Military Review

The Ministry of Defense made a decision to purchase the Sprut-SDM1 self-propelled gun

104
The Ministry of Defense made a decision to purchase the Sprut-SDM1 self-propelled gun

The Ministry of Defense made a decision to purchase the Sprut-SDM1 self-propelled guns. Reported by "News" with reference to the Ministry of Defense.


According to the newspaper, the military department has not yet announced how much Sprut-SDM1 will be purchased and which airborne units will be supplied with equipment, a decision on this will be made later, the issue is being worked out. However, starting next year, the training of commanders of the Sprut-SDM242 self-propelled anti-tank gun will begin on the basis of the 1nd training center of the Airborne Forces.

As explained in the Ministry of Defense, "Sprut-SDM1" differs from the basic version of "Sprut-SD" by more powerful protection and an integrated digital control system. The vehicle is armed with a 125-mm cannon, a thermal imaging sight is installed, due to which the fire capabilities have become the same as those of the latest tanks - in fact, "Sprut-SDM1" is a light amphibious tank.

The modernized light amphibious tank "Sprut-SDM1" has become more mobile due to the installation of the engine, transmission, undercarriage assemblies, chassis information and control system, which have already been tested on BMD-4M and BMP-3

- said the deputy director general of the state corporation "Rostec" Vladimir Artyakov.

The Russian combat vehicle Sprut-SDM1 "is intended for fire support of subunits, fighting armored vehicles, destroying enemy strongpoints and defensive structures, conducting military reconnaissance and combat security.

In August, the Ministry of Defense announced the start of state tests of the Sprut-SDM1, which will take a year and a half. Prototypes of the machine were transferred to the units of the Russian army.
104 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. OgnennyiKotik
    OgnennyiKotik 7 December 2020 16: 00
    +6
    At last. What is needed in modern warfare.
    1. ioan-e
      ioan-e 7 December 2020 16: 09
      +3
      Quote: OgnennyiKotik
      At last. What is needed in modern warfare.

      We are waiting for the whining in the Western press that Russia is again spending the budget incorrectly, and it would be better if it gave all the money to pregnant disabled pensioners! laughing
      1. Brylevsky
        Brylevsky 7 December 2020 17: 44
        -37%
        And what does a pregnant woman need more: money, or a self-propelled gun? Based on my experience of past years, I can tell you that a pregnant woman's money will be more important and more necessary than any regular "octopus" for millions of rubles ... which will ingloriously, stupidly burn up along with the crew, without having time to fire a single shot. By the way, about the disabled. Are they not people? Don't they need money? Indeed, unlike you, they themselves cannot provide for themselves ... you imagine yourself in their place. Some of them dream of a normal wheelchair, someone of a comfortable prosthesis, and they will be told: “Sorry, friend. The self-propelled gun "Sprut" is more important and necessary for us than you. " And Russia, indeed, spends the budget incorrectly, otherwise it would have lived under communism for a long time.
        1. APASUS
          APASUS 7 December 2020 18: 57
          +19
          Quote: Brylevsky
          And what does a pregnant woman need more: money, or a self-propelled gun? Based on my experience of past years, I can tell you that a pregnant woman's money will be more important and more necessary than any regular "octopus" for millions of rubles ... which will ingloriously, stupidly burn up along with the crew, without having time to fire a single shot. By the way, about the disabled. Are they not people? Don't they need money? Indeed, unlike you, they themselves cannot provide for themselves ... you imagine yourself in their place. Some of them dream of a normal wheelchair, someone of a comfortable prosthesis, and they will be told: “Sorry, friend. The self-propelled gun "Sprut" is more important and necessary for us than you. " And Russia, indeed, spends the budget incorrectly, otherwise it would have lived under communism for a long time.

          "A people who do not want to feed their army will soon be forced to feed someone else's."
          Napoleon I Bonaparte

          The example of Ukraine is very indicative
        2. seregin-s1
          seregin-s1 7 December 2020 19: 02
          +24
          A pregnant woman needs a man!
        3. Piramidon
          Piramidon 7 December 2020 19: 35
          0
          Quote: Brylevsky
          And what does a pregnant woman need more: money, or a self-propelled gun? Based on my experience of past years, I can tell you that a pregnant woman's money will be more important and more necessary than any regular "octopus" for millions of rubles ... which will ingloriously, stupidly burn up along with the crew, without having time to fire a single shot. By the way, about the disabled. Are they not people? Don't they need money? Indeed, unlike you, they themselves cannot provide for themselves ... you imagine yourself in their place. Some of them dream of a normal wheelchair, someone of a comfortable prosthesis, and they will be told: “Sorry, friend. The self-propelled gun "Sprut" is more important and necessary for us than you. " And Russia, indeed, spends the budget incorrectly, otherwise it would have lived under communism for a long time.

          Napoleon Bonaparte said: "A people who do not want to feed their army will feed someone else's," and a pregnant woman will give birth to a soldier for the NATO army.
        4. cmax
          cmax 7 December 2020 21: 57
          -11%
          Quote: Brylevsky
          And what does a pregnant woman need more: money, or a self-propelled gun? Based on my experience of past years, I can tell you that a pregnant woman's money will be more important and more necessary than any regular "octopus" for millions of rubles ... which will ingloriously, stupidly burn up along with the crew, without having time to fire a single shot. By the way, about the disabled. Are they not people? Don't they need money? Indeed, unlike you, they themselves cannot provide for themselves ... you imagine yourself in their place. Some of them dream of a normal wheelchair, someone of a comfortable prosthesis, and they will be told: “Sorry, friend. The self-propelled gun "Sprut" is more important and necessary for us than you. " And Russia, indeed, spends the budget incorrectly, otherwise it would have lived under communism for a long time.

