Military Review

Reformatting the Airborne Forces: new tasks in the light of the special operation "Z"

204

BMD-2. Source: wikipedia.org



The main purpose of the Airborne Forces


Five months of a special military operation already makes it possible to draw fairly unambiguous conclusions about the nature of the activities of this or that kind of troops. For example, air defense showed itself in all its glory, which for the first time in the latest stories Russia worked so intensively.

At the same time, air defense units actually had to retrain as anti-missile defense and focus on intercepting munitions from rocket launchers and operational-tactical missiles. With a high degree of probability, we can say that our anti-aircraft gunners are coping with this task. At the same time, it is worth remembering that the destruction of missiles is not a priority for Russian air defense at all levels. An indirect sign of the high quality of domestic air defense systems was the awarding of the star of the Hero of Russia to the general director of the Almaz-Antey air defense concern, Yan Novikov.


BMD-4M, along with the machine of the second series, is actively used in a special operation in Ukraine. Source: wikipedia.org

As in air defense, the Airborne Forces are armed with the most modern models of equipment. The training and motivation of the personnel of this elite branch of the military is also beyond praise. At the same time, more and more questions arise around the specifics of the combat use of equipment of the Airborne Forces. Chief among them - how do the goals and objectives of the Airborne Forces correlate with the realities of the military special operation in Ukraine?

One of the first to voice this problem was Alexei Sukonkin, a military expert and author of books, in a short but capacious article “The Airborne Forces Are Dead”. Let's try to creatively rethink the author's ideas and add our own conclusions. It is worth noting separately that there is nothing fundamentally new in this story - calls to reform the Airborne Forces have been heard before. It's just that the special operation exposed the shortcomings especially sharply.

The main purpose of the Airborne Forces is to work behind enemy lines at especially important facilities. These usually include headquarters, bridgeheads, transport hubs, and, most importantly, the enemy's strategic nuclear forces. In Soviet times, it was assumed that the paratroopers would work both before and after a nuclear strike, clearing the field for the main forces. Paradoxically, the winged infantry was never provided with transport aviation 100%. There were only enough planes to lift one airborne division into the air.

The first wake-up calls were heard back in Afghanistan, when light armor, more precisely, BMD-1 and BMD-2, began to be replaced by standard motorized rifle armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles. By the way, armor even for this technique was chronically lacking, not to mention the aluminum alloys of the ABT-101 landing vehicles. To increase the firepower of the units, the paratroopers were given artillery and Tanks, which changed the profile of the Airborne Forces beyond recognition. In the 80s, the paratroopers on the battlefield did not work for their intended purpose, but only replaced the motorized rifle units of the army. Simply because this elite branch of the military was the most combat-ready in all of recent history.

Conclusions on the results of the war with the Mujahideen were not made, and the Airborne Forces still focused on mass use in the rear of the enemy. Naturally, the main method of delivery beyond the front line was landing, and along with equipment. It is this thesis that does not hold water now.

Technique is everything


What is airborne equipment? This is the most difficult compromise between protection, mass and firepower. Someone will say, nothing new, everyone has it - even tanks are designed in strict mass-dimensional parameters. Suffice it to recall what requirements the T-64 developers put forward, and what a child of compromises they ended up with. For paratroopers, the armored vehicle must be able to shoot, swim, be light and compact enough to be taken on board the IL-76 and, in case of emergency, parachuted over the theater of operations. Moreover, such armored vehicles must transport personnel. This unique set of qualities could not be observed in one car. Therefore, they sacrificed, first of all, protection.

Even unarmored vehicles had to be adapted to the needs of the Airborne Forces. A typical example is the GAZ-66 or Shishiga, which at the design stage was planned to be placed in the cramped holds of transport aircraft. The result was a compact truck with high cross-country ability, but poorly adapted to work in combat conditions. First of all, due to the weak anti-mine resistance. It is no coincidence that in the very first months of the Afghan war, "Shishiga" was expelled from the state of mountain caravans.

If the technique of the Airborne Forces did not actually evolve following world trends, then weapons the world around developed by leaps and bounds. First of all, the capabilities of "pocket artillery" have grown to a critical level, capable of not only reliably hitting light armored vehicles, but also relatively easily destroying tanks. Especially when the enemy is stuffed with various NLAW, Javelin and other equipment to the eyeballs. The example of Ukraine is the clearest confirmation of this.

The specifics of using the Airborne Forces as light motorized infantry forces the use of BMD and BTR-D against a much more powerful enemy. The landing party should not work at the front on a par with motorized riflemen and tankers - they simply do not have standard equipment and weapons for this. And the one that is present becomes the weakest link in defense and offensive.

The Airborne Forces are often involved in the assault on settlements, fortified areas and work at checkpoints. The state of the troops includes air assault brigades, which, logically, should be equipped with heavy weapons. There is no other way - during the assault you have to use large calibers, and often they fly in response. We must be ready.

But what do we see? Of the heaviest in the DShB, only self-propelled guns "Gvozdika", "Nona" and several units of the RZSO "Grad" and "Grad-V". In the best case, a 125-mm Sprut self-propelled gun with thin armor, because it can swim and parachute. And in the air assault regiment of artillery, only Nona, assembled on the basis of the same BTR-D.

In Ukraine, the theater of operations is quite specific - the enemy has a lot of artillery, which he knows how to use. And this means that the equipment must withstand explosions of 152-155-mm shells nearby. Now only domestic infantry fighting vehicles (partially), MRAPs and tanks are capable of this.

Even more absurd is the idea of ​​mass landing of military equipment behind the front line. Aleksey Sukonkin in his material rightly cites the death of the Ukrainian Il-76 in July 2014 from MANPADS as an example. Then the plane was shot down on the landing glide path over the Luhansk airport - 49 people were killed. At higher echelons, slow and large transport aircraft do not pose any problem for medium and long range air defense systems.

By the way, according to unconfirmed reports, on February 24, at least 20 Russian Il-76s loaded with BMD and personnel were supposed to fly to Kyiv. Fortunately, it didn't happen. Given the complexity of suppressing air defense in modern conditions, parachute landing becomes impossible. There are a lot of bonuses from such a solution.

Firstly, there is no need to unnecessarily complicate the technique (for example, variable clearance in the BMD series) and use scarce materials for the construction (the aforementioned aluminum in the armor). Why, of course, the cost of the final product will decrease. According to various estimates, the cost of the BMP-3 is 20 million rubles less than the cost of the much less protected BMD-4M.

Secondly, as soon as they sacrifice dimensions and weight, reserves for building up armor will immediately be released. Pay attention to how successfully the Terminator BMPT is currently operating in Ukraine. All due to the fact that the operator of the guns is protected by armor and can work on targets much more efficiently and from optimal distances.


According to scattered reports, at least 20 transport Il-76s were preparing to parachute airborne units with equipment to Ukraine. Fortunately, it worked out.

At the same time, recent events show that, with proper use, parts of the Airborne Forces can achieve significant success. For example, the transfer of personnel of two brigades and one airborne division to rebellious Kazakhstan in early 2022. It happened quickly and efficiently. Only this is not a landing operation, but the transfer of airmobile units to the theater of alleged military operations. We recall that there was no active enemy air defense in Kazakhstan.

A real landing operation was the capture of Gostomel airport in the first hours of the special operation. Low-level helicopters, with the support of strike machines, abandoned several hundred fighters, who held the object until the main forces approached. At the same time, both the transport Mi-8s themselves and the attack escort vehicles were engaged in suppressing the calculations of MANPADS. And no parachutes in the sky.

It seems that this is how a new tactic of using landing troops is born. However, these are only isolated cases that only confirm the rule - the Airborne Forces are used exclusively as highly trained elite motorized infantry, the equipment of which does not at all correspond to the assigned tasks.

One can only hope that the special operation in Ukraine will become an occasion for strategic changes in the most illustrious military branch of modern Russia.
Author:
204 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. antivirus
    antivirus 28 July 2022 07: 32
    -36
    In trmv everything is in paradise: the difference in bmp or bmd will not die
    1. Civil
      Civil 28 July 2022 08: 07
      +51
      It is high time to decide something with the equipment of the Airborne Forces, and with the reform too. It is already clear to everyone that a massive parachute landing, when fighting all sorts of gangs, is ineffective and redundant, and with regular armies, even with minimal air defense, it is impossible without heavy losses.
      1. Genry
        Genry 28 July 2022 13: 48
        -18
        Quote: Civil
        It is already clear to everyone that a massive parachute landing, when fighting all sorts of gangs, is ineffective and redundant, and with regular armies, even with minimal air defense, it is impossible without heavy losses.

        You don't have to primitize everything.

        In some situations, parachutes are needed, somewhere helicopters are possible, somewhere a sliding drop from a low-flying aircraft (3 meters) is possible. These types of landing determine the general specifics of the equipment - its low weight and the reliability of such use.

        The second question is the security of light equipment, because the presence of KAZ becomes mandatory.

        The third question is the combat capabilities of weapons. And here the issue of multi-profile weapons becomes acute.
        So 30-57 mm cannons and machine guns should perform the functions of destroying low-flying objects with dangerous trajectories: aircraft, UAVs, MLRS and ATGM missiles, shells over 50 mm, RPG and AGS grenades. Such a combat module should have high-speed guidance with a high-speed target acquisition system (a machine with a radar / OLS should provide a general picture of targets).
        Guns 100-125 mm should have the additional ability to work with mines and air defense missiles with an altitude of 3-15 thousand meters, which requires a vertical angle of up to 70 degrees.

        The fourth question is the quick loading of equipment and the ease of operational maintenance without special devices and additional equipment and providing a reduced physical load on the crew.

