne Forces, they need a minuscule amount. The export potential did not work.
                  1. cat Rusich
                    cat Rusich 27 August 2020 20: 34 New
                    0
                    Shooter, what kind of "cornet on the chassis"? - Cornet-T or Cornet-D1? He proposed Chrysanthemum-S due to the presence of RADAR and the range of the 9M123-2 ATGM up to 6 km - even at night, at Kornet at night the sighting range drops to 3,5 km. He offered Carnation as the most massive SPG available, in caliber from 122mm (for Sprut 125mm) over 10 pieces, Nona-S - 000 pieces. He offered for ground operations without landing ... when in a combat situation they landed equipment (self-propelled guns, infantry fighting vehicles ...) ???
                    1. garri-lin
                      garri-lin 27 August 2020 21: 16 New
                      0
                      There are many cornet chassis. Is based on BMD 4 is based on Tiger. There is a universal module installed on a lightweight carrier. The range in the latest versions is more than that of the Chrysanthemum they write. Although the range of Chrysanthemum is frankly redundant. With a good margin. Radar is a good thing. But they cannot fight the excess for the Airborne Forces alone with the main forces. And the radar is also an unmasking factor.
                      Non did as much as was necessary. I am reforming the Airborne Forces. But they are not going to take away the possibility of landing. And therefore the basic technique must be in accordance with the application doctrine. In fact, the Airborne Forces has everything you need. The main thing is to keep it up to date.
                      1. cat Rusich
                        cat Rusich 27 August 2020 21: 49 New
                        0
                        Shooter, 3 (three) TANK battalions on T-72B3 were created at the beginning of 2019 as part of the 7th and 76th Airborne Assault Divisions, as well as in the 56th Airborne Assault Brigade of the Airborne Forces. Article VO of 02.07.2019/5/72 "The Airborne Forces will form 3 more tank battalions" (on the TBXNUMX) - what about the "doctrine of the use of the Airborne Forces" ... About the "radar" - today it is very difficult to "hide", the radar will be required for a combat attack to the maximum range, to detect the enemy using the UAV - hit the "target" turned off the radar. OR DO NOT TURN ON the radar, but let it be just in case ... Better be "excessive range yes "than" not enough range sad ".
                      2. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 27 August 2020 21: 55 New
                        0
                        The presence of tanks does not negate all other vehicles. Which is mostly landing. And it is a complete set of weapons.
                      3. cat Rusich
                        cat Rusich 27 August 2020 22: 15 New
                        +2
                        Shooter - Afghan, Chechnya, where were BMDs used? (maybe I just did not notice BMD in the chronicles of those wars, then excuse me ...). "Landing equipment" - it remains in the parks to wait for the landing operations (or am I wrong again?), And the paratroopers are sent into battle on the BMP ("kindly provided" by the infantry), to support the paratroopers in the usual "land battle" the Airborne Forces were provided by the T- 72B3 - we hear about "landing operations" only during exercises. The conversation began with "light tanks" Sprut-SDM1, which turn out to be "neither to the village - nor to the city", ANTI-BULLET armor does not give the opportunity to fight "in the open", the smooth-bore gun from the tank does not give the opportunity to shoot from closed positions, but "the ability to land" with a parachute "blinds" very many, but no one can clearly say how the Sprut-SDM1 "light tanks" will be used ...
                      4. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 27 August 2020 22: 25 New
                        0
                        Octopus is not a light tank, but a self-propelled anti-tank gun. Do you understand the difference?
                      5. cat Rusich
                        cat Rusich 27 August 2020 22: 34 New
                        +2
                        Shooter, have you read the article? (under which these comments) - the article says - "... light tank Sprut-SDM1 ..." - without quotes, like mine. The author of the article writes about the Sprut-SDM1 light tank and compares it with foreign light tanks, you are the Shooter, ask the author of the article - about understanding the difference between a tank destroyer and a light tank. hi hi
                      6. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 27 August 2020 23: 07 New
                        0
                        Nonsense is written in the article. Compare one oblong object with another.
  • rudolff
    rudolff 26 August 2020 18: 57 New
    +6
    For airborne forces, marines and mountain units. Although for the Marine Corps, the Octopus based on the BMP would be preferable, rather than the BMD.
    1. Zementbomber
