SPTP 2S25M Sprut-SDM1. Defense Ministry plans and expected results

Experienced SPTP "Sprut-SDM1"

As part of the development of the fleet of armored combat vehicles of the airborne troops, a promising self-propelled anti-tank gun (SPTP) 2S25M "Sprut-SDM1" has been developed. To date, experimental equipment of this type has passed part of the tests, and now it is planned to launch mass production with the delivery of finished vehicles to the troops.

Latest news

On December 6, Izvestia announced the new plans of the Ministry of Defense in the context of the Airborne Forces. The military department made a decision in principle to purchase a new SPTP for the rearmament of combat units. At the moment, experts are assessing the current state of affairs and the needs of the troops. Based on the results of this analysis, the required quantities of equipment and the volume of purchases will be determined. You will also have to choose the units and subdivisions, which will go self-propelled guns.

Next year, the Ministry of Defense will begin training crews for new armored vehicles. This task will be solved by the 242nd training center for training junior airborne specialists (Omsk). The details of the planned training course were not specified. The number of future gunners is also unknown, which depends on the volume of orders for equipment.

In August, it became known about the start of state tests. They will be completed in 2022, and after that an official decision will be made on the acceptance of the product into service. Also, the command of the Airborne Forces mentioned the need to purchase at least one divisional set of self-propelled guns.

Thus, the long-term process of developing and fine-tuning a new model of self-propelled artillery is approaching the desired ending. The development of the future "Sprut-SDM1" began in the first half of the tenth years, and in 2015 the first prototype appeared. The next few years were spent carrying out all the necessary tests, which are not yet officially completed.

Imperfect predecessor

According to open data, at present in the Airborne Forces there are up to 36 SPTP 2S25 "Sprut-SD" - the immediate predecessor and basis for the current product 2S25M. Serial production of the first version of the self-propelled gun began in 2005 and continued until 2010, after which it was curtailed due to a number of serious shortcomings.

"Sprut-SD" was made on a modified tracked chassis of an experienced light tank Object 934 or Judge. It generally met the requirements of the armed forces, but there were drawbacks and difficulties. First of all, the choice of the base chassis was criticized. It had insufficient unification with other models of airborne forces, which made it difficult to operate and supply spare parts. There were also claims to certain tactical and technical characteristics.

At the same time, the Airborne Forces recognized the high combat qualities of self-propelled guns, which were based on a 125-mm smooth-bore gun-launcher 2A75 and a modern fire control system. In terms of ammunition, the gun was unified with the 2A46 tank gun - this gave similar fire characteristics.

It was suggested to get out of this situation in an obvious way. It was necessary to rebuild the existing SPTP "Sprut-SD" using a new chassis. Taking into account the approved plans for the development of the Airborne Forces fleet, a modified chassis for the BMD-4M was developed as a new base for self-propelled guns. In addition, it was envisaged to update the on-board equipment complex - according to some sources, using instruments borrowed from the latest projects for the modernization of main tanks.

Consequences of the update

The unification of the armored vehicles of the Airborne Forces is of great importance and seriously affects the potential of the "winged infantry". Currently, a program is being implemented to modernize the existing fleet, both by updating existing machines and by building new ones. During these processes, measures are taken to optimize various aspects of operations and reduce costs without compromising combat effectiveness.

In the airborne forces there are about 1300-1400 airborne combat vehicles of various models. The basis of this park is made up of relatively old BMD-2 in the amount of approx. 1000 units The number of modern BMD-4Ms should already exceed 200 units, and their production continues. A similar situation is observed in the field of armored personnel carriers. The most massive, 700 units, remain the old BTR-D. The number of modern BTR-MDM so far does not exceed 90-100 units, but it grows with each new batch of equipment.

The ranks have approx. 250 self-propelled artillery pieces "Nona-S" in the basic and modernized versions. These vehicles are built on the BTR-D chassis and are unified with the BMD-1/2. Finally, more than 30 SPTP "Sprut-SD" were built on a completely new chassis that has nothing to do with the BMD / BTR-D line.