        The fifth question is the possibility of using local / enemy fuels and ammunition.
        1. Pukanpein
          Pukanpein 28 July 2022 15: 44
          +4
          Or maybe you should not mix guns and air defense missiles.
        2. Eroma
          Eroma 28 July 2022 18: 55
          +7
          Your universal systems will cost as much as an airplane! If a landing was possible over the territory, then the air defense is so-so, which means that you can use strike UAVs to support the landing, it will be cheap and effective when fighting armored vehicles! wink
          The landing force is not thrown over the front line for 100 km, if you don’t really save money, then the landing force can be supported by the Iskander OTK division, to hit difficult targets such as a bunker, or, for example, to combat air defense that interferes with the operation of the UAV! good
          KAZ on BMD can significantly increase survivability against pocket artillery, and you can try to make KAZ radar redundant in power and give artillery reconnaissance radar capabilities to issue control centers to regular artillery or the Iskander OTR supporting division.
          There are many options without universal prodigy soldier
        3. UAZ 452
          UAZ 452 28 July 2022 19: 50
          +12
          All this will require such resources, for which it is possible to raise the level of equipment of ALL ground forces to a qualitatively different level. But the ground forces are needed always and everywhere, and the airborne forces for their intended purpose have not been used properly (successfully, at least) for the entire time of their existence. And even amers do not have enough resources for all the Wishlist, and even more so we need to learn how to prioritize.
        4. bayard
          bayard 29 July 2022 04: 50
          +7
          Quote: Genry
          Guns 100-125 mm should have the additional ability to work with mines and air defense missiles with an altitude of 3-15 thousand meters, which requires a vertical angle of up to 70 degrees

          Colleague, are you delirious?
          Or is it a joke?
          1. militarist63
            militarist63 30 July 2022 22: 32
            +2
            Colleague, are you delirious?
            Or is it a joke?
            That's for sure! One out of two! laughing
          2. Victor Demchenko
            Victor Demchenko 11 August 2022 15: 08
            0
            rather banter. what would not have a normal idea about the subject ....?
        5. Skif
          Skif 2 August 2022 22: 23
          +1
          Yes it was already! The "great" Marshal Tukhachevsky toyed with the idea of ​​a universal weapon. It ended badly. And for the marshal too.
      2. antivirus
        antivirus 28 July 2022 19: 10
        +3
        There were and still are suicide bombers.
        Against the background of the Second World War and up to the 70s, it was acceptable.
        Mass special forces?
      3. g1v2
        g1v2 28 July 2022 20: 45
        +11
        Well, the modern concept of the Airborne Forces, in fact, makes it an analogue of light cavalry. These are the most mobile troops that are able to get to the TVD first. Both on their own territory and on someone else's. In the NWO, they were used for raids on the rear and the fastest possible breakthroughs to occupy key positions. At first, the positions were captured by columns of the Airborne Forces, and motorized rifles of other heavy guys came to them in a day or two. By this time, the paratroopers were already moving forward. Hence the occasional ambush.
        Most likely, for landing in the rear, it is enough to allocate one 45th brigade. The rest need to be sharpened specifically for quick transfers and raids. HOWEVER WITH SUFFICIENT QUANTITY OF HEAVY WEAPONS. Plus the ability to fight in isolation from the main forces and at a remote TVD. Plus, rapid deployment after receiving a command from the VLOOKUP. In fact - an analogue of the US Marine Corps.
        1. Thorvlobnor IV
          Thorvlobnor IV 28 July 2022 21: 56
          +5
          I wonder how you imagine "the ability to fight in isolation from the main forces and on a remote theater of operations" without logistics? Without replenishment of ammunition, supply of fuel, removal of the wounded? And if the "other heavy guys" are a little late?
        2. fif21
          fif21 28 July 2022 23: 17
          +1
          Quote: g1v2
          Well, the modern concept of the Airborne Forces, in fact, makes it an analogue of light cavalry.
          VDV - WINGED INFANTRY. Used according to the situation. And no one will be offended by the fact that, let's say, a soldier has the specialty "Capture and destruction of nuclear weapons and landmines", and he is sent to capture a settlement. You cannot make a universal soldier in 1 year, therefore, these must be contract troops with advanced weapons and capable of using the weapons of a potential enemy. hi
        3. bayard
          bayard 29 July 2022 05: 06
          +7
          Quote: g1v2
          The rest need to be sharpened specifically for quick transfers and raids. HOWEVER WITH SUFFICIENT QUANTITY OF HEAVY WEAPONS.

          To do this, it is enough to re-equip the airborne troops with the BMP-3\3M. Two such machines Il-76MD \ MD90A will completely take, abandon mass parachute landing in favor of landing by landing method and helicopter landings, except for individual cases for reconnaissance units and MTRs.
          In general, armored vehicles for infantry should become heavier.
          For regular infantry. In favor of the appearance of a sufficient amount of TBMP and TBTR. Moreover, on the basis of proven tank chassis, and not the "unparalleled" "Armata", which is neither a candle to God nor a poker to hell.
          And the footage of the burnt column of the Airborne Forces near Kyiv should be a sufficient incentive to abandon the "airborne" aluminum armor.
          1. ultra
            ultra 29 July 2022 12: 33
            0
            Quote: bayard
            To do this, it is enough to rearm the airborne troops on the BMP-3\3M

            Are you following the course of the SVO? We need heavy infantry fighting vehicles that can protect against fragments of large-caliber artillery.
            1. bayard
              bayard 29 July 2022 15: 23
              +1
              Quote: ultra
              Are you following the course of the SVO? We need heavy infantry fighting vehicles that can protect against fragments of large-caliber artillery.

              Quote: bayard
              In general, armored vehicles for infantry should become heavier.
              For regular infantry. In favor of the appearance of a sufficient amount of TBMP and TBTR. Moreover, based on proven tank chassis

              So it seems that he wrote about it. And the BMP-3 \ 3M proposed to equip the Airborne Forces, which need to maintain the possibility of airborne landing. But in a landing way.
              But infantry units need exactly TBMP and TBTR, especially for assault units.
              1. ultra
                ultra 29 July 2022 15: 47
                +1
                The BMP-3 does not hold fragments of 155 and 152 mm, such vehicles are not suitable for transporting personnel. The possibility of airborne landing of tracked armored vehicles is an anachronism, like buoyancy. conveyor heavy BMP T-15, switch to 57mm caliber, prohibit the purchase of non-armored supply trucks by the army.
                1. bayard
                  bayard 29 July 2022 18: 48
                  +3
                  Quote: ultra
                  BMP-3 does not hold fragments of 155 and 152 mm

                  It depends from what distance. If they install side screens from the "Kurganets" (and such have already been installed on prototypes), then they hold even 30 mm on board. shell . Not to mention fragments. Look at the level of security of the BMP-3M "Dragoon", you will be pleasantly surprised. And the price is acceptable.
                  Quote: ultra
                  such machines are not suitable for transporting personnel.

                  belay And why is that ? Moreover, the front-engined BMP-3M has a much more comfortable fit and 2 more people are taken to the troop compartment. It is on such a base to make an armored personnel carrier a la "Shell", but with normal armor at the level of the BMP-3. Again, I propose this for the Airborne Forces, who need to transport their equipment by aircraft.
                  Quote: ultra
                  The possibility of airborne landing of tracked armored vehicles is an anachronism, as is buoyancy.

                  This is true for the Ground Forces. Amphibians and airborne equipment can be left for reconnaissance. units and, say, leave it with one regiment from the airborne division (it just exists).
                  Quote: ultra
                  So it is necessary to forcefully put a heavy BMP T-15 on the conveyor

                  Do you imagine its value?
                  And the pace of production of this new product for the industry? In the conditions of the ALREADY ongoing conflict?
                  I have already suggested before and remain of the opinion that in the current conditions, it is reasonable to use the tanks in storage as a base for such vehicles. For these purposes, it is possible to take from storage tanks of the first modifications (which will hardly be returned to service) T-72 and T-80 (for unification along the chassis with the tanks in service). Or, in general, it is possible to take advantage of the huge reserves in storage of T-64 tanks, which will definitely not be returned to service as tanks. And use them for conversion into TBMP and TBTR. At the same time, I would prefer to get the TBTR in the first place by installing a combat module from the BTR-82A or an equivalent, but light one, on its roof.
                  TBTR can be obtained from the tank by the following manipulations - cut off the nose wedge of the frontal armor and digest it to the stern, removing the upper part, build up the sides and weld an elongated hull on the new stern in order to balance the heavier bow and increase capacity. This will provide maximum security with a large capacity. Similar experiments were carried out at the beginning of the post-Soviet period at KhTZ. Dynamic protection and side screens are required.
                  Work of a similar nature can be arranged at one (or several) of the tank repair plants involved in the repair of equipment withdrawn from the farm. T-64 at our bases from 3000 to 4000 pieces. , so there is where to roam.
                  Why the preference for TBTR?
                  Because the "Terminators" have already gone into the series, which, acting together with assault units, will provide optimal fire suppression of the enemy. But the assault infantry must be delivered to the battlefield intact, with sufficient ammunition, and there must be enough space for the evacuation of the wounded from the battlefield.
                  Quote: ultra
                  , switch to caliber 57mm

                  Controversial moment. A new caliber is not only a problem of supplying it, expanding the range of weapons service ... there are simply no such ammunition in warehouses yet - they must also be produced in the proper quantities and assortment. This caliber raises the question of the adequacy of the portable ammo. And if you make it sufficient, then there will be less space for landing. A more powerful recoil will require a significant strengthening and weighting of the hull ... In the conditions of the already ongoing war (which is still a special operation), I would not risk taking risks with new calibers and modules.
                  Quote: ultra
                  , prohibit the army from purchasing non-armored supply trucks.

