Military Review

The Ministry of Defense does not exclude the adoption of the CAO 2S43 "Malva" into the armament of the Airborne Forces

79
The Ministry of Defense does not exclude the adoption of the CAO 2S43 "Malva" into the armament of the Airborne Forces

The newest self-propelled artillery gun (SAO) 2S43 "Malva" may enter service with the Airborne Forces, this option, among others, is being considered by the Ministry of Defense.


The military department does not exclude the adoption of the "Malva" into the armament of the landing, in the event of such a decision, the self-propelled gun will be supplied to a separate artillery brigade of the Airborne Forces, the formation of which has just begun. Reportedly "News" With reference to sources in the Ministry of Defense, the final decision on the "Malva" has not yet been made.

According to military experts, the Airborne Forces can be armed with a powerful wheeled artillery system that can significantly increase the firepower of the landing. It is noted that although the installation is not intended for parachuting, it can be transported by transport aircraft. The wheelbase will allow the CAO to move quickly on the roads.

SAO 2S43 "Malva" is being developed by the Central Research Institute "Burevestnik" within the framework of the ROC "Sketch". For the first time, the howitzer was presented in 2019 behind closed doors, details of the development are not provided.

It is known that the 152-mm 2A64 cannon used in the Msta-S self-propelled guns is used as a firing component at Malva. It is possible to install an upgraded version of this gun, but the data is missing due to the secrecy of the development. The transportable ammunition load of the howitzer is 30 rounds, the weight of the CAO is 32 tons. The chassis of the "Malva" is the BAZ-6010-027 all-terrain vehicle with an 8x8 wheel arrangement manufactured by the Bryansk Automobile Plant.

State tests of "Malva" will begin in 2022.
79 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vitas
    Vitas 14 May 2021 14: 36
    +2
    Who shouted in the news below - that the Ukrainian Airborne Forces do not need "Dana" and this is a strange choice, because they do not land ?!
    1. credo
      credo 14 May 2021 14: 44
      +1
      Quote: Vitas
      Who shouted in the news below - that the Ukrainian Airborne Forces do not need "Dana" and this is a strange choice, because they do not land ?!

      This is a natural reaction on our part. We are not supporters of the supply of foreign weapons to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, to strengthen it.

      It’s interesting for Malva, whether it is self-loading or the projectiles gives the calculation. I would like to believe that it is self-loading.
      1. loki565
        loki565 14 May 2021 14: 50
        +3
        It’s interesting for Malva, whether it is self-loading or the projectiles gives the calculation. I would like to believe that the self-loading
        .
        Rather automated like Caesar
    2. Revival
      Revival 14 May 2021 14: 47
      +2
      I rather agree with this line of thought, otherwise you can reach Yars in the Airborne Forces
    3. carstorm 11
      carstorm 11 14 May 2021 14: 56
      0
      There, the majority spoke about Bogdana. If a couple of people said so, then it's just a couple of people)
      1. Alex777
        Alex777 14 May 2021 15: 37
        +6
        I can't imagine THIS in the Airborne Forces.
        Besides:
        The wheelbase will allow the CAO to move quickly on the roads.

        I do not see anything that would be useful specifically for the Airborne Forces.
        Even Malva has no protection against small arms.
        Acacia even weighs less ... Acacia in the Airborne Forces, I would understand.
        Mallow - I don't understand ... hi
        1. carstorm 11
          carstorm 11 14 May 2021 16: 22
          +2
          And 72 b 3 can you?))) And why should she have strong defense?) It is not her task to enter the battle formations. Move quickly, strike, retreat.
          1. Alex777
            Alex777 14 May 2021 16: 26
            +4
            And 72 b 3 can you?)))

            Both T72B3 and Acacia - I can. bully

            and why should she have strong protection?) It is not her task to enter the battle formations.