          Eco has been nominated for you. In my opinion, in vain. You wrote everything correctly. Without active protection, these are all matchboxes. Apparently "the geraphs in the Ministry of Defense know better." They can't sit in them. Damn, almost like cavalry against machine guns. The result will be one.
        5. ioan-e
          ioan-e 7 December 2020 22: 49
          +12
          Quote: Brylevsky
          And what does a pregnant woman need more: money, or a self-propelled gun? Based on my experience of past years, I can tell you that the money of a pregnant woman will be more important and more necessary than any regular "octopus" for millions of rubles ...

          Well, if you are so experienced, then it will probably not be difficult for you to answer the question, what was more necessary for pregnant women who were shot in Babi Yar - money or a sufficient number of modern tanks at the front with well-trained crews! And if you think that the issue is not so acute, then you are greatly mistaken, since the Yankees will gladly do to us the same as they did to the Vietnamese, Lao, Cambodians, if we cannot oppose them with anything!
          1. Sergey Sfiedu
            Sergey Sfiedu 8 December 2020 16: 21
            +2
            These pregnant women were protected by numerous "cardboard" tanks with bulletproof armor, which could not protect them. And again we step on the same rake. The article says - "in fact - this is a light amphibious tank." With cardboard armor. Why is he needed in the XNUMXst century?
            1. ioan-e
              ioan-e 8 December 2020 17: 13
              +1
              Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
              The article says - "in fact - this is a light amphibious tank." With cardboard armor. Why is he needed in the XNUMXst century?

              You really are a strategist beyond the brink of genius! Do you really think that an airborne tank with an MBT gun is not needed by the Airborne Forces? And how to hold the bridgehead captured during the landing? In the Airborne Forces there has always been a problem with firepower, not because of the good life in the USSR they created ASU-57 or ASU-85, but here 125 mm with a real possibility of fighting MBT and the great power of a high-explosive fragmentation projectile! And you know that in the west there is an active development of light tanks with a 105 mm gun, so why do they need this crap with bulletproof armor? Are they stupid too? For each weapon there is a tactic of use, and if you master it well, then the "Sprut" will be a formidable weapon, especially since the Airborne Forces should not fight on their own, but should seize the bridgehead and hold it until the approach (breakthrough) of the main forces, in any case so they initially thought!
              1. Sergey Sfiedu
                Sergey Sfiedu 8 December 2020 17: 22
                +2
                Yes, you have already been answered in the comments. Parachute landing of light tanks in the conditions of modern warfare is impossible. Foreign light tanks have much more serious booking, they are not intended for parachuting, but they are much more resistant to damaging factors, this is not a "cardboard" booking, like the "Sprut". What can the Sprut SDM do that the BMD-4 cannot ?. All right, our chickens wouldn’t peck money, we could experiment, but people will have to fight on these "cardboard boxes".
                1. ioan-e
                  ioan-e 8 December 2020 17: 26
                  0
                  Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
                  Parachute landing of light tanks in the conditions of modern warfare is impossible.

                  Is this proven by someone? Large masses of troops have not fought for a very long time and the statement is very controversial!
                  Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
                  What can the Sprut SDM do that the BMD-4 cannot?

                  The power of projectiles at an incomparable level! Octopus to help BMD-4 for a high-quality increase in firepower!
                  1. Sergey Sfiedu
                    Sergey Sfiedu 8 December 2020 17: 32
                    0
                    "Is it proven by someone?" - completed by experience of air battles. Transport workers against fighters and air defense systems are not residents.
                    "The power of projectiles on an incomparable level!" - ATGM is better in defense. And in the offensive "Sprut SD / SDM" will not pull - the armor is weak. As a self-propelled howitzer - so "Sprut" - not a howitzer.
                    1. ioan-e
                      ioan-e 8 December 2020 18: 30
                      +1
                      Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
                      "Is it proven by someone?" - completed by experience of air battles. Transport workers against fighters and air defense systems are not residents.

                      Apparently, it only occurs to you to use transports without suppressing air defense systems and not providing a closed access zone using your own long-range air defense systems and fighters. Where can Octopus come in handy? Yes, even in the Baltics, it may be necessary to drop troops on the Suvali corridor. As far as I know first-hand, the Octopus would have been very useful to the Ivanovo paratroopers in 2008, when they were thrown out on the border of South Ossetia and Georgia, and it was not easy to fight the tanks.
                      - ATGM defense is better

                      I would look at you and your mobility with ATGMs on the hump, if you were tasked with raiding the enemy's rear communications after being dropped at a certain point, at the landing and such tasks in bulk.
                      And in the offensive "Sprut SD / SDM" will not pull - the armor is weak.

                      You rested against this armor, do you know what armor was on American self-propelled guns during the Second World War? And how much benefit did they bring? Well, to put the Octopus in the upcoming orders is generally stupid.
                      To finish this topic I say, Octopus is a specialized weapon for solving a certain narrow range of tasks, but it is needed, although not in such quantities as MBT, and there is nothing to approach it with templates from Armata!
                2. bayard
                  bayard 9 December 2020 00: 08
                  +1
                  Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
                  Parachute landing of light tanks in the conditions of modern warfare is impossible.

                  Parachute landing for these machines is more an option than a direct destination. But what can you say about the AVIADESANT?
                  About the delivery of these light tanks by VTA aircraft and their rapid deployment in a threatened theater of operations?
                  One Il-76MD90A can take on board up to THREE of these tanks at a time.
                  With a 125 mm gun.
                  And how many MBT can one IL-76 lift?
                  As a rule, not one because of the tightness of the troop compartment. Or with the side screens removed and very, VERY carefully, because the gaps are extremely small.
                  MBT are regularly transported only by Ruslans.
                  2 pcs. at a time, usually.
                  Feel the difference in being able to swiftly move and deploy?
                  Are 10 Il-76MD90A capable of transferring up to 30 (tank battalion) light tanks in one flight?
                  And with an acute shortage of BTA aircraft, such an opportunity is very important.