                  I agree .
                  1. ultra
                    ultra 29 July 2022 19: 36
                    +1
                    The army must rise to a qualitatively new level, dancing with tambourines around the legacy of the USSR and brought our sun to where they are.
                    1. bayard
                      bayard 29 July 2022 21: 19
                      +11
                      Quote: ultra
                      The army must rise to a qualitatively new level

                      Already . Already risen - "Armata", "Kurganets", "Boomerang" lol They did things with an exorbitant price ("Kurganets" turned out to be more expensive than the T-90M!), Unjustified dimensions and the inability of the industry to produce these miraculous miracles.
                      Why
                      By order of then President Medvedev, these products were designed "from scratch, without relying on previous developments" (D.A. Medvedev). And what happens to technology, in which the coefficient of novelty exceeds 15%?
                      And the developers could not help knowing this, but they decided not to argue, but to master the budgets.
                      Mastered. yes
                      And it turned out to be crap (an unuseful derivative of a useful plant - for moderators).
                      But even then it was ready to be launched into the T-95 series! And Terminator! And there was already talk about TBMP and TBTR ...
                      But the money didn't go there.
                      And they were mastered.
                      For the RESULT is nothing.
                      And the learning process is EVERYTHING.
                      Do you wish to continue this?
                      Compare the T-95 and the "Armata" not mentioned by night - heaven and earth in liquid manure!
                      And after all, these truly unparalleled tanks in the ranks by today would have been at least hundreds! With smoothbore 152 mm. gun!
                      ... But Medvedev regretted the production of a new line of shells, ordering the Armata to be made the old 125 mm. caliber, they say we have a lot of such shells, we will save on this. fool
                      And then came the war.
                      A tank with an ultimate caliber, indispensable for storming cities and highly protected defense lines - NO. Instead, they even had to bring an old "Acacia" to the streets of Mariupol, for the sake of its caliber ...
                      And in the offices of the Ministry of Defense and the political leadership, the seditious thought reluctantly matured that an "Armata" with such (125 mm.) And a gift is not needed and there is already a task for "Armata" with 152 mm. tool ... As they say - less than 15 years have passed. angry
                      With the "Kurganets-25" it's generally tough - both with the price, and with the dimensions, and with the engine ... Next to this "bus" the T-90 seems like a toy - a grenade launcher's dream.
                      Do you want such a "lift"??
                      Now it's war. And the time factor is decisive. Dreams of beauty are over, and modernized ones are already coming from the HH ... BMP-1M "Basurmanin" !!! Better than nothing, because the infantry needs to fight NOW, and not in a "beautiful tomorrow".
                      Quote: ultra
                      , dancing with tambourines around the legacy of the USSR and brought our sun to where they are.

                      The Soviet heritage provides the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation today with everything that the Army fights with. If you didn’t start upgrading the T-72B to the T-72B3, what would we be left with now? If we didn’t have thousands of tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, guns, self-propelled guns and stocks of shells for 1,5-2 world wars in storage, what would we fight now?
                      SUCH a legacy to the disabled of the mind went ... well, at least there is where to get it.
                      And in the war they fight with what they have.
                      And praise to Ahura Mazda, we have it.
                  2. ultra
                    ultra 29 July 2022 19: 40
                    -3
                    What does it have to do with 30mm or not? The main losses are like hp. so armored vehicles come from artillery.
                    1. bayard
                      bayard 29 July 2022 20: 53
                      +4
                      Energy and penetrating ability of large fragments of shells 152\155 mm. approximately equal to or below the penetration ability of a 30mm projectile. guns. And the data on the armor resistance of the "Dragoon" was given just like that - it holds a direct hit of 30 mm. projectile and large fragments of a 6" projectile.
                      Or for you 30 mm. the gun does not apply to artillery?
                      1. ultra
                        ultra 29 July 2022 21: 52
                        -5
                        Are you on an armored train?
          2. Alex777
            Alex777 30 July 2022 19: 57
            -1
            Quote: bayard
            In general, armored vehicles for infantry should become heavier.

            Yes? And how will this help her against Javelins and the like, but better?
            1. bayard
              bayard 30 July 2022 22: 27
              +2
              Quote: Alex777
              vs Javelins

              The war is not fought with "Javelins" alone. In general, the survival factor of armored vehicles is important, and especially the survival rate of the l / s they carry. How to deliver infantry to the battlefield? BMP-1\2 cans? Motorcycle leagues?
              The BMP-3 has a not too large troop compartment and there are not so many of them. And in the basic version, its armor resistance is still insufficient. Therefore, the question arises of the urgent need for assault / assault units of the TBTR.
              Moreover, in light of the start of serial production of the Terminator (BMPT \ ShMPP), there is an acute need for a TBTR - with a sufficiently large internal volume, protection close to tank protection and a light combat module with an automatic cannon. The task of which is the delivery of assault infantry to the battlefield, the delivery of ammunition and other equipment to the battlefield, and the evacuation of the wounded.
              Why not TBMP?
              Because the functions of fire support in battle will be taken over by the Terminators, making the TBMP redundant.
              In the case of urban battles and assault on highly protected enemy positions, the combination: tank \ BMPT \ TBTR will be ideal in terms of its effectiveness and functionality.
              Quote: Alex777
              Javelins and the like, but better?

              Countering the roof-breakers, of course, is now quite acute, but the practice of fighting in / on has shown that they are not so effective ... and judging by the footage from the battlefields, the visors have already been removed from the tanks.
              But to withstand the blows of heavy fragments, heavy machine guns and automatic guns of 30 mm caliber +, they must.
              What to do with the huge number of available BMP-1\2\3?
              Leave them in service until they run out of resources. Reinforcing some of them armor (side screens, additional armor sheets on frontal projections) - those that can lose buoyancy (up to 70% of the existing fleet). The BMP-1M "Basurmanin" can eventually be retrained into a tracked armored personnel carrier with the appropriate functions. BMP-3 leave side screens.
              And TBTR to organize production on the basis of the hulls of the tanks stored on the DH - the first versions of the T-72, T-80 and ... the entire existing T-64 fleet.
              Requirements for TBMP - tank security (plus or minus), mobility, capacity.
              Similar work was carried out at KhTZ and their example can be very useful.
              I propose to leave the dreams of the T-15 and T-16 in the dreams of their adherents, because they are unrealizable. The RF Armed Forces need to receive hundreds of such heavy, highly protected and capacious armored personnel carriers in the near future. And in total such machines are needed for the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (my value judgment) of the order of 1200 - 2000 pieces. And it is possible to realize this only using the tank hulls available in storage, using free / insufficiently loaded tank repair capacities, and using only available and production components for their assembly.
              We have a land war, which can be developed and expanded. And action must be taken now.
              Russia should count on the forthcoming rather long period of military conflicts.
              And we will have ... little infantry in these conflicts.
              And that which is not enough must be PROTECTED.
              hi
              1. Alex777
                Alex777 31 July 2022 11: 44
                +2
                Quote: bayard
                And we will have ... little infantry in these conflicts.
                And that which is not enough must be PROTECTED.

                I agree with the statement that the infantry must be protected. That warriors must be protected. It should not depend on their number.

                Quote: bayard
                What to do with the huge number of available BMP-1\2\3?
                Leave them in service until they run out of resources.

                PMSM, let a huge number be located at the storage bases. In modernized and combat-ready condition. As long as the enemy has a supply of ATGMs, etc.

                Quote: bayard
                And TBTR to organize production on the basis of the hulls of the tanks stored on the DH - the first versions of the T-72, T-80 and ... the entire existing T-64 fleet.

                Money to the wind.

                Quote: bayard
                I propose to leave the dreams of the T-15 and T-16 in the dreams of their adherents, because they are unrealizable.

                Vice versa. There is money. What is needed is clear.
                Quote: bayard
                The RF Armed Forces need to receive hundreds of such heavy, highly protected and capacious armored personnel carriers in the near future. And in total such machines are needed for the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (my value judgment) of the order of 1200 - 2000 pieces.

                So many were going to build. So far, Siluanov has not cut the HPV by a third. The export of capital from the country has stopped. It's time to direct resources to the production of the most modern technology. Palliatives are a waste of time and resources. Let the old equipment be in stock.
                They will still come in handy in that modernized form, which will not require excessive investments.

                Quote: bayard
                Russia should count on the forthcoming rather long period of military conflicts.

                So.
                1. bayard
                  bayard 31 July 2022 16: 10
                  +4
                  Quote: Alex777
                  Quote: bayard
                  And TBTR to organize production on the basis of the hulls of the tanks stored on the DH - the first versions of the T-72, T-80 and ... the entire existing T-64 fleet.

                  Money to the wind.

                  So quickly get the right amount (albeit at a minimum) of heavy armored personnel carriers here and now. At the same time, without diverting the main production from current and new orders.
                  In addition, the "Armata" platform is frankly crude, has not been mastered by the troops, and even if they appear in at least some quantity, they will have problems with development, operation and, as a result, combat use.
                  Quote: Alex777
                  Quote: bayard
                  I propose to leave the dreams of the T-15 and T-16 in the dreams of their adherents, because they are unrealizable.

                  Vice versa. There is money. What is needed is clear.

                  So I also think that since there is money, then it is necessary to do what the troops are able to quickly master and operate without problems. And this is the chassis of tanks available and mastered in the troops, standard engines and serial systems and combat modules.
                  If someone considers that it is not profitable to remake the old (used) chassis, you can organize production on the T-90 chassis. And since the TBTR will be somewhat lighter than the tank, the engine can also be used from the previous generation - from the stock.
                  But it will take the main production facilities.
                  You can follow the same path as the modernization of tanks - the modernization of the T-72B3 goes in parallel with the production of the new T-90M, and the modernization of the first versions of the T-90 to the T-90M. As a result, we have the quantity, quality, and loading of tank repair plants. This is a very correct example. If the repair plants ensure the production of at least several hundred TBTRs from the hulls of old tanks, this will be a very serious help.
                  And the T-15 and T-16 will still be white elephants in the troops - few, expensive, unreliable, a bunch of childhood illnesses and it’s scary to send such people into battle, like links in WWI.
                  Any weapon works for the final result only if it is mass-produced and brought up / reliable.
                  Why is the T-72B3 bad?
                  Everyone is good! Especially at the price and pace of modernization by the forces of repair plants.
                  And it will be the same with the TBTR - there is more welding work and the degree of alteration, and the armament is just a module from the BTR-82A or equivalent. It won't be expensive. In extreme cases, no more expensive than the T-72B3 (without M). And a less loaded chassis will last longer, as will the engine.
                  Well, why is the T-72B3 not a waste of money, but a much simpler TBTR from the same hull - otherwise? On the contrary, they will last for decades.
                  Quote: Alex777
                  So many were going to build. So far, Siluanov has not cut the HPV by a third.

                  And there will always be smart people advocating budget savings, a la Witte or the same Siluanov.
                  but even these blockheads (for simpletons) and direct enemies of the Fatherland (for those who understand) can, and at the same time - much easier, be convinced of the possibility and necessity of just such - relatively inexpensive and quick to implement solutions.
                  And let them see this as "ersatz" and "paleative", let them think that this is how they will cause more damage to the country ... we don't need "checkers", right? We need to go to war. Fast, reliable, with good protection and a repairable chassis.
                  Quote: Alex777
                  Let the old equipment be in stock.