            I'm not talking about a strong one, about a minimal bulletproof one.
            The Airborne Forces, as intended, must operate behind enemy lines. Not? wink
            Shells, Nona, Octopus, BMD-4 and then Malva ...
            I do not understand. request
            1. carstorm 11
              carstorm 11 14 May 2021 16: 29
              +4
              How will they get there with modern capabilities?) The landing force now, if it is possible to land somewhere in Syria))), for its landing, the necessary complete air superiority and completely extinguished air defense. But if all this has been achieved, then what for is the goat button accordion?)))) Why is there where your aviation is doing what wants a mass landing?)))
              1. Alex777
                Alex777 14 May 2021 16: 52
                0
                Hydroelectric power station / nuclear power plant quickly to capture and save from destruction?
                Aviation won't help you here. bully
                1. carstorm 11
                  carstorm 11 14 May 2021 17: 12
                  +3
                  Will they be landing there in regiments?) For these tasks, keep entire divisions?) In my opinion, the Airborne Forces have long been a highly mobile infantry with very great capabilities. Chechnya has clearly shown this to itself.
                  1. Alex777
                    Alex777 14 May 2021 17: 34
                    0
                    Will they be planted there in regiments?) For these tasks, keep entire divisions?)

                    Are they there, in a single copy? bully
                    Hydroelectric power station - a cascade. There are also several nuclear power plants.
                    There are several power units at the NPP.
                    The shelf will not be enough. If you think about it. wink
                    Are you a few steps lazy yourself?
                    1. carstorm 11
                      carstorm 11 14 May 2021 18: 33
                      +1
                      I have already thought about it. There are few introductory notes. Firstly, I do not understand how they will get there. We have already won and only in the siege of the nuclear power plant, for example, holds on? Or have you suddenly decided to unnoticeably lead a bunch of BTAs across the country? For some reason you set a task for yourself that the object is in an open field.
                      1. Alex777
                        Alex777 14 May 2021 20: 57
                        +1
                        For some reason you set a task for yourself that the object is in an open field.

                        You don't want to say that hydroelectric and nuclear power plants are located in the city center, do you? bully
                      2. carstorm 11
                        carstorm 11 14 May 2021 21: 53
                        0
                        Countries. Not cities.
                      3. Alex777
                        Alex777 14 May 2021 21: 59
                        0
                        I am not Porthos, who "fights because he fights ...". wink
                        I'm not designing vertical coverage operations.
                        You asked the question:
                        Why is there where your aviation is doing what it wants a mass landing?)))

                        I gave my example:
                        Hydroelectric power station / nuclear power plant quickly to capture and save from destruction?

                        At my level of understanding, the example is correct.
                        If he didn’t suit you, excuse me. hi
                      4. carstorm 11
                        carstorm 11 14 May 2021 22: 10
                        0
                        Yes, I understand you) I was just trying to explain that such operations are possible only against those whom you have practically destroyed, and then there is no point in them. Well, except for the transfer of SSSoshnikov for some kind of jewelry work. And an attempt to unexpectedly throw a regiment somewhere where even inferior air defense exists is just to bury it.
                      5. Alex777
                        Alex777 14 May 2021 22: 22
                        0
                        an attempt to unexpectedly throw a regiment somewhere where there is even an inferior air defense is just to bury it.

                        Dmitry!
                        Sofa experts (we, of course, do not belong to them))) all the time try to consider a spherical horse in a vacuum.
                        It is clear that the massive landing is covered by both electronic warfare aircraft and fighters with anti-missile missiles, and simply artillery preparation (long-range MLRS and Iskander) against targets previously reconnoitered by special forces on the route has not been canceled. bully
                        The Israelis flew and are flying over Syria. They just cook everything carefully.
                        Americans fly. They flew to the same bin Laden and everyone returned, despite the fact that they themselves ruined the helicopter. bully
                2. hydrox
                  hydrox 15 May 2021 20: 29
                  0
                  In Russia, ALL hydroelectric power plants are tied either to cities or to agglomerations: Irkutsk, Bratsk, Ust-Ilim, Novosibirsk, Sayansk, Zhigulevsk-Togliatti. NPPs are also not in the middle of the taiga
                3. Alex777
                  Alex777 15 May 2021 21: 11
                  0
                  Airborne forces are not needed for our hydroelectric power plants and nuclear power plants. Absolutely.
                  Colleague carstorm 11 I immediately understood who I was talking about.
                4. hydrox
                  hydrox 16 May 2021 13: 01
                  0
                  Your question is my answer, but we are not doing crossword puzzles either ...
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 14 May 2021 16: 57
    +6
    Quote: Alex777
    I can't imagine THIS in the Airborne Forces.