In the foreseeable future, the development of the fleet of armored vehicles of the Airborne Forces will follow obvious paths. If possible, older models will be upgraded, but some will be retired. Their place will be taken by modern BMD-4M and BTR-MDM, as a result of which their absolute and relative number will grow over time.

In the current situation, when the troops simultaneously use equipment on several platforms, new models should be built on the basis of the most modern chassis. This is the approach used in the Sprut-SDM1 project. Thanks to this, in the distant future, when obsolete vehicles are removed from service, only equipment on the modern BMD-4M platform will remain in service.

Combat advantages

The promising SPTP 2S25M "Sprut-SDM1", together with other airborne equipment, will be able to be transported by military transport aircraft and parachuted. The self-propelled gun will be able to use modern parachute systems developed for the BMD-4M and BTR-MDM. Full-fledged operation of artillery and landing vehicles in the same battle formations is also ensured. The equipment moves freely on land and is able to overcome water obstacles by swimming.

Self-propelled gun "Sprut-SD" on the old chassis

The 2S75 gun is as close as possible to the 2A46 tank gun in terms of fire characteristics and uses the same ammunition of all types. During the modernization "Sprut-SDM1" receives a new fire control system based on digital devices with day and night thermal imaging sights. Thanks to this, the characteristics of the FCS of tanks and self-propelled guns are almost the same. Due to modern means of communication, the 2S25M is integrated into the standard control systems of the tactical level of the Airborne Forces.

In fact, the "winged infantry" gets its own light tank, suitable for landing in the required area and capable of fighting well-protected armored objects or enemy fortifications. The presence of such a vehicle significantly increases the overall firepower of a subunit or formation and makes it possible to more efficiently perform assigned tasks. A similar technique is already in the units, and in the future its number will increase.

Waiting for new items

In the recent past, the Airborne Forces received a number of 2S25 Sprut-SD self-propelled anti-tank guns. With all its advantages, this technique is few in number and has some operational disadvantages. Nevertheless, measures were taken, which resulted in the modernized "Sprut-SDM1".

The new self-propelled gun has entered state tests, and the Ministry of Defense is already making further plans. In the near future, it will study the needs of the airborne troops and determine the required volumes of orders. After 2022, the self-propelled gun will go into series, and then go into service and will allow the Airborne Forces to complete the protracted process of mastering the most important anti-tank weapon.

Comments

[Mavrikiy]

So the Indians did the right thing that they didn't buy SPTP 2S25 "Sprut-SD"? And then I watered them ... Although they have a completely different set of Brones. Those. for unification.

[Quadro]

Look at the park of technology, what kind of unification is there? But they didn't buy it because they wanted technology and production.

[Doccor18]

It was always interesting to what extent the use of light tanks is justified? Even with comparable weaponry, it will always fail in defense.

... capable of dealing with well-protected armored vehicles or enemy fortifications.

Fight enemy fortifications? And if the fortifications begin to respond ...

[qQQQ]

Quote: Doccor18

It was always interesting to what extent the use of light tanks is justified?

Perhaps, as an option, when the enemy's defense is broken through, entering the breakthrough, and in the rear, more speed and firepower are needed than defense.

[Doccor18]

Maybe, as an option, when the enemy's defense is broken.

With so many anti-tank weapons possessed by modern armies, this "tank raid behind enemy lines" will not work deep.

[EvilLion]

It is substantiated when a tank must be transported by plane. Also, conditions where it is difficult to use heavy equipment, for example, China makes light tanks for the mountains. PT-76 in Vietnam showed itself well. In addition, "Sprut-SD" is officially not a tank, but a self-propelled gun, and it has its own tactics of use. At a distance of a kilometer, he is not afraid of grenade launchers. But over the past 40 years, not a single light tank has had commercial success, only wheeled armored vehicles with cannons, such as they will burn, are even cheaper than a tank.

[Doccor18]

I agree.
That's just
"... when a tank needs to be transported by plane ..."
Not to transport a lot, but a little - they will quickly suppress.

[EvilLion]

"Sprut-SD" can be transported even on the Mi-26. It is quite difficult to quickly suppress, for example, a regiment, which, among other things, has some structure of 10-30 self-propelled guns or light tanks. If the enemy has such forces, then it is hardly possible to carry out MTC flights there at all. Weight will also matter when shipping by sea.