                  Now another option from Octopus.
                  He's floating!
                  This means he is able to cross a water barrier in an unprepared place on the move, without preparation, to seize a bridgehead and hold it until reliable crossings are organized for heavier, non-floating equipment.
                  This role was played by the PT-76 tanks.
                  If memory serves, every tank division had a company of amphibious tanks. It is for such purposes - reconnaissance in force, seizing bridgeheads after crossing a water barrier, delivering unexpected strikes where the enemy, covered by a river / lake / pond, does not expect an attack.
                  soldier
                  "Octopus" is perfect for such tasks.
                  Therefore, he may well find a place in the tank divisions of the Ground Forces.
                  Now about the price. Cost "Octopus" approximately at the level of T-90. Looks like a lot for a light tank.
                  But!
                  Its armament composition is similar to that of the T-90. The armor is lighter, but ... more expensive, because it is an aluminum alloy ... So everything is fair.
                  Moreover, not so many of them will be required - one company for each tank division and from company to battalion for each airborne division ... well, maybe more to the Marines.

                  Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
                  What can the Sprut SDM do that the BMD-4 cannot?

                  The same as the T-90, except for armor resistance - to hit any enemy MBT with a sub-caliber projectile, or a missile with a tandem cumulative warhead. And its power / efficiency is 125 mm. a high-explosive projectile is twice as high as that of 100 mm. shell BMP-3 \ BMD-4.
                  And from a good ATGM today and MBT will not save.
                  T-90 \ 90SM - will save.
                  1. OgnennyiKotik
                    OgnennyiKotik 9 December 2020 00: 30
                    -2
                    Quote: bayard
                    And from a good ATGM today and MBT will not save.
                    T-90 \ 90SM - will save.

                    Not a single tank in the world will be able to withstand an ATGM hit if it does not arrive in a frontal projection. A game of roulette on the forehead of the tower / hull. KAZ, if you're lucky, but now in 3 armies it is only on tanks.
                    The saturation of the ATGM of the battlefield is extremely high, very soon hand-held kamikaze drones will enter the arena.
                    I'm afraid that MBT will become just a target for hunting, a good trophy for which you can get a good bash.
                    Light, more maneuverable wheeled and tracked tanks will enter the arena. It is more important to stealthily and quickly get into position, fire a few shots and hide.
        6. Ovsigovets
          Ovsigovets 8 December 2020 01: 10
          +6
          the essence of your message is, in principle, true ..... a pregnant woman does not need a tank, but they don’t do it for her ..... This trick will be given to the military. A section in the budget of the Ministry of Defense of any country "for pregnant women", in principle, should not be a word at all. I’m just wondering - you’re probably discussing issues such as astronomy or physics there in the antenatal clinic — after all, this is the most suitable place for this. It's not even a horse with a foot ... it's a horse with a well-fed
        7. Cottodraton
          Cottodraton 8 December 2020 03: 09
          +9
          A pregnant woman needs to stay at home.
          If the "useless" Octopus "does not shoot and even burns, then this very woman will burn. Moreover, she will go hand in hand before that ...
          You have lived years, but experience, as well as the mind, as I see it, is not. One gossip.
        8. Paranoid50
          Paranoid50 8 December 2020 07: 50
          +3
          Quote: Brylevsky
          what a pregnant woman needs

          belay And what about the pensioners? But what about pensioners ??? request laughing
        9. Servisinzhener
          Servisinzhener 8 December 2020 14: 21
          +2
          The war between Armenia and Azerbaijan has recently ended here. In Armenia and controlled Artsakh, they also thought that they would not come to them. On the grounds that they won a quarter of a century ago. In addition, we have embarked on the correct path of Euro-Atlantic integration, and now the entire "civilized world" is behind them. And you don't need to spend money on modern weapons and the correct organization of the army.
          And everything would be fine. But on September 27, 2020 they came to them. And by November 8, the situation was one step away from the encirclement of Stepanokert without a chance to keep him. There were many killed in this conflict. There are even more wounded. But there are almost no prisoners. The civilian population of the adjacent side in the territory controlled by the enemy is generally 0.
          If we, too, behave so carelessly and do not spend money on such equipment, then they will come to us. And they will occupy the "empty" territory. Dumping pregnant women, invalids, pensioners into ditches.
          By the way, in the late eighties there was also a similar rhetoric. Then they abandoned the cannons in favor of butter. As a result, no guns or oil. Only margarine "Rama".
        10. Siberian54
          Siberian54 8 December 2020 15: 05
          0
          right here..
        11. Boris Chernikov
          Boris Chernikov 8 December 2020 16: 38
          -1
          Libyans, ask about pregnant old people, they will tell you what and how)
        12. Xscorpion
          Xscorpion 15 December 2020 19: 14
          0
          I’ll just answer that in the days of the USSR, pregnant women and maternity were called legalized parasites, and in fact they were not paid anything. The highest kindness of the authorities for them was exemption from criminal punishment.
      2. FIR FIR
        FIR FIR 7 December 2020 19: 50
        +4
        Quote: ioan-e
        and it would be better if I gave all the money to pregnant disabled pensioners!