    А it can you

    And he is there. smile
    Quote: Alex777
    I do not see anything that would be useful specifically for the Airborne Forces.

    You just consider the Airborne Forces as airborne troops. And they de facto have ceased to be for 70 years already, having turned into airmobile forces, landing by 90% and used to reinforce the Ground Forces in threatened directions. But at the same time, until recently, combat training and equipping of the Airborne Forces continued to be carried out within the framework of the concept of "everyone is landing."
    As a result, the Airborne Forces, used as airborne reinforcement forces, constantly suffered from a lack of protection and firepower. It came to insanity: the paratroopers who arrived for reinforcement themselves needed reinforcement - and for this they "undressed" the motorized riflemen, whom they had to reinforce.
    They tried to fight this - see 345 PDP in Afghanistan. But the parachute lobby was constantly winning - and the landing force flew past the heavy equipment.
    Recently, the idea that there will be no dashing landings and "the whole sky in domes" even in the wars of the Third World, has nevertheless penetrated the heads of the military leadership - and the landing has finally begun to acquire tanks and full-fledged artillery.
    1. Alex777
      Alex777 14 May 2021 17: 00
      0
      Can you do that?

      Both T72B3 and Acacia - I can. bully

      the landing has finally begun to acquire tanks and full-fledged artillery.

      This is exactly what I am writing about. Full-fledged artillery.
      Take a look at my comments so as not to repeat them.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 14 May 2021 17: 13
        0
        Quote: Alex777
        This is exactly what I am writing about. Full-fledged artillery.
        Take a look at my comments so as not to repeat them.

        And I do not repeat. You missed one point - airmobility. That is, if there is a choice, the Airborne Forces should have smaller MGHs than those of the army - in order to ensure transportation by BTA aircraft.
        The analogue of 2C43 for the army is 2C19. Agree that "Msta" is too heavy for the Airborne Forces - especially if there is a wheeled analogue.
        But the T-72B3 has no analogues. smile
        Quote: Alex777
        The Airborne Forces, as intended, must operate behind enemy lines. Not?

        Not for a long time.
        The Airborne Forces have long been a means of rapidly strengthening the army. A sort of light motorized rifle.
        1. Alex777
          Alex777 14 May 2021 17: 28
          0
          And I do not repeat.

          You are not repeating.
          I meant I don't want to repeat my comments. smile
          You missed one point - airmobility.

          Didn't miss it.
          Compare the weight and dimensions of Acacia and Mallow.
          I am for Acacia for the Airborne Forces. hi
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 14 May 2021 17: 49
            0
            Quote: Alex777
            Compare the weight and dimensions of Acacia and Mallow.
            I am for Acacia for the Airborne Forces.

            And why on earth compare the weight and size of the regimental and divisional ACS? The analogue of "Malva" is "Msta". It is also necessary to compare with it.
            If we compare "Acacia" and "Malva", then it would be nice to compare the firing range. And do not forget that "Malva" goes to a separate artillery brigade of the Airborne Forces - an analogue of an army-level artillery brigade for ground troops.
            1. Alex777
              Alex777 14 May 2021 17: 54
              -1
              Let's go in a circle. So we have to finish. wink
              We have dealt with airmobility.
              If you can bring a tank, then you can also Mstu.
              There will be more sense from Msta anyway.
              I see Malva in CTO and in the sands. IMHO.
              Have a great weekend colleague! hi

              And do not forget that "Malva" goes to a separate artillery brigade of the Airborne Forces

              And the decision on Malva has not yet been made.
              She's not going anywhere. They think, is it necessary?
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 14 May 2021 18: 48
                0
                Quote: Alex777
                We have dealt with airmobility.
                If you can bring a tank, then you can also Mstu.