[psiho117]

Quote: Doccor18

how much is the use of light tanks justified?

With superiority in technology ("Sprut" versus T-55, for example) - it is quite justified.
And yes, the Octopus is still not a light tank, but a self-propelled gun. To be called a tank, even a light one, it is too papery. Its niche is support by fire from a distance of more than 1 km, and this vehicle is not at all suitable for direct support of troops.
And do not forget that all its shortcomings stem from its main advantage - extremely low weight, adjusted to the requirements of the Airborne Forces.

[Doccor18]

With superiority in technology ("Sprut" versus T-55, for example) - it is quite justified.

Well, if against the T-55 ...

Its niche is support by fire from a distance of more than 1 km.

Yes, that's understandable. Only the range of modern anti-tank systems is growing from year to year. Already 4 km. not the limit ...

.. stem from its main advantage - extremely low weight, adjusted to the requirements of the Airborne Forces.

I absolutely agree with you in everything But do they need the Airborne Forces ..? Isn't it better to send the considerable funds that were spent on the design of this self-propelled gun to completely saturate the landing units with modern models of anti-tank systems, RPGs, small arms, light multi-purpose buggies and ammunition transporters, as well as specialized helicopters for the airborne forces. In my opinion, all this would be much more useful for amphibious operations than a small number of Octopus and BMD. After all, Russia will not throw several airborne divisions into the rear of the enemy. And to capture and hold dominant heights or small bridgeheads, the above is enough. All the same, airborne divisions are not suitable for a full-scale battle with divisions or brigades of enemy ground forces.

[psiho117]

Quote: Doccor18

Only the range of modern anti-tank systems is growing from year to year. Already 4 km. not the limit ...

Well, the ATGM is a high threat for tanks too - here only the sticking of the DZ and the universal equipment of the KAZ saves.
The distance is more than a kilometer, cuts off the lion's share of weapons dangerous for light equipment - RPGs, heavy machine guns and ZUshek on a pickup truck, etc.

But do they really need the Airborne Forces? Isn't it better ...

Airborne forces orders - it means they need
Here, rather, the question in the very concept of the Airborne Forces is brewing - and is it worth it at all to further personify them as AirborneLanding Troops, or should we finally move on to the concept of Airmobile Forces

[Sckepsis]

In general, a different question is often posed now: how justified is the use of classic tanks, the armor of which still does not save from modern means of destruction.

[Doccor18]

Quote: Sckepsis

.. how justified is the use of classic tanks, the armor of which ... does not save from modern weapons.

And there is nothing to replace.
Yes, it doesn’t save, but the tank was, is and will be, in the foreseeable future, the most highly protected ground equipment ...

[psiho117]

Quote: Sckepsis

whose armor still does not save from modern weapons

armor (or rather, a set of protection and countermeasures) modern tanks - quite saves itself.
We must not forget that the overwhelming number of armored vehicles around the world are old stuff from the 70s, just slightly pushed towards upgrading sights, electronics and weapons.
The armor, as it was at the conceptual level of the 70-80s of the last century, has remained so. And this is at least 40 years behind. It is no wonder that modern means of destruction sew this armor like paper, or hit the most vulnerable places - the roof or the engine compartment cover. In addition, the threat of being blown up by mines and IEDs has increased significantly.
A tank developed taking into account all modern trends, equipped with a multi-band KAZ (and in five to seven years - KAZ will already have a built-in laser), a high-quality closed DZ and having a multi-layer anti-cumulative booking using modern alloys, polymers, ceramics, and other things (up to airgel and graphene nanotubes), with modern LMS - is a very difficult target, for 90% of threats.

Of course, there is also a fly in the ointment: a modern tank is very expensive and high tech thing. Suffice it to look at the cost and quantity in the K2 and "Armata" troops.

[iouris]

Well, you are landing, and then what? Isn't the enemy armed?

[EvilLion]

So shoot the enemy.

[madrobot]

They are not landing on the front line, where the main firepower of the enemy is concentrated.