      Zementbomber 16 September 2020 07: 38 New
      -1
      Well, OK - in the airborne division (not dshd) we need osptadn at the rate of a battery of 6 or 8 airborne tank destroyers for each divisional traffic control.
      And why are the Marines? And what about the omsbr (g) ??
      1. rudolff
        rudolff 16 September 2020 07: 50 New
        +1
        The percentage of the coastline that allows the landing of heavy equipment (including tanks) through the ramp from the ship directly to the coast is small. We have no UDC with tank landing boats. In most cases, you will have to operate with floating equipment. Octopus would be useful here as a replacement for the PT-76. Preferably based on BMP-3F.
        1. Zementbomber
          Zementbomber 16 September 2020 08: 01 New
          -1
          1. There is DKVP.
          2. BDK of Soviet projects starting from project 1174 - carry the DVKA (displacement and on the SVP).
          3. UDC (though it is not UDC in fact - but this is the second) you have laid.
          4. (main) When landing any amphibious assault force larger than a reinforced company from the sea or airborne assault forces from ship's turntables - the coastal accessibility of the coast by hydrography and coastal landscape is still critical.
          1. rudolff
            rudolff 16 September 2020 10: 16 New
            +1
            What is the seaworthiness of the safety of navigation and the autonomy of these landing craft? They simply cannot be used over long distances. Questionable in the far sea zone and excluded in the ocean.
            How many large landing craft do we have in the first line capable of carrying tank landing boats? Please correct if I am wrong. Not at all.
            UDC is the most universal term, all other derivatives and concretizing. Remembering how much Gren was tortured with us, it is unlikely that the fleet will see its UDCs in its composition in the current decade. It was easier to buy Makassars in Indonesia.
            Octopus for the Marine Corps would definitely not be superfluous. Moreover, there are a few of them there.
            1. Zementbomber
              Zementbomber 16 September 2020 10: 35 New
              -1
              If you land an assault force on an armored vehicle from a "ramp" by swimming, the restrictions on distance from the coast, the safety of the landing, etc., will be less than those of the landing on the DVKA?
              And on which ocean theater of operations the marines of the Russian Navy and the BO forces will need to land such a landing?
              Moreover, with such a level of expected enemy opposition in the battle for the landing and securing the bridgehead that the landing force will need a 125-mm tank destroyer in the assault echelon?
  • garri-lin
    garri-lin 26 August 2020 19: 05 New
    +9
    Octopus is not a light tank. With any letter additions to the name.
  • Snail N9
    Snail N9 26 August 2020 19: 06 New
    +3
    Hmm ... Do not have a margin in terms of enhancing security, and this is in our time when the battlefield is saturated with various infantry means of destruction of armored vehicles ... A long gun is good, of course, as a weapon against tanks, but how it will look almost naked in terms of armor in collision with tanks ... even if the anti-material rifle is already a threat to it ...
    1. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins 26 August 2020 19: 39 New
      +7
      Rather, an ambush or defense vehicle. Fend off predictable counterattacks. Of course, he has nothing to do near Prokhorovka.
    2. Vlad.by
      Vlad.by 26 August 2020 21: 06 New
      +5
      Well, Tulpar will be more secure, will it save him from RPG 7, not to mention more powerful RPGs?
      The essence of the Octopus is maneuver and fire, not a frontal attack on prepared positions. As well as any other light tank or self-propelled gun for infantry support such as SU-76 and PT-76. It is not for nothing that Vietnam still does not withdraw its PT-shki from service, and not only it.
      Approach a couple of kilometers and expand the firing point or bunker for direct fire. And immediately give the gas to the shelter from the ATGM. Or in an oncoming battle, where everything is decided by the speed and power of fire. And it will be necessary, so from an ambush and with a normal tank can "talk". Only briefly, without "reasoning". I slammed the blank into the side and ... carry my feet, carry me.
      In any case, this is a second-tier weapon.
    3. Hermit21
      Hermit21 27 August 2020 08: 51 New
      0
      Nothing prevents you from abandoning the hydraulic suspension, putting a more powerful engine (500 hp is quite enough) and increasing your booking or making kits with additional booking, grilles, DZ, KAZ. True, in the maximum body kit about buoyancy and parachute landing, most likely, it will be possible to forget, but most customers do not need this.
      1. psiho117
        psiho117 27 August 2020 12: 15 New
        0
        Quote: Hermit21
        put a more powerful engine (500 hp is enough)