        It is very good that they are occasionally remembered too ..
    2. maiman61
      maiman61 7 December 2020 16: 54
      -16%
      I saw the video of the Azerbaijani Sprut-SD going in a large number of columns. Probably they showed themselves very well in the Karabakh war, so ours did it!
      1. Azimuth
        Azimuth 7 December 2020 18: 02
        +18
        I saw it. Octopus was not supplied to anyone.
        1. maiman61
          maiman61 8 December 2020 14: 45
          +1
          That's right, nobody but Azerbaijan! I shouldn't believe my eyes, by the way, I served in the tank forces and I understand armored vehicles, unlike keyboard ehsperds!
    3. petroff
      petroff 7 December 2020 17: 09
      +7
      And what do you need?
      The very concept of the need for a light airborne amphibious tank has long been questioned. We thought for a long time and decided. Let's say it is necessary (personally, I still doubt it, but let it be, it will suddenly come in handy, it is better to have something than nothing)
      The question is different, against the background of recent events, it is just right not to take the Octopus into service, but self-propelled electronic warfare and air defense systems on the same light chassis that can be dropped off with a parachute and did not sink.
      I think they will be more necessary for the Airborne Forces.
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 7 December 2020 20: 10
        +4
        Quote: petroff
        and self-propelled electronic warfare and air defense systems on the same light chassis that can be dropped off with a parachute and did not sink by swimming.

        Air defense "Birds"
        1. cmax
          cmax 7 December 2020 21: 59
          -1
          Quote: Bad_gr
          Quote: petroff
          and self-propelled electronic warfare and air defense systems on the same light chassis that can be dropped off with a parachute and did not sink by swimming.

          Air defense "Birds"

          Exhibition copy for the parade.
      2. Boris Chernikov
        Boris Chernikov 8 December 2020 16: 39
        -3
        what is this wild love forever in "or-or" to play?
    4. Ryazan87
      Ryazan87 8 December 2020 12: 06
      +1
      (with interest) - why "Octopus", this non-tank with cardboard armor, is needed in modern war?
      I won't even comment on nonsense about security and reconnaissance with its help. Provide fire support - it will be burned instantly.
      Very expensive and don't understand why. In the end, the Russian army already has floating samples of armored vehicles.
      1. Boris Chernikov
        Boris Chernikov 8 December 2020 16: 41
        -2
        Does the charter forbid you to think? Or read the instructions? Or do you, as some officers of the Red Army, want to use self-propelled guns as tanks?
        1. Ryazan87
          Ryazan87 8 December 2020 19: 22
          0
          (with interest) - what instruction? on the combat use of "Octopus"? Share your knowledge, I'll read it with pleasure.
          Paratroopers now have normal tanks for line combat. For landing - BMD is, "Nons", "Lotus" finish. Why do they need an anti-tank self-propelled gun now - I definitely don't know.
          1. Boris Chernikov
            Boris Chernikov 8 December 2020 19: 32
            -4
            is everything so bad? uuuu .. but you climb to criticize .. first study the question).
            1. Ryazan87
              Ryazan87 8 December 2020 20: 47
              0
              What question do you propose to study?
              About the dominance of the "landing lobby" in the army, which since the time of Margelov they have not been able to calm down? About the development of a line of expensive airborne equipment with cardboard armor, which has been replenished with another useless copy?
              "His task is to work from an ambush on the enemy's armored vehicles" - are you serious, was it worth building a garden for that?
              There will be more sense from this:

              Or there is nothing to say, just "uuuu" as an argument? So far, something is incomprehensible, sorry.
              1. Boris Chernikov
                Boris Chernikov 8 December 2020 21: 17
                -3
                propose to leave one means of struggle? oh yes, let's use expensive guns ... why a conventional tank gun..ha
                1. Ryazan87
                  Ryazan87 8 December 2020 21: 52
                  -1
                  I suggest: if the paratroopers are used as ordinary infantry (which is most likely), they should use ordinary tanks and guns, without any airborne "mind sleep". Here we have attached 72 battalion and use it, dear guardsmen.
                  If an amphibious operation is carried out, which in itself is a high-risk and very expensive business (one Il-76 upgraded 5 billion rubles back in 17th cost) - then it is possible to "go broke" on ATGMs - much more compact, higher efficiency. And then you know, with the ammunition, with which to hit the enemy's tanks, there are also a lot of questions. There is still enough for Ukrainian, probably, about, for example, "Leclerc" - strong doubts.
                  And yes, 2020 is in the yard - guided high-precision weapons and unmanned technologies are crucial now. And this trend will only grow. If you don’t want it again: “they are half a century behind” (c). For me and for "Armata" it makes no sense to launch it on a mass scale. It would be better if the T-90 was modernized in the "Breakthrough" version, brought to the modern level and norms. And use the main resources to develop completely unmanned solutions. This is the future.
                  1. Boris Chernikov
                    Boris Chernikov 9 December 2020 14: 13
                    -3
                    read not ours? 1) no one is talking about parachute assault forces now - this is a highly mobile reserve that can be loaded and transferred to the desired point of the planet within 1,5 hours. About "go broke" ... yeah ... like in Chechnya and Syria - for each sneeze, a rocket was sent ... one rocket for 2-50 million rubles ... but he will spend the same amount on destruction of XNUMX targets as the Octopus will cost ..
                    1. Ryazan87
                      Ryazan87 9 December 2020 21: 11
                      -1
                      You urge to think and read. Moved by your concern)) I return your calls to you)
                      airborne is a highly mobile reserve that can be loaded and transferred to the desired point on the planet within XNUMX hours
                      - Well, cut the sturgeon, especially about the planet and the day. To transfer a brigade with light weapons to the neighboring republic, and that did not take a day.
                      But I don’t even mind: it’s great that you can do that, but it doesn’t add to the “Octopus” utility. There is BMD-4M - in abundance. About the fight against tanks - ATGM, yes. No matter how expensive it is, if a tank is destroyed with its help, it paid for itself 20 times. And it doesn't matter, in my opinion: the main thing is the fulfillment of the task and the preservation of personnel. Is not it?
                      like in Chechnya and Syria, for every sneeze a missile was sent
                      - I didn't quite understand why you cited these conflicts as an example. Why would the Sprut be useful there? Should I shoot at jihad mobiles? Doubtful. Militants, by the way, at one time perfectly stopped tank attacks with the same ATGMs and for some reason did not regret missiles.
                      Against a somewhat full-fledged enemy - it is excessive for work on light armored vehicles (and the same BMD-4s will cope without a question - after all, there is 100 mm). On tanks ... well, in this thin shed, going out against tanks (even, say, against Ukrainian ones) is an attraction for suicides. Well, with a certain amount of luck from an ambush, you will be fond of 1 tank. Well 2. Then you ....
                      1. Boris Chernikov
                        Boris Chernikov 9 December 2020 23: 30
                        -4
                        Well, following your logic, we do not need tanks and BMP .. enough and tachanoks with ATGMs ... and yes .. what kind of craving to play "1 warrior in the field" .. when did you decide to drive 1 octopus into the field?
    5. NEOZ
      NEOZ 8 December 2020 15: 32
      0
      Quote: OgnennyiKotik
      What is needed in modern warfare.