                The tank has no analogues - so it will have to be transported.
                But "Msta" has a lighter analogue - "Malva". And for airmobile troops when transporting, instead of one "Msta" it is better to take "Malva" and something else. smile
                1. Alex777
                  Alex777 14 May 2021 21: 09
                  0
                  Shells, Nona, Octopus, BMD-4 and then Malva ...
                  I do not understand. request
          2. Barberry25
            Barberry25 14 May 2021 18: 29
            -1
            Their current difference in firing range is 5 km.
            1. Alex777
              Alex777 14 May 2021 20: 54
              0
              Their current difference in firing range is 5 km.

              Do you think only you are aware of this? You are wrong. wink
              For the paratroopers, bulletproof protection and the weight of self-propelled guns are more important. IMHO. Therefore, I choose Acacia.
              I am familiar with the shortcomings. It is being modernized.
              You, like me, are entitled to your opinion.
              1. Barberry25
                Barberry25 14 May 2021 21: 08
                0
                laughing yes at least obmordeziruyutsya .. the distance will be the same .. and yes .. the attack on the current positions is in any case a very painful matter, so instead of theoretical protection it is better to stay away and change your position more often. hi
    2. Alexfly
      Alexfly 15 May 2021 13: 20
      -1
      Parachute operations are the possibility of their use in some situations, but if there is a possibility of using the landing method, then this must also be applied, dropping parachute training from the airborne forces training - refusing the possibility of landing. The main task of the Airborne Forces is to capture bridgeheads and then hold them.
    3. hydrox
      hydrox 16 May 2021 13: 14
      0
      There is no sense: 1. Expensive delivery.
      2. Be targeted by javelins in enemy territory).
      3. Carry armored infantry?
      4. Conduct positional battles (you miss Nona with a hellish meat grinder and Carnations?).
      5. Or did the Airborne Forces db. VERY mobile troops with a minimum of carts?
  • Barberry25
    Barberry25 14 May 2021 18: 25
    -1
    The Airborne Forces acts as a highly mobile reserve of the General Staff .. parachute landing is the most cardinal of the options .. In fact, airborne divisions must be delivered by aviation .. Tank cover can be provided from local motorized riflemen, and the most effective option is to bring your crews and put them in motorized rifle vehicles. .Malva can be delivered by plane, for the Airborne Forces this is the best option
  • venik
    venik 14 May 2021 22: 46
    +1
    Quote: Alex777
    I do not see anything that would be useful specifically for the Airborne Forces.

    ========
    For the Airborne Forces - and really nothing ... But as a replacement for the towed "Msta-B" - COMPLETELY!
    At cost - much cheaper "Msta-S", and for mobility - much higher "Msta-B" request
    1. hydrox
      hydrox 16 May 2021 13: 18
      0
      But such calibers require echelons of BP, but then the tasks of these troops will no longer be solved by the Airborne Forces: they will no longer be the Airborne Forces, but something very different.
  • ROSS_51
    ROSS_51 15 May 2021 19: 40
    +1
    Quote: Alex777
    I can't imagine THIS in the Airborne Forces.
    I do not see anything that would be useful specifically for the Airborne Forces.
    Even Malva has no protection against small arms.
    Acacia even weighs less ... Acacia in the Airborne Forces, I would understand.
    Mallow - I don't understand ... hi

    It is not yet clear who exactly, in what military department and to whom he blurted out such nonsense .. News from the category-Forty on the tail brought .. Topvar has long turned into a yellow-page resource .. For me, this is bullshit ..
  • figwam
    figwam 14 May 2021 15: 29
    0
    Quote: Vitas
    after all they are not parachuted ?!

    To have such art. systems as part of the Airborne Forces, military transport aviation is needed for, in Ukraine this is the problem.
    1. Vitas
      Vitas 14 May 2021 15: 31
      +1
      Ukraine is not such a big country for BTA. A couple of days and run on their own or by rail
      1. figwam
        figwam 14 May 2021 15: 34
        0
        Quote: Vitas
        Ukraine is not such a big country

        Then why does this country need landing troops?
        1. Vitas
          Vitas 14 May 2021 15: 56
          0
          For the assault. The full name of these units is the Airborne Assault Forces of Ukraine
          1. carstorm 11
            carstorm 11 14 May 2021 16: 23
            0
            Are simple airborne units without a prefix not suitable for an assault?)))
          2. figwam
            figwam 14 May 2021 16: 35
            0
            Quote: Vitas
            The full name of these units is the Airborne Assault Forces of Ukraine