        There and so 510 hp.
        1. Hermit21
          Hermit21 27 August 2020 19: 24 New
          0
          Oh well then, okay
  • bgfah
    bgfah 26 August 2020 19: 36 New
    +1
    Is Russia ahead of its opponents?

    No, it is not ahead, it just goes in parallel, in some way it is even inferior.
    1. Vlad.by
      Vlad.by 26 August 2020 21: 11 New
      0
      So voice your arguments, plz.
      Where is it inferior?
  • evgen1221
    evgen1221 26 August 2020 19: 44 New
    0
    Why test on state acceptance within 1.5? They drove one single sample chtoli?, And for shelling and for shooting and ro fields all one car will run? If so, then this is a long time already PPC.
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 26 August 2020 21: 21 New
      +8
      Quote: evgen1221
      Why test on state acceptance within 1.5

      And fig knows him, to be honest ...
      Chassis from BMD-4M, mastered and tested
      A weapon in general from the 80s.
      Electronics and sights - a mixture of tank, BMP-3, and BMD-4M.
      Nipanyatna request
  • the47th
    the47th 26 August 2020 20: 50 New
    +6
    What kind of competitors are they? Do they know how to land from the air? To swim?
    And in general: Griffin II and Tulpar are tanks, "Sprut" is a tank destroyer. Its only competitor is the M18 Hellcat, but it is 70 years older.
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 26 August 2020 21: 22 New
      +6
      Quote: the47th
      Do they know how to land from the air?

      Airborne landing, in our time, seems to be an extremely dubious option.
      1. bayard
        bayard 27 August 2020 00: 40 New
        +3
        Quote: psiho117
        Airborne landing, in our time, seems to be an extremely dubious option.

        And what are the doubts?
        This option is a feature that is available, which may or may not come in handy, but it is. But the delivery of 2 such items by one IL-76 by landing method is also expensive. 18 tons, this is not 32 tons, not 38 tons.
        The second option is floating, which his main opponents cannot boast of.
        And to whom the security is more important - we have enough MBT.
        But they don't swim, fly or parachute, but they are very well protected.
        1. Fibrizio
          Fibrizio 27 August 2020 15: 10 New
          0
          In our age, "very well protected" is a very conventional concept. Armor won't save you against equal opponents.
          And remember the footage from the Ukraine, when the Ukrainians demonstrated the T-72 harvested from the cliffs. Yes, the tank is intact, but everything was blown off it, all the instruments were broken, it is impossible to fight.
          1. bayard
            bayard 27 August 2020 19: 07 New
            +1
            Quote: Fibrizio
            Yes, the tank is intact, but everything was blown off it, all the instruments were broken, it is impossible to fight.