      what does t90cm not suit you?
  2. newcomer
    newcomer 7 December 2020 16: 01
    +6
    Good news. The MO was finally determined.
    1. novel66
      novel66 7 December 2020 16: 14
      +5
      only the title is jarring - a self-propelled gun ... somehow ... Garik hi
      1. newcomer
        newcomer 7 December 2020 16: 28
        +4
        Novel hi , even if you call it a "pot" cool thing. In principle, it is - after all, "Sprut" is a light tank with a main-caliber cannon.
      2. Azimuth
        Azimuth 7 December 2020 18: 11
        0
        well call it "tank destroyer" laughing
        In fact, the development of the concept from the MT-10 and 2A45M. The latter was the first Octopus.
        1. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 8 December 2020 16: 26
          +1
          Tank destroyers have switched to missiles for half a century. And our MO is all hovering in the middle of the 20th century. This "Octopus" is a very good thing for export. They have a need for light tanks there, in all kinds of jungles and mountains. Whether we have such a need is very doubtful.
          1. Boris Chernikov
            Boris Chernikov 8 December 2020 16: 44
            -5
            Well, yes, well, yes .. Russia with Octopus is lagging behind .. And the Americans with the Griffins or the Chinese with their type 15 apparently also lagged behind?)
            1. Sergey Sfiedu
              Sergey Sfiedu 8 December 2020 16: 50
              +1
              The "Griffin 2" weight according to the terms of reference up to 38 tons, the ability to install KAZ and ERA. You can't even compare. Chinese light tanks are designed for operations in the tropics. Where are the tropics? And, the weight of "type 15" 33 is 36 tons. Do you feel the difference?
              1. Boris Chernikov
                Boris Chernikov 8 December 2020 17: 01
                -4
                Do you feel the difference that the Octopus was developed for the Airborne Forces with their restrictions on the mass of airborne equipment? That the "light tank" version will be produced on the basis of the BMP-3 and will weigh in the region of 25 tons .. about "oh, there are 33 tons!" .. what is there, what is this protection from 30 mm and a large-caliber in a circle + the opponent's DZ-gun from real battle distances, none of the Light tanks will withstand .. the question arises - why then screw extra tons?
                1. Sergey Sfiedu
                  Sergey Sfiedu 8 December 2020 17: 13
                  0
                  It has already been written here - where and when was parachute landing of tanks used in combat conditions over the past half century? This is a myth .... And about "none of the light tanks will be able to withstand shelling from a 30mm cannon" - so the T-72 has a mass of only 42 tons, i.e. not much more than the "Griffin 2" and "Type 15", but what would you prefer to fight - on the T-72 or on the Octopus? And it is problematic to place the remote sensing device on the "Octopus", or would you say the same that the remote sensing system is not needed?
                  1. Boris Chernikov
                    Boris Chernikov 8 December 2020 17: 36
                    -4
                    And I somewhere pointed out about the parachute landing? there is a strict requirement for the transfer capabilities - the same Griffinns, the Americans began to do, among other things, due to the fact that they could not transfer a sufficient number of armored vehicles at a time by aircraft. Further, about the T-72 and the mass ... let's start with the fact that the prototype in general weighed 39 tons, the difference is in a very dense layout of the tanks, while the version based on the BMP-3 will still have an amphibious compartment. 3 has long been DZ-Cactus is called. About "what would you prefer to fight on" .. and you obviously did not serve in the army) .. By the way .. what does it mean "to place dz is problematic" .. who told you? The only place where it is difficult to place is the forehead of the tower / hull and everything.About EPa and the rest ... all this will not help protect against modern BOPSs .. and the excess weight of the same Griffin is the result of a large tower with the need for manual loading of the gun
  3. faiver
    faiver 7 December 2020 16: 01
    +1
    Small Octopus yes remote ...
  4. maxim k.
    maxim k. 7 December 2020 16: 06
    -8
    But won't the Octopus not in the most successful way with its "paper" armor duplicate the tanks that are already in the Airborne Forces?
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 7 December 2020 16: 15
      -6
      In modern wars, armor does not play a role, ATGM and UAV do not care about the thickness of the armor. You need stealth, agility, situational awareness.
      1. maxim k.
        maxim k. 7 December 2020 16: 20
        +2
        I would argue about the armor, but that's your opinion ...
        1. mark2
          mark2 7 December 2020 20: 37
          +3
          You can argue long and hard. If the Octopus goes to storm the enemy's echeloned defense, then yes, his armor is nothing. And if you throw it to the rear where there is no defense, then such a tank will make a lot of rustle.
          If you follow this logic, then it makes no sense to fight at all. But we know that it is not the military who want to fight. They are simply trying to improve their survival based on the funds provided.
          1. Ryazan87
            Ryazan87 8 December 2020 12: 11
            +1
            And if you throw it to the rear where there is no defense, then such a tank will make a lot of rustle.