            If there is no VTA, where will they drop from?
            It's just some kind of circus.
            1. Vitas
              Vitas 14 May 2021 16: 38
              0
              Landing is one of the options for this type of troops. If you mean that they do not have planes to drop all the troops of the DShVU at once, then yes, they are. And if a battalion is to be dropped, I think I will know and land.
              1. figwam
                figwam 14 May 2021 16: 50
                +1
                Quote: Vitas
                I think so to know and land.

                For a battalion, one litaka is not enough, 3 planes are needed and this is without equipment.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 14 May 2021 16: 21
    +4
    Quote: Vitas
    Who shouted in the news below - that the Ukrainian Airborne Forces do not need "Dana" and this is a strange choice, because they do not land ?!

    Apparently those who do not know about the tank battalions of our airborne forces on the T-72B3.
    These tanks not only have airborne capabilities, but even airmobility is a big question - the Il-76 T-72 enters only completely stripped on the sides and only for Indian dances. smile
  • Grits
    Grits 15 May 2021 02: 08
    0
    Quote: Vitas
    Who shouted in the news below - that the Ukrainian Airborne Forces do not need "Dana" and this is a strange choice, because they do not land ?!

    Moreover, Dana is already available, and not in prototypes. Dana is a well-proven machine, worked out to perfection. And outwardly, it looks more compact and more perfect in design.
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 14 May 2021 14: 45
    0
    The barrel should be immediately installed similar to the "Coalition" .... why make a new system with old weapons?
    1. Constanty
      Constanty 14 May 2021 15: 13
      +3
      Compared to the previously discussed Dana M2, the Malva has a longer firing range. It is interesting, however, that it is less than that of the "Msta", although the weapon itself seems to be from there.



      Coalition cannon placement can be problematic due to the higher dynamic load on the more powerful cannon.
      1. Barberry25
        Barberry25 14 May 2021 18: 31
        0
        no, there are no problems with installing a weapon from the Coalition, this is the requirement of the General Staff to create a machine from what ALREADY is, without new R&D ... and this is correct
        1. Constanty
          Constanty 14 May 2021 18: 50
          0
          After all, CAO 2S43 "Malva" is just a new R&D request
          1. Barberry25
            Barberry25 14 May 2021 21: 07
            0
            no .. in fact it is to take what has already been created and put it together .. there is nothing super complicated and super expensive there ..
    2. Alex777
      Alex777 14 May 2021 15: 28
      +3
      Why make a new system with old weapons?

      Much easier, cheaper, full of ammunition for them. hi
      1. Constanty
        Constanty 14 May 2021 18: 53
        0
        ammunition is full for them


        Since the Coalition can fire standard ammunition for the Msta, if installed in the Malka 2A88, it will also be possible to use the old available ammunition. So I guess there is no explanation here
        1. Alex777
          Alex777 14 May 2021 21: 39
          0
          Coalition can fire standard Msta ammunition

          As far as I am aware, the Coalition has no gunpowder or a primer in the shell, unlike Msta. wink
          Please give a link to the fact that she can shoot ammunition for Msta. I doubt it.
          The head of the research and development center of the Central Research Institute "Burevestnik", where this installation was created, Pavel Kovalev recalled that gun design and ammunition development are interconnected

          "Simultaneously with the promising CAO "Coalition-SV", a set of ammunition is being created for it increased combat power, which are being developed within the framework of individual R&D projects by specialists of the ammunition industry", - he said.