            And this only confirms the high security of our tanks. yes
            Crew - PURPOSE. bully soldier
      2. garri-lin
        garri-lin 27 August 2020 01: 08 New
        +4
        In the case of a big hipish, little will remain of the airfields. But to throw off the landing on YOUR territory to strengthen the troops will be very useful. Or to strengthen allies. Or organize a barrier on the way of a breakthrough. Or to attract Neutral to your side and form a fist in a hard-to-reach area. There are a lot of options.
  • silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 26 August 2020 21: 07 New
    +6
    Something often began to compare purple with a round ... Octopus is a tank (tank destroyer) for airborne units ... this is its uniqueness and specialization ... no one has such equipment ... our airborne forces and marines have such a machine in topic ... and no one will send it head-on to fortifications ... but adding firepower to the landing force is please ... foreign light tanks are just a different class of weapons ... and for other purposes ... and at a different price. ..
  • silver_roman
    silver_roman 26 August 2020 21: 23 New
    -2
    Considering that at first there was octopus-sd, then sdm, now sdm1, and there are none in the troops, then the thing is definitely on the counter. Well, OK. In our army, in my opinion of the sofa, it is definitely not needed.
  • Zounds
    Zounds 26 August 2020 21: 35 New
    0
    Tell me, does she have a unitary cartridge and a loader or a machine gun?
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 26 August 2020 21: 45 New
      +1
      Quote: Zounds
      Tell me, does she have a unitary cartridge and a loader or a machine gun?

      Everything is like a tank - automatic, separate loading.
  • Livonetc
    Livonetc 26 August 2020 22: 05 New
    +3
    Who understands.
    Advice please.
    How much, in percentage terms, can the cost of the KAZ system be in relation to the cost of the tank itself without such a system?
    Or who knows the estimated cost of the KAZ system?
    1. Engineer
      Engineer 26 August 2020 22: 47 New
      +3
      Israeli Trophy 900 thousand dollars
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure)
  • Rudkovsky
    Rudkovsky 26 August 2020 22: 55 New
    -7
    For beggars it will do, you can scare the sparrows. Almost a real tank at a price closer to the BMP. Of the minuses, the main feature is the weapon - in fact, a toy, as shown by the shooting at the army in 2020.
  • Stealth75
    Stealth75 26 August 2020 23: 06 New
    +4
    And why did the octopus suddenly become a light tank? From the very beginning, it was an SPTP (self-propelled anti-tank gun). Its functionality is somewhat different than that of a light tank.
    1. Alexandra
      Alexandra 26 August 2020 23: 45 New
      +1
      "The reason the 2S25 was initially classified as an anti-tank gun was because the ordering R&D department was the GRAU, which had no authority to develop tanks."

      And it should be counted as a self-propelled guns, so that there was no temptation to use "on tank".
  • riwas
    riwas 27 August 2020 05: 50 New
    +2
    During the Second World War, the Germans had lightly armored Nashorn anti-tank self-propelled guns with an 88-mm cannon. So they operated mainly from ambushes.
    https://pikabu.ru/story/istrebitel_tankov_nashorn__idealnyiy_snayper_6062103
    1. Zementbomber
      Zementbomber 16 September 2020 07: 44 New
      -1
      The Rhino had a very important advantage - its effective aiming range with direct fire was several times higher than that of Soviet tanks and self-propelled guns (except for Lend-Lease Shermans and batteries of captured Panthers). The "Octopus" has no such advantage over the modern MW of the enemy. Moreover, according to this indicator, it even loses to them.
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 27 August 2020 08: 54 New
    +1
    I think for this BO with a 125mm cannon, you need to have 2 types of chassis: BMD-4 (as it is now) and something heavier without swimming skills, but better protected. The third is also possible - wheeled.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 27 August 2020 09: 05 New
    +2
    From the point of view of landowners, millimeters of armor are needed, while the price of the car due to the cannon and electronics is in any case comparable to the T-90. From the point of view of landing, weight is important, but if they land, then they will do it where there is no enemy tank battalion nearby, i.e., by definition, they must cope with the enemy in the landing zone without heavy weapons, otherwise the landing is simply canceled. And if they already have an airfield, then they begin to think like landowners and prefer transportation by T-90 aircraft.