            Are you seriously going to throw this miracle behind enemy lines? (I will omit the question how exactly). Better a dozen armored vehicles with ATGMs and machine guns. In the end, there is a BMD-4M - behind the eyes, a twin cannon, tracked.
            1. mark2
              mark2 8 December 2020 16: 23
              -3
              Personally, I'm not going to throw anyone anywhere. And what in the rear of the counter-enemy will the machines with pturi do? Will there be goals for them? ATGMs are anti-tank guided missiles, do I understand correctly? Will ATGM against enemy supply depots do many things? The gun will be more effective.
              And there is no need to omit the questions. A vehicle for a landing, which means it will be dropped with a landing, there are such aircraft on ILakh-planes.
              It is more difficult to destroy the warehouse with a coaxial cannon than with a 125 mm projectile.
              1. Ryazan87
                Ryazan87 8 December 2020 19: 27
                0
                ATGMs are anti-tank guided missiles, do I understand correctly? Will ATGM against enemy supply depots do many things?

                2S25 or "Sprut-SD" (GABTU index - object 952) - Russian self-propelled airborne anti tank cannon, right? Those. are we firing at the warehouse with an anti-tank gun? "Nona" is no longer good, right? Airborne ACS which.
                And so, the destruction of large stationary objects behind enemy lines with 100-mm fire is ineffective, but 125-mm ... a miracle happens immediately. However, in principle, they are destroyed differently, as, for example, and bridges.
                1. mark2
                  mark2 8 December 2020 19: 35
                  -4
                  Dear, I don't understand, why are you asking me such questions? If the Ministry of Defense adopts such equipment, then there are reasons for that and there are tasks for it. The warehouses in the rear were given by me as an example. 125 mm is better than 100 in both shot force and defeat. The miracle happens. Anything that does not penetrate 100 mm will penetrate 125 mm.
                  Is it the same for your spouse that there is not enough money that the state has spent on tanks and guns?
          2. Sergey Sfiedu
            Sergey Sfiedu 8 December 2020 16: 30
            0
            "And if you throw him into the rear where there is no defense" - then his 125mm cannon will be clearly redundant.
            1. mark2
              mark2 8 December 2020 17: 51
              -3
              then his 125mm cannon will be clearly redundant

              So what? This is you hinting at the inadequate, disproportionate use of force, about which the leberd of all stripes howled and continues to howl, if suddenly Russia begins to fight like an adult.
              Excessive. Not redundant. The main thing is that it would be enough to perform a combat mission with minimal losses.
          3. Boris Chernikov
            Boris Chernikov 8 December 2020 16: 50
            -5
            1) Octopus is not a light tank, but an SAO-self-propelled artillery gun. Its task is to work from an ambush on enemy armored vehicles, it should not go into an attack ... This is the same as requiring MTLB to conduct assaults of fortified areas. 2) The light tank will be the version based on BMP-3 weighing 23-25 ​​tons, everything will be fine there in terms of booking - the forehead is from 30 mm and in a circle from 12,7 mm, no one will throw it into the rear - this is a machine for mountainous regions where MBT is difficult to ride because of the mass + replacement of conventional Rapiers as an operational reserve of the brigade, although there is a lot of controversy, namely the price of the Octopus is close to the price of the T-72B3M and many offer to additionally purchase tanks instead of LT. For me, instead of the Rapier, I need to take T-72 / 80 and put 152 mm on them, since it is technically worked out
    2. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri 7 December 2020 16: 21
      +8
      Octopus is parachute-dropped, like BMD. A MBT, no. What kind of duplication is there? Simply - fire reinforcement of the landing.
      1. petroff
        petroff 7 December 2020 17: 11
        +3
        And he also overcomes water barriers by swimming ... which is even more important for mobile groups.
        1. Ryazan87
          Ryazan87 8 December 2020 12: 13
          +2
          For any mobile group, this miracle will be a burden, which is simply not clear what to use.
          1. petroff
            petroff 15 December 2020 12: 16
            0
            No more than t72 in service with the Airborne Forces. And even less.
            For they are unified with the BMD.
            1. Ryazan87
              Ryazan87 15 December 2020 19: 27
              0
              The T-72 was given to the landing force, because they use and will use it as line infantry. And there all this cardboard airborne wealth is not good.
              But with tactical landings, this self-propelled gun is all the more unnecessary, since it is healthy and what to do with it behind enemy lines is not clear. Well, here above the ambush on tank columns with her was proposed to arrange. How in reality the infantry should work against armored vehicles - see Syria and Iraq.
              Moreover, now more and more hostilities are taking place in urbanized areas.
              1. petroff
                petroff 18 December 2020 15: 29
                0
                1 there are tank troops in Russia. If there are not enough tankers with tanks, isn't it easier to disperse the landing force and replenish the ground forces with tankers?
                2 Octopus is not much larger than BMD, so there is nothing healthy in it. The same BMD, but without landing, but with such weapons. Light, air-transportable, amphibious tank. Mobile for mobile troops.
                1. Ryazan87
                  Ryazan87 18 December 2020 19: 06
                  0
                  1. No, not like that. The Russian army lacks well-trained infantry. Therefore, the paratroopers are actually used as ordinary infantry (however, this is a glorious tradition since the Second World War runs like a red thread through a number of local conflicts to this day). They need adequate means of strengthening - therefore, there is nothing to fence in the garden, inventing a separate wildly expensive line of airborne armored vehicles, which will obviously be worse in terms of characteristics.
                  2. The fact of the matter is that in the presence of BMD-4M "Sprut", even within the framework of an airborne operation, it is not needed. What task will he solve? Fight tanks? I have already spoken about this above, I will not repeat myself. there are much more compact and efficient solutions.
    3. alexmach
      alexmach 7 December 2020 17: 10
      +6
      But won't the Octopus not in the most successful way with its "paper" armor duplicate the tanks that are already in the Airborne Forces?