                  In stock with the possibility of a quick return to service, let there be tanks suitable for modernization and the most recent (late Soviet release). And TBTR can and should be made from tanks of the first series, in which the combat value as a tank is low, but as a base for TBTR they are very suitable.
                  And "Armata", as a platform and as an idea, is better left for a calmer post-war period. When there will be time for experiments in the troops with development and fine-tuning, there will be time for the smooth saturation of the troops with new equipment.
                  Now the time is different - everything is needed here and now. Decisions must be quick to make and implement. But most importantly - correct.
                  There were already enough mistakes in the pre-war period.
                  hi
                2. bayard
                  bayard 31 July 2022 16: 24
                  +5
                  And this night, "Lepestkov" was thrown at Donetsk - several districts fell asleep, thickly. One is right under my window, at the entrance to the entrance. But only a dozen or two were collected in the yard, now sappers are tearing them in the pits. This war, in terms of cynicism and inhumanity of the Nazis, will surpass all the wars of the last century ... and you are talking about "checkers" on new platforms ... HERE and NOW, in large numbers and acceptable quality!
                  And no novelty!
                  Only tested by time, practice, war.
          3. g1v2
            g1v2 31 July 2022 20: 12
            +3
            Yes, I mostly agree with you. BMD should only remain in the 45th and maybe somewhere else. Air assault should be transferred to the BMP-3. Maybe even a floating version of the bmp-zf, like marines for unification and greater mobility. I think it will not be difficult to transfer the entire line of equipment based on BMD4 to the base from BMP3. They are close.
  2. Frost
    Frost 28 July 2022 07: 32
    +42
    The requirements for mandatory parachute landing of airborne equipment are insanity. Classical parachute landing is not used for obvious reasons. If we take the difference in price between the BMP-3 and BMD-4 (and these combat vehicles are absolutely comparable in terms of armament), each BMP-3 infantryman can buy a very good thermal imager, NVD 3+ with options for mounting on a helmet and weapons, for the difference in price, any collimator sight in the world to choose from and there will still be money left for the Mavic quadrocopter. This difference is the payment for the possibility of parachute landing of the BMD-4, which cannot be realized in war.
    1. nnm
      nnm 28 July 2022 07: 44
      +24
      Colleague, in this case, you will agree that landing units without equipment is pointless (except for MTR operations) and we again come to the conclusion that it is necessary to revise the concept of the Airborne Forces: in heavy infantry, with a connection with UAVs, space reconnaissance, robotic systems, artillery, aviation and so on, in some other format, but it seems that the reform of the Airborne Forces is really overdue.
      1. YOUR
        YOUR 28 July 2022 07: 56
        +4
        I would like to understand what you mean by - heavy infantry.
        1. nnm
          nnm 28 July 2022 08: 06
          +10
          In principle, I further listed the criteria. In fact, they are assault units armed with not only "heavy" equipment and personal weapons, but also constant interaction with UAVs, space reconnaissance, aviation, including AWACS, artillery, tank and other units. It might be worth rethinking the idea of ​​modularity. You have to be a much greater specialist than I am and have the latest objective information on the use of the Airborne Forces in order to make a final conclusion and proposals. In fact - since the most prepared guys are being selected in the Airborne Forces, it seems to me that these can be parts of a breakthrough and storming of urban development
          1. YOUR
            YOUR 28 July 2022 08: 17
            +5
            Even with AWACS, of which we only have a dozen?
            In principle, what you wrote is an ordinary motorized rifle unit.
            1. nnm
              nnm 28 July 2022 08: 56
              +10
              This conditional motorized rifle unit is lucky. But to be honest, I have not yet seen such interaction and saturation with firepower, reconnaissance and interaction in real units. That's when EVERY platoon commander will have on his tablet an image of the entire situation, intelligence, will be able to assign targets to UAVs, attack aircraft, and the system will independently select targets and issue recommendations for target designation, then this will be exactly the unit I am writing about.
              And the same "Warrior" is the first step in this direction.
              1. YOUR
                YOUR 28 July 2022 09: 59
                +4
                Unfortunately, this is all in the realm of fantasy.
                1. nnm
                  nnm 28 July 2022 10: 24
                  +7
                  Why? I would agree with you if these systems did not exist separately. ACS, and this is the most important thing, exists. UAVs exist, closed channels, and so on ...
                  That is, the elements already have it all. Including in our aircraft. But put it all together and the effect will only increase. Again, the same "Warrior" is precisely an attempt to move in this direction.
                  I'm not writing about blasters, death stars, etc., everything that I have listed is quite real and exists. But scattered, in exhibition specimens or sporoidally. I just propose to collect everything in a single complex
                  1. TreeSmall
                    TreeSmall 28 July 2022 16: 50
                    +13
                    Quote from: hmm
                    ACS, and this is the most important thing, exists. UAVs exist, closed channels, yes, and t

                    Not ACS, but ESU TK.
                    And doesn't exist.
                    Many billions were allocated 2001(?)
                    25.01.2022/3,75/XNUMX TsNII EISU went bankrupt with debts of XNUMX billion rubles
                    (a bankruptcies beginning b in 2018)
                    There are 50 million lines of program code (more than in Windows), but we don't have our own OS.
                    FCs was valued at $300 billion, but Future Combat Systems was officially shut down in 2009 despite spending $18,1 billion.
                    We have no element base, no software, communications at the WW2 level, UAVs appear sporadically and the whole country collects them.
                    Don't get hung up on illusions.
                    You will remove the tablet in the Ratnik kit and see what it is and by whom it was produced.
                    As reported, by 2020, 40 sets of ESU TK worth more than 300 billion rubles should be received there.
                    aha
                    You provide high-precision ammunition first: artillery, aviation, and T-90 MS troops, and then dream of a network-centric warrior.
                    Something is not observed
          2. Eroma
            Eroma 28 July 2022 19: 05
            +3
            In the distant past, there were units of the Grenadiers, these were assault units, where stronger fighters were selected, capable of throwing grenades away. Recently I read an interview with the commander of the LDNR unit (I don’t remember who) repeat he says that only 30% of the fighters are able to storm, the rest are more defensive or something. Therefore, I agree that it is necessary to form motorized infantry in the army as the bulk of the army and assault units in the ground forces using the practice of forming airborne units. The Airborne Forces themselves are also needed as a rapid reaction force
        2. Romario_Argo
          Romario_Argo 28 July 2022 17: 44
          -2
          in my understanding - heavy infantry of the Airborne Forces
          this is the integration of an active exoskeleton into the equipment of a paratrooper
          from TsNII Tochmash,
          only with additional hinged ceramic armor
          1. Egg
            Egg 3 August 2022 15: 23
            +1
            Quote: Romario_Argo
            my understanding is the heavy infantry of the Airborne Forces
            this is the integration of an active exoskeleton into the equipment of a paratrooper
            from TsNII Tochmash,
            only with additional hinged ceramic armor

            all this is beautiful, only they don’t go on the attack in full growth, but how do you propose to crawl in this? or covertly move? just look at his feet, this canoe will cling to everything it can.
            This crap is only on the march and will be useful, it’s better to see how the Amers solve this problem using robots to carry heavy loads (additional equipment and ammunition), and the soldier remains free in his actions.
            1. Romario_Argo
              Romario_Argo 3 August 2022 15: 38
              +1
              will crawl freely and not cling to anything after alignment at the landfills after 3 months
              stealth will be provided by capes
              feet - so good, mines on the side
              and no one talked about a full-length attack - but it's much better than Defender, Dragoon, Voin-KM
              1. Egg
                Egg 3 August 2022 20: 37
                0
                Quote: Romario_Argo
                will crawl freely and not cling to anything after alignment at the landfills after 3 months
                stealth will be provided by capes
                feet - so good, mines on the side

                at least 3 months, at least 2 years, you apparently never crawled under a thorn ....
                the cape is good, but such a "bump" is unlikely to hide, but the mine doesn’t care what to tear off, it’s the same for her foot, that foot with that canoe that hangs on the side, well, just think, the foot won’t fly away beyond the horizon, it won’t make the fighter feel better, but stretching to catch that stray that on the side of the foot is easy.
                in short, the exoskeleton will be good in one case, when it is hung with armor and the fighter will be used as a tank or a mobile firing point, in all other cases, freedom of movement will be much more important, but for other things, it would be better if the thread of an autonomous donkey was muddied or cart.
                1. Romario_Argo
                  Romario_Argo 4 August 2022 09: 35
                  0
                  the exoskeleton will be good in one case, when it is hung with armor and the fighter will be used as a tank or a mobile firing point

                  exactly
      2. Frost
        Frost 28 July 2022 08: 08
        +11
        Quote: nnm
        conclusion about the need to revise the concept of the Airborne Forces: in heavy infantry

        The reform of the Airborne Forces requires cardinal steps. We will have to completely get rid of the extremely expensive and compromised in terms of defense-weapon equipment, which is parachuted exclusively during exercises (because in combat without completely suppressed enemy air forces and air defenses, this is impossible). The paratroopers need to be transferred to conventional conditionally "heavy" armored vehicles of motorized riflemen, which will allow them to perform the tasks actually assigned to them with greater efficiency.
        In any case, even the promising (not to mention the current) capabilities of Russia's military transport aviation do not allow the simultaneous transfer or landing of more than one airborne unit at a time, and the air transportability of the same BMP-3 does not fundamentally differ from the BMD-4M. Rearmament in this vein will in no way affect the capabilities of the operational transfer of forces by air, however, it will reduce excessive costs for the purchase and maintenance of a fleet of special vehicles with many compromises, whose special capabilities are not really used, and will increase the efficiency of combat missions by airborne forces by increasing protection , firepower, artillery and number of infantry. The only question is in what proportion it is worth modernizing the landing force - in the direction of making most of them heavier to the level of motorized riflemen, or finally lightening them to the level of light infantry. The question is debatable.
      3. svp67
        svp67 28 July 2022 10: 07
        +7
        Quote: nnm
        in heavy infantry

        Why not easy? In my huntsmen, it would be about them. Grenadiers, these are engineering assault units, but the training of the Airborne Forces is precisely jaeger.
        1. nnm
          nnm 28 July 2022 10: 27
          +3
          Because the number of airborne forces is excessive for this function. And judging by Ukraine, it is the creation of shock assault units that is required. It requires the ability to ensure the modular concentration of all forces and means, and with the involvement of various types and types of troops.
          1. svp67
            svp67 28 July 2022 12: 47
            +2
            Quote: nnm
            Because the number of airborne forces is excessive for this function.