    In general, an interesting toy, but you can always cram something more interesting into the OSH.
    1. IS-80_RVGK2
      IS-80_RVGK2 27 August 2020 12: 52 New
      0
      Octopus is landing in the direction of breaking through the defense. And there the airfield may not be nearby or be, but not in a conditioned state. ATGMs can seriously knock down KAZ, with crowbars everything is still better and crowbars are in theory cheaper.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 27 August 2020 10: 17 New
    +1
    How many 125 mm shells fit in the Octopus?
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 27 August 2020 12: 18 New
      0
      forty, just like the tank.
  • Fibrizio
    Fibrizio 27 August 2020 15: 06 New
    0
    He has a long barrel, of course ... With such a ride is one torment. And in combat conditions, you can bury yourself in the ground. The b / c there with such a caliber is clearly not great + if it is anti-tank, then most of the bc are not land mines.
    And now to the question. How justified is it in our age? It is worse than a tank, penetrates the forehead from a large-caliber machine gun and has a small b / c.
    Isn't it easier to stuff 2 lightly armored infantry vehicles (the same jeeps, our Tiger type), carrying several sets of ATGMs instead of it? And here they are - yes, they can really destroy equipment with equal protection. And for the support weapons there are already all sorts of howitzers on tracks, like chrysanthemums.
  • avdkrd
    avdkrd 27 August 2020 17: 07 New
    0
    The concept of the Octopus is not entirely clear. For the Marine Corps, probably yes, although the troika on the BMP3 will be no worse in terms of firepower. For motorized riflemen, the buoyancy in favor of which the reservation is given is a completely meaningless thing. Paper armor will not add to the popularity of this vehicle in the military. The Octopus will be able to fight the main tanks only from ambushes, but an ambush does not guarantee the absence of opposition. Perhaps the Ministry of Defense has developed some kind of niche for these machines in combined arms combat, but nothing comes to my mind.
  • Baron pardus
    Baron pardus 27 August 2020 18: 56 New
    +2
    The gun is good, but the Centauro is no worse. How about surveillance and fire control systems? But it seems to me that the concept of a "glass canon" is not correct. This Octopus can be easily destroyed by any tarantula with a 20mm cannon, A light armored vehicle must be able to withstand the fire of other light armored vehicles, it is reasonable not 105mm but 20-40mm cannons, at least in the frontal projection
  • Baron pardus
    Baron pardus 27 August 2020 18: 56 New
    +1
    The gun is good, but the Centauro is no worse. How about surveillance and fire control systems? But it seems to me that the concept of a "glass canon" is not correct. This Octopus can be easily destroyed by any tarantula with a 20mm cannon, A light armored vehicle must be able to withstand the fire of other light armored vehicles, it is reasonable not 105mm but 20-40mm cannons, at least in the frontal projection
  • Old Skeptic
    Old Skeptic 27 August 2020 23: 06 New
    0
    "Sprut-SDM1" will hardly ever receive such systems: this will dramatically increase the mass and price of the combat vehicle, which does not fit into its concept and modern Russian economic realities.

    Mr. Legate.
    For what purposes and tasks was this machine created?
    This is true about the mass (this is an airborne vehicle), but about the price, this is a technical attack on the fan.
    And where is the comparison with the rest of the light tanks?
    And please specify, when will it enter service, or at least the Amerovskaya machine will be tested?
    Where are the self-propelled guns "Crusader", and other "promising" platforms of the "great"?
  • Bodipancher
    Bodipancher 1 September 2020 08: 14 New
    0
    Landing tanks from an airplane is certainly exotic, but air transportability, buoyancy or the ability to operate in mountainous terrain are essential qualities for airmobile units.
    1. Zementbomber
      Zementbomber 16 September 2020 07: 47 New
      -1
      Well, they are air transportable, floating and can be used in the mountains - and many times heavier (and, accordingly, much better protected) vehicles.