      Will not be. Octopus airborne. It is for real amphibious operations. Tanks in the Airborne Forces are more likely to be used as "assault" units, that is, as ordinary motorized infantry.
      1. Ryazan87
        Ryazan87 8 December 2020 12: 15
        +2
        It is for real amphibious operations.

        Which, in relation to a more or less combat-ready enemy with a functioning air defense system, is impossible to carry out. Yes, and the state of the VTA of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, how many of these machines will allow, at least theoretically, to throw behind enemy lines? In the presence of BMD4-M, this whole project cannot be called otherwise than a waste of money.
        1. petroff
          petroff 15 December 2020 12: 24
          0
          The enemy has air defense !? Suddenly!!!
          So then let's disband the Airborne Forces altogether ...
          For the enemy will not only prevent the Octopus from landing, but also Nona and BMD, tanks, winged infantry and even planes knock down ...
          But seriously, why do we need the rest of the troops !? First, they extinguish the air defense, aviation, MLRS and other Iskanders, and only then the landing is landed.
          1. Ryazan87
            Ryazan87 15 December 2020 19: 22
            0
            Seriously though, you obviously have little idea of ​​the basic mechanics of a start-up landing operation. And why now it is unrealistic in a war.
            Start with the fact that the entire VTA of the Russian army is not enough to drop even one division (by the way, the Soviet one was also enough with a very big creak).
            Landing operations now can be either relatively small tactical operations with parachute drops, or landing operations (such as in Czechoslovakia in 1968).
            "Octopus" in the first and in the other case - unnecessary junk, which has much more compact and effective alternatives.
            Moreover, now the paratroopers are used as ordinary line infantry, simply with a higher (in fact, at least basic) level of combat training. In this role, "Octopus" is also useless.
            Do you understand what I mean? His most important component (protection) had to be sacrificed to the chimera of airborne landing. Well, the very concept of an anti-tank self-propelled gun in 2020 looks very extravagant.
            1. petroff
              petroff 18 December 2020 15: 47
              0
              BMD is also in a landfill !? They are also lightly armored. Moreover, their weapons are inferior to the Octopus. Do you still think in terms of WWII? Armor hasn't solved anything for a long time. Abrams and Leopards burn perfectly. At this time, other protection systems are being decided. Optical electronic jammers, active protection, dynamic, mobile air defense systems capable of destroying barrage ammunition and drones, electronic warfare.
              And who said that the Octopuses will go into a frontal attack. These are primarily self-propelled guns. At one time, the landing force really needed light ACS, and he received them. Note that they had no armor as such. Consider the Octopus as self-propelled guns, with a new, more powerful weapon. Light self-propelled gun, maximally unified with the BMD, airborne and floating. Which can, if necessary, portray a light tank, slightly better than a BMD or the same PT76.
              By the way, the same PT76 was at one time in great demand precisely for its mobility. And then there's the weapon from the tank as a bonus. Launch missiles through the barrel ...
              1. Ryazan87
                Ryazan87 18 December 2020 19: 17
                0
                The fact of the matter is that the existing BMDs are enough for the landing force for mobile operations behind the eyes. And there will be an order of magnitude more benefits from the BMD twin. than from a 125-mm fool.
                Do you still think in terms of WWII?
                - it seems that you think in these categories, insisting on the need for an anti-tank SPG. Why is it needed? "Lotus" can still somehow understand.
                And yes, it is very interesting how to hang active armor on the Octopus and what will come of it.

                The problem is solely that the paratroopers have been pulling the blanket over themselves very well since Soviet times, they are indulged in their crazy wishes and projects. By the way, in the USA after WWII there was also a whole group of such figures, from the gallant paratrooper generals.
                To the great luck of the American army - they promptly dispersed the pension, write their memoirs.
                The Airborne Forces are needed, but this is a targeted specialized tool, and not what we have done.
    4. Graz
      Graz 7 December 2020 20: 17
      0
      maxim k
      do not be stupid, this machine for dropping from the parachute system, so that the landing party will immediately have artillery at hand
  5. Object.F7
    Object.F7 7 December 2020 16: 11
    0
    Did the Indians want it in the format of a mountain tank? Sorry, by the way, I remembered the saying - "A smart one won't go up the hill. A smart one will buy a helicopter"
    But seriously, it is clear that for amphibians and blue gain
    1. novel66
      novel66 7 December 2020 16: 15
      +7
      helicopters in the mountains - not ah lol
      1. Object.F7
        Object.F7 7 December 2020 16: 34
        +4
        It greatly depends on the pilot. In capable hands, crocodiles in Afghanistan climbed the mountains in the fog so much as even Stallone did not do in the movie Rock Climber
        1. alexmach
          alexmach 7 December 2020 17: 12
          +3
          It strongly depends on the pilot