            I agree. But this does not mean that the “light” infantry, which is now under a huge load, should be abandoned during the battles in the same forests of northern Ukraine and the battles for us.
    2. Sergei_tactics
      Sergei_tactics 28 July 2022 08: 11
      -9
      Civil "Mavik" in the equipment of the structural military unit of the Russian army? What nonsense are you writing? Maviks are used by militias out of hopelessness, and then they need to be reflashed for the simplest protection against interception. Otherwise, your mavic flies on dill positions for a maximum of half an hour
      1. Frost
        Frost 28 July 2022 09: 29
        +7
        Quote: Sergey_tactics

        Sergei_tactics
        Today, 08: 11

        0
        Civil "Mavik" in the equipment of the structural military unit of the Russian army? What nonsense are you writing?

        The work of the mortar crew using the quadrocopter Mavic 2 - DJI, 45th Separate Guards Special Forces Brigade of the Airborne Forces.

        26-02-2022 / Antonov airport "Gostomel"


        1. Sergei_tactics
          Sergei_tactics 28 July 2022 09: 38
          -9
          And how does your photo cancel the essence? Any serviceman may have a civilian cell phone in his pocket, but this does not mean that the usual cellular balalaika from the Euroset is the equipment of the units of the Armed Forces of the Russian army. Do you have any idea how civilian and military equipment differs from each other?
          1. Frost
            Frost 28 July 2022 11: 39
            +5
            Quote: Sergey_tactics
            this does not mean that the usual cellular balalaika from the Euroset is the equipment of the units of the Armed Forces of the Russian army. Do you have any idea how civilian and military equipment differs from each other?

            Let's take a civilian Mavic. Can you suppress it? Yes! Just like Orlan or ZALA. Detect the place of work of the UAV operator? With absolutely the same probability as Orlan or Zala, or many other domestic military UAVs. Hack the system through "secret loopholes"? No, first of all, there can be no secret loopholes for political reasons due to the lack of a lobby of a potential enemy, i.e. for example, the USA does not make any microcircuits, controllers, chips for this UAV - all China. Hack on the fly? No... WPA end-to-end encryption now costs almost 10 tr. cost.
            Conclusion: Crypto resistance, Noise immunity absolutely the same as that of our UAVs, that of consumer goods such as Maviks and Phantoms - the difference is only in picture quality, mass character and price. The quality is higher, mass and affordable, the price is ten times lower. Therefore, they can be bought many times more and achieve greater performance. Reservation only for ICE options (Orlan), because regardless of the Mavic's 4K picture, it won't be able to fly as far as Orlan or hang in the sky for so long - this is probably the only point on which most civilian copters lose.
            1. Sergei_tactics
              Sergei_tactics 28 July 2022 12: 12
              -6
              Do not write nonsense. Suppressing Mavik is dozens of orders of magnitude easier than Orlan. I won't even read your heresy. Don't bother
          2. Vic Vic
            Vic Vic 29 July 2022 11: 11
            +3
            "Any soldier can have a civilian cell phone in his pocket..."
            A serviceman, especially during combat, reconnaissance activities, should not have any civilian phones at all, unless the presence of such a phone is due to any combat mission.
            In addition to the unmasking factor, during the operation of the phone, it is also the prevention of unnecessary own heroic photo, video shooting, and also, the absence of a phone saves relatives from possible harmful and psycho-traumatic conversations with the enemy side, in case of capture or death of a serviceman on enemy territory
      2. FRoman1984
        FRoman1984 28 July 2022 17: 31
        +2
        Quote: Sergey_tactics
        Civil "Mavik" in the equipment of the structural military unit of the Russian army? What nonsense are you writing? Maviks are used by militias out of hopelessness, and then they need to be reflashed for the simplest protection against interception. Otherwise, your mavic flies on dill positions for a maximum of half an hour

        And what, does our Army have something better? Not as bulky as "Orlan"? Mavik, as an example of what you need to have. Naturally, it does not meet the requirements at all.
        Borisov and Rogozin - bastards - were correctly fired. Everything that could be failed in the UAV was failed.
        1. Sergei_tactics
          Sergei_tactics 29 July 2022 06: 07
          -3
          How are you, Roman? Are you playing the clown now, Roman, or is it not for you to think with your head? Do you want to supply Ukraine with Mavics? I specifically said to one that a civilian copter is intercepted with ease by any snotty EW of Ukraine. Broadband noise is set and your Mavic will crash into the bushes, as it happened dozens of times at the front. This is already known to everyone, except for labor-educated districts like you and Frost. But that one is understandable, in every topic he shits on Russian weapons. The army does not need a Mavic, but a military copter, which will have at least an adaptive antenna that allows you to tune out interference noise.
    3. Sergey Aleksandrovich
      Sergey Aleksandrovich 28 July 2022 08: 44
      +5
      The BMD-4 is more expensive than the BMP-3, not because it is so much more complex and perfect. But because the Volgograd Tractor Plant, which was engaged in the production of airborne combat vehicles, was destroyed. The transfer of production to another poorly adapted industrial site entailed serious costs, which resulted in an excess of prices. So, those who want to save a lot on airborne equipment, I hasten to disappoint.
      1. Comrade I
        Comrade I 28 July 2022 10: 57
        +6
        Savings are not only in the price of equipment. And it's not just about saving.
        We have at our disposal a whole elite branch of the military that in reality does exactly what ordinary motorized infantry does.
      2. Frost
        Frost 28 July 2022 11: 47
        +1
        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
        The BMD-4 is more expensive than the BMP-3, not because it is so much more complex and perfect. But because the Volgograd Tractor Plant, which was engaged in the production of airborne combat vehicles, was destroyed.

        Let's take as a basis only the main indicators of the machine. The mass of the BMD-4M is 14 tons, the length is 6,1 meters, the height is 2,2 meters, the power of the UTD-29 diesel engine is 500 hp. For comparison, the BMP-3M, unified with it in a number of units, manufactured by the same Kurganmashzavod, has the following indicators: 22,7 tons with dynamic protection, 7,1 and 2,3 meters, 500 hp. with diesel UTD-29 or 660 hp with UTD-32. BMD-4M made of expensive aluminum alloys, because there is a requirement to parachute. BMD-4M is not produced in Kurgan, but at the Volgograd Tractor. Its military unit has been restored and is now operational.
        1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
          Sergey Aleksandrovich 28 July 2022 12: 34
          +5
          It is you who are simply ill-informed about how much is left of the tractor plant.
          1. frog
            frog 29 July 2022 13: 58
            +4
            Checkpoint and a couple of monuments. And what the comrade mentioned is, at best, a design bureau with a small production. And the series, even the current one)), cannot drive.
        2. frog
          frog 28 July 2022 14: 33
          +3
          On January 19, 2019, Kurgan Machine-Building Plant JSC sent 62 BMD-4M units (two battalion sets) to the troops

          And when was Volgograd restored?
      3. militarist63
        militarist63 30 July 2022 23: 03
        -1
        The BMD-4 is more expensive than the BMP-3, not because it is so much more complex and perfect. But because the Volgograd Tractor Plant, which was engaged in the production of airborne combat vehicles, was destroyed. The transfer of production to another poorly adapted industrial site entailed serious costs, which resulted in an excess of prices.
        Sorry, but what was so supernatural in the Volgograd Tractor Plant, in terms of the supposedly super-cheap production of BMD ??! wink
        1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
          Sergey Aleksandrovich 30 July 2022 23: 12
          -1
          And where does it say about super cheap production? Raw materials are nearby and a well-established technical process under the supervision of the local design bureau. No miracles. Although, I understand where the legs of such questions grow from. there is no understanding of what costs are.
          1. militarist63
            militarist63 1 August 2022 00: 29
            0
            Although, I understand where the legs of such questions grow from. no understanding of what costs are
            Dear, I have complete order with understanding! And I visited such factories during the years of service ..., in particular, in Kurgan. There are no problems (without any costs) for the plant, which has been producing various types of armored vehicles for many decades, to master the production of a new model of comparable armored vehicles, even airborne, though not. By what indicators did you determine that in Kurgan, as you put it, an unsuitable site ??! And what is such a super-duper ... should a site for the production of airborne equipment be equipped with?! wink Maybe the workers of the plant should all be with badges "Parachutist"? laughing
            In general, according to what "prices" did you determine that the BMD-4M is somehow globally different from the BMP-3, in terms of their price? wink
            1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
              Sergey Aleksandrovich 1 August 2022 09: 00
              -1
              Well, since you have the feeling that there are no problems, I do not dare to disappoint. And please read more carefully to whom and what statement belongs to, I do not need to attribute my own and other people's fantasies about the global difference in prices.
              1. militarist63
                militarist63 1 August 2022 21: 58
                -1
                I don’t need to attribute my own and other people’s fantasies about the global price difference.
                Well, you'll pardon me cognac, but you not only supported this "fantasy" (it turns out), but also began to develop it further, with your own fantasies about the reasons for this price difference ..., talking about the costs of transferring production .... and about some kind of unpreparedness of the sites ...! wink And now like this - I'm not me ...? laughing
    4. BARKAS
      BARKAS 28 July 2022 08: 57
      0
      There was an even cheaper version of the BMP-3 with steel armor without the ability to swim, sometimes called the BMP-4.
      1. Cympak
        Cympak 29 July 2022 01: 12
        +1
        With steel armor, the Rubtsovsk Mechanical Plant developed the BRM-3 "Lynx". This chassis (its characteristic feature is the absence of course machine guns) was often used by UVZ for various prototype weapons.
    5. DLord
      DLord 29 July 2022 01: 21
      +1
      Are you quoting intelligence? )
      1. Frost
        Frost 29 July 2022 15: 53
        -3
        Quote from DLord
        intelligence quote