          https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/8876399
          To give you a better idea of ​​what the Coalition is, I will add that Rosatom is taking part in the development of ammunition for it. hi
  • Alexga
    Alexga 14 May 2021 14: 52
    +3
    Well, it will still go to staffing artillery brigades of army subordination, but in the Airborne Forces ??? Or did someone have a desire to make infantry from the Airborne Forces?
    1. NDR-791
      NDR-791 14 May 2021 15: 00
      +1
      in case of such a decision The self-propelled gun will be supplied to a separate artillery brigade of the Airborne Forces, the formation of which has just begun.
      There are a lot of strange things here - the brigade is being formed, and what else to equip is "thinking"
    2. carstorm 11
      carstorm 11 14 May 2021 16: 26
      0
      In fact, they have been for a long time already. I can hardly imagine where it might be possible to land a trooper in case of war. They will be knocked down on the approaches
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 14 May 2021 17: 26
      +1
      Quote: AlexGa
      Well, it will still go to staffing artillery brigades of army subordination, but in the Airborne Forces ??? Or did someone have a desire to make infantry from the Airborne Forces?

      So the Airborne Forces have been used as airborne infantry for 70 years. In the best case - landing by landing method at the airfield. At worst, arriving at a theater of operations by rail (7th Airborne Division in Abkhazia).
      And they use the Airborne Forces as a light motorized infantry, in one formation with the usual motorized infantry. In Afghanistan, for this it was necessary to transplant 345 traffic police to army equipment and radically change the entire OSHS.
    4. alexmach
      alexmach 14 May 2021 18: 29
      +1
      Didn't the formation of tank units in the Airborne Forces confuse you?
    5. Barberry25
      Barberry25 14 May 2021 18: 32
      -1
      From the Airborne Forces it was high time to make the infantry, highly mobile, but the infantry .. because the situation that was earlier otherwise than a circus and squandering of resources can not be called.
  • Alexfly
    Alexfly 14 May 2021 15: 16
    +2
    Shy to horror ...... Why share a vegetable garden? Isn't it easier to create artillery units with increased mobility?
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 14 May 2021 17: 28
      0
      Quote: AlexFly
      Shy to horror ...... Why share a vegetable garden? Isn't it easier to create artillery units with increased mobility?

      So they are created - a separate artillery brigade of the Airborne Forces.
      If you do it as part of the Ground Forces, problems with the military aviation and interaction with the Airborne Forces will immediately begin. Moreover, the Airborne Forces already have artillery.
      1. Alexfly
        Alexfly 15 May 2021 13: 08
        +1
        What are the problems with BTA? What kind of eroplane will this bandura fit into? 1 to Ruslan? How many Ruslans do you need to transfer the regiment? What kind of mobility are we talking about then? The artillery of the Airborne Forces serves to support the Airborne Forces, Malva has other tasks.
  • nnm
    nnm 14 May 2021 15: 20
    +1
    I will tell you my opinion, realizing that it will not be very popular:
    1. Why are we reducing the mobility of the Airborne Forces? After all, their purpose does not at all imply support with non-airborne means at the expense of their state!
    Yes, perhaps the whole concept is changing, incl. The Airborne Forces, moving away from the idea of ​​a global war and focusing on the MTR, within the framework of network-centric operations, in which the Airborne Forces will be only an element. But all the same, even in such a situation - why should the Airborne Forces be put into the staff? Or do we simply understand that at the present stage, the VDVs will no longer be able to ensure the fulfillment of the tasks initially assigned to them?
    2. US MC, on the contrary, gets rid of heavy weapons in order to increase mobility, which means that we also need to think about what to oppose to them, for example, if it is necessary to counteract on the territory of a third country, when hours are counting. Indeed, unlike the United States, we do not have such a number of units of the fleet that would at its expense ensure the delivery of forces and resources to remote zones.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 14 May 2021 17: 36
      -1
      Quote: nnm
      But all the same, even in such a situation - why should the Airborne Forces be put into the staff? Or do we simply understand that at the present stage, the VDVs will no longer be able to ensure the fulfillment of the tasks initially assigned to them?