[psiho117]

Quote: madrobot

Not on the front line are landing

I don't know why they give you a minus ... They probably think that the landing is when tanks with parachutists are dumped right on their heads, and they, with a loud cry of Hurray, start shooting in the air.
People, this is not Red Alert, in real life the troops are landed away from the enemy.
After the landing, the paratroopers regroup, and after that they begin their combat mission.

[madrobot]

This is exactly what I was talking about. I myself served as a mech.vod T-72 and I have nothing to do with the Airborne Forces, but at GA Staryi Khrych wrote quite a lot about the tactics of the paratroopers.

[novel66]

but what

self-propelled anti-tank gun

differs from ACS

[psiho117]

Quote: novel xnumx

but what a self-propelled anti-tank gun
differs from ACS

the concept of application, and the type of firing, of course. The anti-tank gun fires direct fire, and the self-propelled guns fire from closed positions.

[Diverter]

Octopus shouldn't fight tanks, but maybe that's a good thing. In fact, this unit is a large sniper rifle for the MP and Airborne Forces. Although the use of tank regiments and divisions in the vanguards and rearguards of the Ground Forces in the states of reconnaissance battalions is also suitable, and for the unsteady soils of Eastern and Central Europe, the norms. will be!)

[psiho117]

Quote: Saboteur

avant-garde use

At BMD (and Octopus, respectively), the board does not hold fragments of a close burst of even an 85mm mine, not to mention 120mm. 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 ...
Can you figure out how many funerals the commander will have to write, that he will decide to use the Octopus in the vanguard, in the conditions of modern combined arms combat?

in the states of reconnaissance battalions of tank regiments and divisions is also suitable

they have their own, regular equipment, equipped with the necessary intelligence equipment.
You don't think that the point of reconnaissance is shooting at the enemy, do you? "Octopus" is only capable of this.

[Baron pardus]

This is some kind of misunderstanding, not a combat vehicle. Yes, the weapons seem to be on top. But even in comparison with the promising "light" tanks that the Americans want to take, the Octopus has no armor from the word AT ALL. But it can swim. And this limits its potential for overseas sales. What for the Middle East countries amphibious? Or what for the Africans amphibious? Even if the Octopus can swim HOW MUCH can such a floating Octopus hold up under fire and at least 20mm cannons on old Marders? Of course, you can screw up the armor. Only stop swimming. If you want something sharp-toothed but light, why don't you like something like the Italian Centaur or the French AMX10? Or is there Ruikat 105? And cheaper and easier. By the way, you can put a standard 10mm cannon on the AMX105RTs instead of the "medium pressure" that is on it. The same AMH10RTs can also swim.

[UAZ 452]

All military equipment, and not only the equipment of the Airborne Forces, should be airborne, but should it be parachuted? Has any army in the world been able to land a successful airborne assault with equipment? And in itself, the requirement of airborne landing imposes serious restrictions on combat vehicles that do not allow them to achieve acceptable performance in terms of firepower, armor protection, ammunition carried, and power reserve. Or, performance characteristics comparable to those of the ground forces are achieved at a much higher price. And then these combat vehicles are delivered to the conditional Chechnya by echelons, where they are used in the same way as infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers of ground vehicles, inferior to them in everything. So aren't we throwing the money spent on the development of airborne airborne technology down the drain, laying down a requirement that is never required in a real war?

[psiho117]

Quote: UAZ 452

should it be parachuted? ...
aren't we throwing money away?

Oh, don't bother ... The issue of airborne equipment (and indeed the very concept of parachute landing) is one of the most difficult to discuss, and it just causes tons of crap - both from the defenders and opponents of this concept. Despite the fact that the arguments of both those and those seem to be correct.
Personally, my opinion is this: in modern conditions, manned light vehicles used at the forefront (and destroyed, literally, with one spit) should be a thing of the past. It should be replaced by remotely controlled drones - both original development and based on existing machines converted into an unmanned version.

Fighting vehicles with a crew should be extremely heavy platforms that have superiority over light ones in everything: in protection, firepower, observation and control devices.
They should act as fire support and control vehicles for light, unmanned armored vehicles.