        He has smart thoughts
    6. ultra
      ultra 29 July 2022 15: 48
      -1
      BMP 3 does not correspond to the realities of modern warfare, in terms of security. There is no need to change the awl for soap.
      1. Frost
        Frost 29 July 2022 15: 55
        0
        Quote: ultra
        BMP 3 does not correspond to the realities of modern warfare

        I agree. I would like to have Kurganets-25 in the series, but BMP-1s are still fighting in the Russian army.
  3. Leshak
    Leshak 28 July 2022 07: 33
    +8
    Good article. good
  4. Ros 56
    Ros 56 28 July 2022 07: 35
    +4
    In the mass use of the Airborne Forces, adjustments are apparently needed, but no one has canceled the actions of reconnaissance and sabotage groups.
    1. YOUR
      YOUR 28 July 2022 08: 13
      +13
      The author is wrong on one point. As a result of the Afghan war, the reform of the Airborne Forces began. They began to create separate air assault brigades. Taking into account the experience of Afghanistan and our sworn friends in the creation of airmobile units.
      Thus, dshb were created, which included helicopter units and those to which they indulged. But then the leapfrog with the general secretaries began, Andropov generally thought of transferring 4 airborne divisions to the KGB, then ... I said Hunchback with my anti-alcohol and perestroika ideas ... and these brigades fell under the knife.
      At present, our aircraft, including transport aviation has been brought to such a state that if we gather all the transport workers into a single fist, then we will hardly be able to parachute a regiment of full strength. It is possible to drop troops in the depth of the enemy’s defense by helicopters, they will be able to break through 100 and even 200 km into the depth of defense. Forgive the cynicism, but the destruction of one helicopter is the death of 12-16 fighters, while the destruction of the IL-76 is ten times more. In addition, helicopters will provide fire support to the landing force. It is quite possible that there will be operations where parachute landing will be applied, but these will be single operations. And so the capture of the airfield and already on it, by landing, the unloading of additional forces and equipment.
      1. Paladin
        Paladin 28 July 2022 08: 21
        +6
        By the way, your words were illustrated at the beginning of the CBO. Helicopter landing on Gostomel.
        1. YOUR
          YOUR 28 July 2022 08: 35
          +16
          It only went further through ... It was not for nothing that the commander of the Airborne Forces, Serdyukov, was removed.
          1. YOUR
            YOUR 5 August 2022 09: 00
            +1
            The same from the military chronicle site
            https://voenhronika.ru/publ/vojna_na_ukraine/sekretnoe_podrazdelenie_gostomelskikh_desantnikov_ehto_budushhee_vdv_rossijskoj_armii_razvedos/60-1-0-12729
        2. YOUR
          YOUR 5 August 2022 08: 59
          +1
          Who took Gostomel
          https://ok.ru/video/3680712723072
          Two divisions of the Airborne Forces participated in the Gostomel landing. The 45th separate brigade of the airborne special forces and the airborne brigade of a new type, which was supposed to parachute with equipment by helicopter (and descend on ropes).
          This new type of brigade took part in all the latest exercises, but before the start of the NWO, they did not have time to equip it with their own helicopters and prepare it for a major operation.
          It can be expected in the near future that the "crippled" equipment of the Airborne Forces (aluminum BMD-2, first of all) will disappear from the army, and the concept of landing itself will be revised and military transport aircraft will not be used for massive airborne landings.
      2. NKT
        NKT 28 July 2022 10: 26
        0
        Didn't the airborne assault units in the Airborne Forces appear in the process of merging the Airborne Forces with the airborne assault units of the ground forces?
        1. YOUR
          YOUR 28 July 2022 10: 45
          -1
          There were no DShBs in the SV
          1. NKT
            NKT 28 July 2022 12: 03
            +3
            The first DShBr were created in 1967 and were first used at the VU Dnepr-67. And in 1979, two types were created: odshbr of district subordination and several odshb of army subordination. In 1990, all odshbr were transferred to the Airborne Forces.
            1. YOUR
              YOUR 28 July 2022 13: 41
              +3
              Wrong answer. And you also misunderstood the question. The Airborne Forces are organizationally part of the SV. So there was no merger with the ground forces. The first airborne assault rifle was created on the basis of the 51st Guards Airborne Regiment of the 106th Guards Airborne Division.
              1. NKT
                NKT 28 July 2022 13: 52
                0
                Well, Shaikin writes in his book on the history and development of the Airborne Forces:



                https://www.rvvdku-vi.ru/assets/files/knigi/elita_2.pdf
          2. Unknown
            Unknown 28 July 2022 13: 01
            +2
            Quote: YOUR
            There were no DShBs in the SV

            There were DShBs in OKSVA, for example, in the 66th Motorized Rifle Brigade, 48th separate DShB and 70th Motorized Rifle Brigade, 2nd DShB - the 56th separate guards air assault brigade. Initially, the BMD and BTRD were intended to quickly leave the landing site, it is difficult to do this on your own two feet, especially if it is decently loaded. BMDs were not intended for combat with tanks and other heavy equipment. The calculation is always on surprise, surprise, with the complete suppression of air defense systems. IL-76, in Donetsk, specialists waited and guarded, and not the DPR militias, they knew when it would arrive, etc. Everyone who served in the Airborne Forces knows that the BMD burns like a match, so it is for other tasks. But, just in case, to be sure, anti-tank systems were installed on it. It's too early to give up on the Airborne Forces. Happy Holidays, landing party!
      3. Ros 56
        Ros 56 28 July 2022 12: 41
        0
        That is exactly what they did near Kyiv.
      4. aslanxnumx
        aslanxnumx 28 July 2022 12: 51
        -2
        The DShB used turntables.
        1. dauria
          dauria 28 July 2022 16: 20
          +6
          The DShB used turntables.

          Turntables used motorized riflemen - red runners 40 years ago with might and main. At the same time, remaining units of a motorized rifle division with all the goodies
          unified command and resources in a common design. There is no point in any "special" airborne forces in such operations and never has been.
      5. frog
        frog 28 July 2022 14: 26
        +1
        DShB began to create, EMNIP, in the late 60s. Before the "walk for the ribbon" ... there was still a long time to go ....
      6. Sergey Aleksandrovich
        Sergey Aleksandrovich 30 July 2022 09: 08
        -5
        The author, like most of the commentators, is wrong in the main thing. They are trying to push through the ideas of primitivism and simplification. Why should they strain their thoughts and head when they can try to simplify. The variety of tasks and technical solutions puts pressure on the immature intellect and their soul asks for simplicity. And the Airborne Forces are just strong in a variety of approaches and non-standard thinking.
        I can cite with enviable constancy the presence of the BTR-MDM "Shell" in the Airborne Forces, the motorized riflemen do not have it, not because they do not need it, but because of the primitivism in their approaches.
        Where to transfer the troops from the blown up BMD? Where to lay down ammunition and land grenade launchers? You can put in an additional armored personnel carrier. The Airborne Forces understand this, they don’t have motorized riflemen, so they don’t massively order either the BTR-50 or the BT-3F.
    2. Aviator_
      Aviator_ 28 July 2022 08: 46
      +8
      no one canceled the actions of reconnaissance and sabotage groups.
      The article is not about this, in the article about cardboard BMD, parachuted on a scale of at least a regiment.
    3. ultra
      ultra 29 July 2022 15: 52
      0
      Do reconnaissance and sabotage groups require a separate type of troops?
  5. Prometey
    Prometey 28 July 2022 07: 37
    -1
    Dead-end view of the development of troops. Only for those armies that do not care about the lives of soldiers. He threw it behind enemy lines, and there - to hell with them.
    1. Al manah
      Al manah 28 July 2022 10: 36
      -1
      They won't even let you fly will help "drop"...
  6. PPD
    PPD 28 July 2022 07: 38
    0
    due to weak anti-mine resistance.

    You might think that Kamaz fundamentally has this stamina higher.
    a new tactic for the use of landing troops is being born.

    Airborne assault units for landing from helicopters and imprisoned.
    It's new with a nice beard..
    And about the equipment of the airborne forces, airborne, if it is not there, then what to transfer if something like the situation in Kazakhstan happens again?
    1. Evgeny Fedorov
      28 July 2022 07: 46
      +18
      Do not confuse airborne vehicles with airborne ones. For example, the T-90 may well be transferred to the Il-76M and therefore the tank is called airborne. Actually, all the land equipment of the Russian Federation is intended for airlift - both the Malka and the S-400. And the airborne armor is all airborne and floating, which greatly complicates the situation.
      1. PPD
        PPD 28 July 2022 07: 55
        -5
        Nobody confuses anything.
        Do not quibble.
        And t 90 - yes, you will transfer it in such a situation - all 2 pieces. wink
        There will not be enough planes for the rest, or you will be transferring for half a month.
        1. Comrade I
          Comrade I 28 July 2022 11: 02
          +8
          And t 90 - yes, you will transfer it in such a situation - all 2 pieces. wink
          There will not be enough planes for the rest, or you will be transferring for half a month.