          From engine power .. and also from its loss with height.
    2. loki565
      loki565 7 December 2020 16: 26
      -5
      In the modern world, a smart one will buy an attack UAV)))
      1. Zlyden.Zlo
        Zlyden.Zlo 7 December 2020 16: 32
        0
        This is not a panacea for all cases ...
        1. Ryazan87
          Ryazan87 8 December 2020 12: 17
          +1
          In the sense of fighting the enemy's armored vehicles, the strike UAV is much more useful than the Sprut, on which only Prokhorovka can be reconstructed (with the same ratio of losses).
      2. Object.F7
        Object.F7 7 December 2020 16: 41
        0
        Controversial. In the Tibetan mountains, the same bayraktars with a ceiling of 8 km (above sea level) will lose their advantage, even MANPADS can get them
        1. loki565
          loki565 7 December 2020 17: 33
          +1
          From MANPADS to UAVs, this is a big question, it's not about the range of use, it's about the GOS.
      3. cmax
        cmax 7 December 2020 22: 04
        +2
        Quote: loki565
        In the modern world, a smart one will buy an attack UAV)))

        And not clever will make defenseless tanks and will rejoice, as there are many of them, until the first battle. It is interesting how many of these are parachuted into the rear of a potential enemy with the current air defense system. More precisely how long it will fly.
        1. DAQ
          DAQ 8 December 2020 01: 07
          +1
          On the plain, in the desert and other terrain "convenient" for mechanized formations, to meet a tank avalanche (tanks + BMP, accompanied by military air defense) is still a joy.
          Comrades bury tanks early. Everything has its place. And the tanks will still show themselves.

          As for the octopus, it is a very "highly specialized" machine. There is nothing to catch on the foreign market.
          1. Sergey Sfiedu
            Sergey Sfiedu 8 December 2020 16: 35
            0
            It has a chance in the foreign market. M. b. not very big, but there is. I suspect that one of the reasons for the purchase of these machines by the Ministry of Defense is just to push through export orders - a machine that is already being built in series and in service will be bought by all Indians much more willingly.
            1. DAQ
              DAQ 8 December 2020 16: 53
              0
              Then you have to take planes to them.
              After all, the main feature of this machine is the ability to drop from an airplane.
              If they need an airborne vehicle, they will sooner take a BMD-4.

              And in general, why should they? To parachute to Pakistan, or to China? On those theaters of military operations, on a transporter to fly to the rear, or to land in the very heat of this suicide.

              The machine is extremely highly specialized.
              The Airborne Forces as a branch of the military are only in Russia. In the United States, only one airborne division has airborne tanks. Large-scale parachute landing quietly goes down in history.
              1. Sergey Sfiedu
                Sergey Sfiedu 8 December 2020 17: 07
                0
                Hindus need a mountain tank to confront Pakistan in the Himalayas. I don’t know how they’ll drag him there, but hardly by parachute. Somewhere he gets there, somewhere ... They transported the M-46 cannons, dismantling them into parts, transporting them by helicopter and assembling them again in the mountains. Probably they will do the same with "Octopus", it is not for nothing that they bought new "Chinooks" with increased carrying capacity. Tower separately, gun separately, geese with rollers separately, engine separately, hull on external suspension.
      4. petroff
        petroff 15 December 2020 12: 26
        0
        Or it will develop a mobile air defense system from UAVs, which everyone needs today. Based on the same BMD.
  6. Thrifty
    Thrifty 7 December 2020 16: 32
    -1
    Only, first buy yourself, and only then sell abroad! !!
  7. TatarinSSSR
    TatarinSSSR 7 December 2020 16: 45
    +2
    As I understand it, they will be testing in the troops for another year and a half. This means that the purchase will not be a large batch, no more than 30 pieces for testing. In short, serial purchases are not coming soon.
    1. Sergey39
      Sergey39 7 December 2020 17: 18
      0
      But serial sales will increase.
  8. pereselenec
    pereselenec 7 December 2020 16: 47
    -6
    The Ministry of Defense made a decision to purchase the Sprut-SDM1 self-propelled gun

    Less than 20 years have passed since the end of development.

    1. torkonut
      torkonut 7 December 2020 17: 55
      +3
      Ivan, you, in principle, do not read the news, or suddenly your vision has disappeared right on this line
      Sprut-SDM1 "differs from the basic version of" Sprut-SD "by more powerful protection and an integrated digital control system
      ?
      1. pereselenec
        pereselenec 7 December 2020 18: 46
        -3
        Yes, we know all these "T-72ABVDEM1M1 / bis sample 2019" wink
        1. carstorm 11
          carstorm 11 7 December 2020 21: 09
          +1
          What tells me that you don't know from the word at all) you know ... the 1988 Kruzak and the 2020 Kruzak seem to be the same car brand. And here is the difference between rimi is a chasm. So it is here. If the analogy is not clear, it could be even easier to explain)
          1. cmax
            cmax 7 December 2020 22: 09
            0
            Quote: carstorm 11
            What tells me that you don't know from the word at all) you know ... the 1988 Kruzak and the 2020 Kruzak seem to be the same car brand. And here is the difference between rimi is a chasm. So it is here. If the analogy is not clear, it could be even easier to explain)

            Yeah, roughly like Ak47 from AK 12.
  9. Sailor
    Sailor 7 December 2020 19: 24
    0
    I talked with p / p-com VDVTak, according to him, the chassis from Volgograd is better than from Kurgan, there are specialists on the site, tell us about it.
  10. Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 8 December 2020 11: 06
    +1
    Parachute landing is cool.
    Only now it is interesting, how long ago someone was parachuted somewhere?
    It seems like there was nothing like this except Czechoslovakia 50 years ago?
  11. Ugochaves
    Ugochaves 8 December 2020 13: 10
    0
    Quote: Nasdaq
    There is nothing to catch on the foreign market.

    In vain you are so, for SEA and YuAm it is quite a so-so option