[cat Rusich]

Can make a GAUBITS for the Airborne Forces - for example, remake 2S3 "Acacia" - to lighten the armor to the "required weight" "Armor" will become ratedBut howitzer will work с closed positions + ZOF39M Krasnopol-M - the range is not great - 20 km, but better than that of the smooth-bore Octopus.

[psiho117]

Quote: cat Rusich

howitzer will work from closed positions

They already have D-30

[bad]

Quote: cat Rusich

Can make a GAUBITZ for the Airborne Forces

A controversial issue. If the Airborne Forces are used as originally intended, then in our time they need mobility for lightning strikes and operations. And if as an elite infantry, then they will be given everything that is required.

[fone]

So Lotus and Octopus are now on the same chassis, only the towers are different.

[Zaurbek]

In general, I do not quite understand the urge to mount powerful tank guns on a light chassis. In this case, again, some kind of exclusive for the Airborne Forces.

[Interdum_silentium_volo]

I answer the question why!
The Airborne Forces are not breakthrough troops, they are highly mobile troops. Not special forces! and not an assault brigade!
So the essence of the Airborne Forces is to be at the designated place faster than the main forces, and to hold on.
There is a conditional city of Iev, which is not yet occupied by a significant enemy grouping, for the defenders this city will become a key city for defense, for the attackers with a big thorn.
In order to rid yourself of hemorrhoids during the offensive. The Airborne Forces is being transferred to this city. Knocks out the forces that are there and consolidates in defense until the main forces approach.

By the way, let's remember Karabakh, and Shushi, which the Azerbaijanis seized before the Armenians turned it into a fortified region. What you fucked hard with ...

So in this concept, the Octopus is the most powerful thing that can capture the Airborne Forces, and that will support the fire of a tank gun. And when it comes to defense, then such a minus as weak defense will recede into the background. A well-designed line of defense, fortification will equalize the chances. A corny attacking tank will have a full silhouette, and the one defending a maximum protruding tower, and will be disguised in the mind and roll out to the line of opening fire only when necessary. This will make life much more difficult for anyone.

Again, a modern tank is strong not with armor, but with KAZ and DZ systems (without them, this is a heavy trough capable of holding guns, of which there are not so many on the battlefield (not 2 MB)), which is actually built into this platform. There is no technology conflict.

Again, everyone is asking why why, but the same Yankees choose a light tank for themselves. A tender is held. So we are not alone.

Many people still see a tank oncoming battle in their heads))) This is not serious.

[Samovar-2]

In fact, the Airborne Forces is, one might say, light infantry, which can be transferred quickly enough by aviation ... where it needs to be transferred, along with standard weapons. Against all kinds of "barmaley" - quite, but against the regular army, even if not with the most advanced weapons ... enough for a maximum of a couple of hours of real combat (and this is still in a good scenario). That you can forget about such types of fire as NZO, OV, PZO. If already twenty years ago the same Zu-23 or "Igloo" could be considered air defense weapons only with a big stretch, today, in order to cover the landing from the same - not the most perfect, by the way - Turkish drones need radar and air defense systems with range of at least 30 kilometers (and it should be more). And this is plus a minimum of a couple of Il-76 to the calculation for the landing. And so, one clings to another, and at the end we get what we started with - the Airborne Forces is a "light infantry" for solving a limited range of tasks. And to saturate them with "Octopus", as PT means - money down the drain. And yet - I just can't understand what the sacred meaning is, of the fact that gunners are being put on this notorious "Octopus" (about which I even in "the days of Ona" knew)?

[SiberianGun]

By the way, I wrote about the same below and only then saw this comment.

[SiberianGun]

New tanks are good by definition. But! What is the role of the Airborne Forces in future military conflicts? That they will attack, and this is the Airborne Forces - this is not defense, this is an attack. During the Soviet era, our good European neighbors were the target due to the corresponding geopolitical situation. Any simulation of a military conflict with Europe leads to the use of nuclear weapons. That is, is the Airborne Forces needed in such a large number?
But! Airborne forces can be very useful for overseas operations. As part of the special operations forces.
That is, we need some correct concepts and vision of the future. To understand where to direct efforts in the development of armored vehicles. Until now, we have problems with "Armata", for example.