      The main task of the Airborne Forces has long been to strengthen the Ground Forces. That with the current firepower of the landing is quite problematic - often "reinforced" army men had to provide the Airborne Forces with their tanks and artillery for support. smile
      Quote: nnm
      2.US MC, on the other hand, is getting rid of heavy weapons in order to increase mobility,

      They get rid of heavy tracked vehicles. But the firepower, on the contrary, is increased - due to the wheeled launchers of the MLRS / OTR and the SCRC.
    2. Barberry25
      Barberry25 14 May 2021 18: 33
      -1
      because for a long time the concept of purely parachute landings has become outdated ... and an attempt to carry out such operations will entail huge losses among personnel ... not to mention huge losses of military aviation
  • Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 14 May 2021 15: 39
    +3
    I will not argue with the author of the "news", I believe more in the sanity of the Airborne Forces command. For the artillery brigade of the Airborne Forces, the MLRS "Tornado-G" and the floating self-propelled guns "Carnation" 122-mm are more suitable. And to them a self-propelled 120-mm mortar based on "Shells".
    1. svp67
      svp67 14 May 2021 15: 54
      -2
      Quote: Scharnhorst
      For the artillery brigade of the Airborne Forces, the MLRS "Tornado-G" and the floating self-propelled guns "Carnation" 122-mm are more suitable.

      All this should be in the regiments, brigades and divisions of the Airborne Forces, and we are talking about a separate artillery brigade, so the choice is quite clear. Do not forget that in the Airborne Forces there are also airborne assault units and units, on the equipment of which there are tanks.
      And so many samples of mobile artillery equipment are now being prepared for testing, ranging from mortars on ATVs, self-propelled mortars and artillery systems of various calibers. Central Research Institute "Burevestnik" showed some of them at the last Victory Parade in Nizhny Novgorod
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 14 May 2021 17: 41
        0
        Quote: Scharnhorst
        I will not argue with the author of the "news", I believe more in the sanity of the Airborne Forces command. For the artillery brigade of the Airborne Forces, the MLRS "Tornado-G" and the floating self-propelled guns "Carnation" 122-mm are more suitable. And to them a self-propelled 120-mm mortar based on "Shells".

        And all this beauty is thrown into battle together with motorized riflemen. After that, the Airborne Forces begin to beg for armor and 152-mm artillery from the army.
        Forget landings to the rear. The Airborne Forces are now a means of reinforcing the army in the main direction or light motorized infantry in the secondary direction.
        1. svp67
          svp67 14 May 2021 17: 44
          +3
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Forget landings to the rear. The Airborne Forces are now a means of reinforcing the army in the main direction or light motorized infantry in the secondary direction.

          The Airborne Forces is primarily the reserve of the Supreme Commander and the basis of the mobile forces of the RF Armed Forces. Yes, and landings can be carried out on their territory, for a rapid build-up of a group of troops in threatened directions. And if the "light infantry", then the "elite"
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 14 May 2021 18: 08
            +1
            Quote: svp67
            Yes, and landings can be carried out on their territory, for a rapid build-up of a group of troops in threatened directions.

            Landing method. Otherwise, the time saved on unloading at the airfield will be spent on collecting parts on the ground. smile
            The current standard method of using the Airborne Forces was demonstrated in the war on 08.08.08. As you said - light elite, highly motivated and well trained infantry. Suffice it to recall the "battle at the crossing" - 10 paratroopers and 2 BMD-1s against a company of the engineering battalion of the second infantry brigade.
  • Incvizitor
    Incvizitor 14 May 2021 15: 57
    +5
    Isn't it big for the airborne forces?
    1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
      Sergey Aleksandrovich 14 May 2021 19: 54
      -1
      Just right, also long-range.
  • JD1979
    JD1979 14 May 2021 23: 06
    +3
    One question - why? If we have already given the MBT to the landing, let's have normal self-propelled guns, since the 120mm Nona is not enough. And this is just some kind of misunderstanding, especially against the background of Western counterparts.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 14 May 2021 23: 52
      -2
      If Malva will be put into service with the Airborne Forces, then only as a towed version.
      1. JD1979
        JD1979 14 May 2021 23: 57
        +2
        For mobile airborne forces, a 152 mm towed gun, say, is such a solution.
  • Alexey Sergeevich
    Alexey Sergeevich 17 May 2021 01: 05
    0
    Mallow in the Airborne Forces? I'm new here, but I served well in the Airborne Forces and found D6 and D10. The Airborne Forces is, first of all, mobility and onslaught. Malva in what place is air transportable? Maybe I missed her mooring class? Octopus and that place in the ranks can not find ...