          Well, that is, in the area of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbtransferring heavy armor, in the end, there will still be none.
          Then it's better to transfer the military police and special forces. Which are just sharpened to solve the problems that have arisen in Kazakhstan.
        2. Sergey Aleksandrovich
          Sergey Aleksandrovich 3 August 2022 13: 02
          0
          To be precise, not a single T-76 tank can be transported to the IL-90M, it will not pass either in terms of weight or dimensions.
      2. Sergey Aleksandrovich
        Sergey Aleksandrovich 30 July 2022 23: 34
        0
        Somehow about the transportation of the T-90 to the IL-76 does not add up to easily. The carrying capacity of the IL-76M is 42 tons, and the weight of the T-90 is 46,5 tons. Somewhere an error has crept in.
        1. militarist63
          militarist63 31 July 2022 23: 57
          +2
          The carrying capacity of the IL-76M is 42 tons
          And what IL-76M still fly ?? Actually, I haven’t seen them in Afghanistan since 1986, but only the Il-76MD ... and in the Transcaucasus in 1990 they flew exclusively on the Il-76MD. And this modification has a load capacity of 48 tons ... And the latest modification of the Il-76 family - Il-76MD-90A has a load capacity of up to 60 tons.
          So, it all adds up! wink
          1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
            Sergey Aleksandrovich 1 August 2022 08: 57
            -1
            Are these questions for me? Address them to the author of the post about IL-76M. And where does the confidence come from that it is convenient and easy to transport a tank by plane at the limit of its carrying capacity? The length of the runway for takeoff, fuel supply, hull safety margin, dimensions, are not at all idle questions in this case.
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. militarist63
              militarist63 2 August 2022 01: 37
              0
              And where does the confidence come from that it is convenient and easy to transport a tank by plane at the limit of its carrying capacity? The length of the runway for takeoff, fuel supply, hull safety margin, dimensions, are not at all idle questions in this case.
              To begin with, I never told you anywhere that it is easy to transport the T-90 with this aircraft (I didn’t even write anything about tanks)! I only disputed your irony and calculations of those parameters in which you "did not add up", namely in the carrying capacity and mass of the object being transported! But the fact that the IL-76MD is completely capable of transporting cargo weighing 46,5 tons from the airfield to the airfield, I am quite sure! And my confidence, among other things, is from my personal repeated experience of using this "mode of transport" (over many years of service) and close communication with comrades from the Military Transport Aviation Committee (and to this day), who flew 76s ... And such transportation is not at some limit there .... but simply the flight range will be less than with a load, for example, of 25 tons. About the rest of the strength of the hull, the strip and so on ... just don't fantasize! wink By the way, the same IL-76M was not only designed (and their hull strength with a normal margin) for the transportation of goods at maximum load capacity, but also the landing (dropping) of FOUR cargoes of 10 tons, or TWO of 21 tons! And imagine what happens to the aircraft (in terms of centering and loads on the hull) when the last load comes off (especially 21 tons)!? wink And nothing, worked out.

              Simply, Sergey, you started adding up the wrong parameters! wink The T-90 tank, like the T-72 and T-80, simply will not fit into the Il-76 model, because the cargo compartment is already the width of the tank there! request Here is the T-62, if the mech-water is a jeweler, perhaps ... but there is a high probability of scratching the panels of the inner lining .... But, at the same time, there are "Ruslans"! And two tanks and another FAQ (for example, an infantry fighting vehicle and something else) can be driven into its expanses!
    2. moscowp
      moscowp 28 July 2022 08: 02
      +5
      In the original source, Sukonkin, just says that airborne assault units have a history and remain relevant, all other things being equal. It was the author of the "rehash" who dragged in a "new tactic"
      1. PPD
        PPD 28 July 2022 08: 53
        -1
        I didn’t read it, but yes, it’s hard to imagine that the phrases: 101 divisions and the war in Iraq in 1991 did not say anything to the expert.
        30 years ago, by the way.
        Well, yes, it's new. bully drinks
        1. moscowp
          moscowp 28 July 2022 09: 42
          +2
          Read. There is another video where Sukonkin talks about this topic on the Razvedos YouTube channel
      2. Sergey Aleksandrovich
        Sergey Aleksandrovich 28 July 2022 08: 58
        -16
        The Airborne Forces should be preserved and developed even simply to oppose motorized rifle units. Without a separate type of troops, the ground forces will follow the path of simplification, primitivism and gradually degrade. Unfortunately, there are many examples of stagnation and degradation, such as the lack of separate specialized armored personnel carriers for transporting grenade launchers and machine gun platoons, ATGM crews and drone operators. Equipment, without the specific requirements of the Airborne Forces, can roll down to the tower from the BTR-60 without a hatch and electric drive, and to machine-gun turrets on the roof without remote control.
        1. moscowp
          moscowp 28 July 2022 09: 44
          +8
          The Airborne Forces should be preserved and developed even simply to oppose motorized rifle units

          If it's just for that, then it's not worth it. Marines can handle this perfectly and cope
    3. Civil
      Civil 28 July 2022 10: 53
      +7
      Quote: PPD
      will something like the situation in Kazakhstan happen again?

      As practice has shown, no one will even say thank you, as well as for all previous operations.
  7. anclevalico
    anclevalico 28 July 2022 07: 44
    -5
    For some reason I didn’t see materials on the topic “how successfully the Terminator BMPT is working in Ukraine now.”
    1. YOUR
      YOUR 28 July 2022 07: 55
      -1
      Maybe for the reason that they didn’t show themselves in any way, that’s why there are no materials.
      1. The comment was deleted.
    2. moscowp
      moscowp 28 July 2022 08: 08
      +3
      What should be the materials? Maybe a couple of videos will show you how successful or unsuccessful they work? That's funny. Military equipment is not evaluated this way, at least it should not
    3. musketon64
      musketon64 28 July 2022 08: 52
      -3
      Here's a look here:
      "Long arm" of the special operation: combat use of BMPT "Terminator" in Ukraine.
      https://topwar.ru/199403-dlinnaja-ruka-specoperacii-boevoe-primenenie-bmpt-terminator-na-ukraine.html
      1. Comrade I
        Comrade I 28 July 2022 11: 14
        +2
        There is nothing in the article. Except for 1 (one) photo of Terminator application. And even that is just a photograph from a great distance, where you can only see their progress along with the tanks.
    4. AdAstra
      AdAstra 28 July 2022 09: 10
      -2
      Yes, they were in the "News" section request
    5. DenVB
      DenVB 28 July 2022 12: 58
      +4
      Quote: anclevalico
      For some reason I didn’t see materials on the topic “how successfully the Terminator BMPT is working in Ukraine now.”

      If you expected that the BMPT company would disperse the defenses of several brigades of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and close the encirclement around the Slavic-Kramatorsk grouping of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, then your hopes are unlikely to come true. And so they do their job, and do, as far as you can understand, quite adequately to expectations.
  8. faterdom
    faterdom 28 July 2022 08: 10
    +8
    Someday, at another technological stage of development, Hanlein's "Star Infantry" may come true.
    When the suit is your personal tank, helicopter, exoskeleton, BIUS, and in general an almost perfect combat vehicle. The only question remains: why would a paratrooper be inside at all when a dozen of these AI machines can be controlled by one operator from a well-protected launcher?
  9. AKsvlad047
    AKsvlad047 28 July 2022 08: 30
    -2
    All the conclusions drawn have the right to exist, but we must remember that Uncle Vasya was preparing the Airborne Forces for landing, after the use of nuclear weapons, when the enemy's air defense systems were suppressed. Therefore, I consider it expedient to develop two lines - this is the continuation of the line of existing airborne equipment with increasing fire capabilities of all weapons, and the formation of new brigades with heavy equipment, with attack and landing helicopter units attached to them. The structure of the Airborne Forces, changed in this way, will make it possible to flexibly use the specified type of troops, depending on the prevailing circumstances in the theater of operations, while maintaining the best traditions of the airborne infantry.
    1. Dilettante grandfather
      Dilettante grandfather 28 July 2022 08: 55
      +13
      I partly agree with your assessment. I will add that there should not be many classic airborne forces. In the current conditions, as the SVO shows, their use is inappropriate. And during a nuclear conflict, it seems to me, there will be little point in landing: an exchange of blows will destroy important targets in both territories, and against an enemy of equal training, but with heavier weapons than the paratroopers, the landing will be doomed.
    2. UAZ 452
      UAZ 452 28 July 2022 20: 31
      -2
      Alas, there are usually many more wishes than there are resources for their implementation.
  10. Sergey Aleksandrovich
    Sergey Aleksandrovich 28 July 2022 09: 16
    -1
    Too many inaccuracies. Aluminum in the armor, again, became scarce due to the liquidation of production in Volgograd. Production ceased in cooperation at three industrial giants in the city at once, these are the Aluminum Plant, the Tractor Plant (the actual production of BMD) and the Shipbuilding Plant. Moreover, the Aluminum Plant stopped production due to an increase in wholesale prices for electricity, despite the fact that the Volzhskaya HPP is located a few kilometers from the plant.
  11. Thorvlobnor IV
    Thorvlobnor IV 28 July 2022 09: 42
    +7
    The design of airborne armored vehicles, taking into account the possibility of dropping with a parachute, is a huge mistake, and the BMD-4M in its current form simply should not have been born at all. Let me explain.
    The carrying capacity of the Il-76 is 60 tons, three pieces of BMD-4M fit into the cargo compartment in terms of dimensions, each weighing 13,5 tons. If it were not for the mythical "parachute drop", the landing armored vehicle could weigh all 20 tons and have good armor and mine protection.
    The carrying capacity of the Mi-26 is 20 tons, i.e. one BMD-4M fits in, which could well weigh just these 20 tons, and not 13,5 tons of helpless aluminum "foil".
    1. AKsvlad047
      AKsvlad047 28 July 2022 09: 57
      0
      The Airborne Forces are not intended and were not created for assault operations on the front line, their goals and objectives are different, and the vehicles in service, such as Nona, BMD-4, Rakushka and Octopus, are best suited for their implementation. Well, this is my personal opinion.
      1. Thorvlobnor IV
        Thorvlobnor IV 28 July 2022 11: 10
        +6
        2 (two) infantrymen, one with a machine gun (with optics, single, or anti-material rifle) 14,5mm and the second with binoculars and a thermal imager, camouflaged to the very best, represent a mortal danger for all this equipment. The same Ukrainians make machine tools for the CPV, install optics - and here is a weapon against everything that is lighter than the BMP-3.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 28 July 2022 11: 59
          -6
          The futility of PTR was clearly demonstrated even in the Second World War. The regular RPG-7 is much more dangerous.
          1. Thorvlobnor IV
            Thorvlobnor IV 28 July 2022 13: 48
            +2
            The uselessness of primitive anti-tank rifles without optics, with manual reloading and horseback recoil against tanks? Maybe. But we are not talking about the Second World War and not about tanks, actually.
        2. malyvalv
          malyvalv 28 July 2022 12: 17
          -2
          The Airborne Forces are not designed to attack. The task is to occupy the area, dig in and defend with octopuses and nones in caponiers. Armor still matters, but not as important as during an assault.
          1. Micha456
            Micha456 28 July 2022 14: 19
            +3
            Take the combat charter of the Airborne Forces, one of the first points there is, Raid, - this is actually what the Airborne Forces were created for.
            1. malyvalv
              malyvalv 28 July 2022 20: 59
              +1
              In areas where there is no serious defense, why not.
              A raid on the area where a grenade launcher sits under each bush is unlikely to succeed, regardless of what the Airborne Forces were created for.
              1. Micha456
                Micha456 28 July 2022 23: 55
                +3
                so I’m talking about this, a raid is a sudden landing and rides along defenseless rear areas, and not assaults on strongholds.
      2. UAZ 452
        UAZ 452 28 July 2022 20: 36
        +6
        That's just for what the Airborne Forces are intended for, they have never been successfully used since their inception. So all their airborne equipment never once had the opportunity to demonstrate that the resources for its development and production were not wasted. Unless, at the ostentatious exercises, all these drops of thousands of troops with equipment pleased the eyes of the owners of wide stripes, causing a mean tear of tenderness ...
        1. Micha456
          Micha456 28 July 2022 23: 56
          +3
          quite right
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 28 July 2022 12: 00
      -1
      Do you even know that it is shorter than the same BMP-3, i.e. armor with less weight is about the same?
      1. Thorvlobnor IV
        Thorvlobnor IV 28 July 2022 13: 43
        +3
        BMP-4M - bulletproof armor, aluminum body.
        BMP-3 - forehead holds 30mm, because protected by steel sheets.
        Same?
        Who prevented you from making a steel car in the dimensions of BMD-4M, weighing 20 tons, hammering in a bolt for dropping with a parachute and buoyancy? Provide this machine with resistance to 30mm in the forehead and 14,5mm in a circle, no? Wouldn't it be useful?
        1. Thorvlobnor IV
          Thorvlobnor IV 28 July 2022 16: 39
          0
          As for me, there should be three types of such 20-ton machines:

          1. An assault transporter with a remote machine-gun turret and an ATGM of the Chrysanthemum type, i.e. with recharging from inside the machine.
          2. An air defense and fire support vehicle with a 40mm autocannon with shells, including remote detonation - in every sense a handy thing against infantry, vehicles, light armored vehicles, drones, helicopters and even attack aircraft. With special luck, you can also knock out a tank.
          3. Damage dealer - a machine with an automatic double-barreled 120-mm mortar and a hydraulic plate under the bottom for ground support. Why double-barrelled? To give g @ vna twice as much and more often - spend part of the recoil energy on reloading the second barrel.

          Each car must have a drone with the ability to launch from inside and a set of batteries on charge for continuous monitoring of the area.
          So, one IL-76 carries three different cars to the right point, and these cars can both break in to the fullest and brush off the defense, in which case.
        2. Konnick
          Konnick 29 July 2022 01: 10
          +1
          Who interfered with making a steel car in the dimensions of BMD-4M, weighing 20


          Not "who", but "what. Engine. Imagine that your car was made with the same dimensions and the engine is twice as heavy ...
          For modern ATGMs, both a tank and other armored vehicles are the same as for a 152mm projectile.
          Still, mobility has not been canceled.
          1. Thorvlobnor IV
            Thorvlobnor IV 29 July 2022 08: 09
            -1
            Good. Who prevented you from choosing a suitable engine for a 20-ton machine?
            1. Konnick
              Konnick 29 July 2022 14: 29
              +1
              Who interfered with choosing a suitable engine for a 20-ton machine

              Again, not who, but what, the dimensions of the engine compartment.
  12. usm5
    usm5 28 July 2022 09: 48
    +3
    Convincing article, but I would like to hear an alternative point of view.
  13. demiurg
    demiurg 28 July 2022 10: 04
    +6
    Because of the mythical parachute landing, some of the most trained units, in which the best candidates are selected, fight on aluminum. without normal dowry art and their tanks.
    The maximum that the Airborne Forces can allow is the equipment that the Mi-8 can drag.

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiesel

    Flea, but it can really be sent with a landing party.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 28 July 2022 11: 58
      0
      That's what airborne divisions in recent years have received a tank battalion.
    2. Konnick
      Konnick 29 July 2022 01: 15
      0
      in which the best candidates are selected

      Another myth. The best are not selected there, I don’t know how exactly now, but before there was a weight limit of no more than 80 kg. The best are selected for the border troops and marines ....
  14. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 28 July 2022 10: 22
    +6
    At the same time, the transport Mi-8s themselves and the attack escort vehicles were engaged in suppressing the calculations of MANPADS. And no parachutes in the sky.

    It seems that this is how a new tactic of using landing troops is born.

    Air assault brigade, a term known at least since the time of Afghanistan

    With similar tasks and landing method (dismounting from landed helicopters). The method that has become the main one when landing on the front line and behind enemy lines
    1. spirit
      spirit 28 July 2022 11: 30
      +2
      And many wonder why the United States is developing its high-speed "raiders". I think for such operations like Gostomelskaya, the presence of high-speed turntables for a breakthrough would significantly reduce losses hi
  15. Sergei Klimov
    Sergei Klimov 28 July 2022 11: 46
    +2
    In modern conditions of war, landing regiments and divisions are nonsense. It is necessary to break through the enemy’s air defense, no one has canceled their fighters. The speed of the IL76 is not supersonic. and artillery.
  16. EvilLion
    EvilLion 28 July 2022 11: 55
    +1
    and use scarce materials for construction (mentioned aluminum in armor)


    The author is so incompetent that he has not heard anything about either the M113 or the BMP-3.
    1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
      Sergey Aleksandrovich 30 July 2022 08: 24
      0
      Everything is more complicated here. Alloy additives are introduced into aluminum armor, and this is a different material, and the most important thing is the scale. If, as was the case in Volgograd, there is an aluminum plant nearby and spacious shipbuilding workshops, this is one thing. And if a narrow factory in Kurgan is completely different. For large-scale production, scales similar to those in Volgograd are also needed.
  17. Conjurer
    Conjurer 28 July 2022 12: 02
    +3
    Low-level helicopters, with the support of strike machines, abandoned several hundred fighters who held the object until the main forces approached

    This is the new tactic of using landing troops. They landed in the rear with light weapons, using the factor of surprise, they captured the object and sat on the defensive with anti-tank systems, MANPADS before the arrival of their troops. Either with parachutes, but in the form of a DRG - that is, several people. Mass drop, heavy aircraft behind the front line - this is already a fantasy in modern conditions.
    That is, the Airborne Forces no longer need any equipment, only good equipment for fighters, good training for quick actions during an assault and competent long-term defense.
    This is, of course, if such a type of troops (that is, for operations behind enemy lines) is preserved. All other proposals here boil down to the transfer of the Airborne Forces to highly trained hand-to-hand motorized infantry, but what's the point?
    1. arkadiyssk
      arkadiyssk 28 July 2022 14: 22
      +8
      Sense that they landed - albeit skillful, well-aimed, with a bunch of hand weapons? Such a landing will not physically have time to dig in, to gain a foothold. The enemy will simply pull up the mortars and crush the troops in the field. The whole problem of the Airborne Forces, which the author describes, is not in the Airborne Forces, but in the discrepancy between their tasks and the capabilities of other troops. Definitely, for such purposes, the Air Force is not up to par, which is simply not able to clean up air defense transporters on the way. The landing force must have target designation means, and the Air Force must have the ability to quickly hit the identified targets - in order to provide the landing force with a security perimeter. Those. in theory, all these X-59s and Calibers should not be fired at stationary targets separately from the landing operations, but online - approached 5 km and received a rocket. This is how the Americans do their SDBs from drones or F-15s. And it does not correspond to the tasks of the Airborne Forces - communication. To instantly transmit the coordinates of targets, like NATO LINK-16 similar networks. Those. if the Air Force can make an umbrella over the landing - the whole concept will be alive, but not - so at least reinforcing the armor of the armored personnel carrier, at least add ATGMs to the paratroopers - there will be no sense - well, they will last a little longer.
      1. usm5
        usm5 28 July 2022 21: 45
        +1
        All comments on the case.
      2. Conjurer
        Conjurer 29 July 2022 11: 50
        +1
        Here you need to clearly understand that the Airborne Forces will not be able to attack the defending enemy in the future in principle. This requires heavy armor, and even then, judging by the losses in the SVO, it does not always save, and the Airborne Forces will never have it for obvious reasons.
        That is, the only way to use a landing force is to catch the enemy by surprise and quickly capture an object (bridge, settlement, transport hub, seaport - that is, something that the enemy will not exactly hit with non-selective weapons) and hold it. For this, equipment is not needed (there is no sense in it - they will gouge it with the same anti-tank systems), competent defense is needed (which does not allow group destruction and restrains the movement of the enemy) before the approach of their troops.
        Otherwise, this kind of troops is not needed at all. Heavy equipment is not about surprise and fast movement. It's just mechanized infantry. And about the umbrella and the suppression of air defense - this is about the battles with the Papuans. Ukrainians are still pulling up to the SAM line and flying, and how many of them have already been killed. That is, reliable air control is the end of the war. And why then will a landing be needed?
    2. Konnick
      Konnick 29 July 2022 01: 28
      +1
      They landed in the rear with light weapons, using the element of surprise, they captured the object and sat on the defensive with anti-tank systems, MANPADS before the arrival of their troops

      And they sat under artillery raids, and no one was going to take them by storm. What was the meaning of this seat is not clear. Only risk and unjustified losses.
      It's like landing on Malaya Zemlya. He was not particularly remembered before Brezhnev. 225 days of sitting on a patch surrounded by minefields, a little over a square kilometer, a total of
      75 soldiers, of whom 25 died from artillery shells during landing, sitting in trenches and evacuation. And this landing did not really help in the liberation of Novorossiysk. Small landowners entered the already liberated city, cleared the minefields on the way to the city for a long time. The Germans were not going to storm and liquidate the landing, they surrounded the bridgehead with a continuous minefield and methodically fired in order to inflict as many losses as possible on our army.
      1. Conjurer
        Conjurer 29 July 2022 11: 54
        0
        Because in modern conditions it makes no sense to take an airfield. You will not be able to sit on it, they will shoot it down on the approach. But to capture the bridge, the settlement in the rear and restart the supply, realizing that the enemy will not hammer on the bridge, there is a reason.
  18. Per se.
    Per se. 28 July 2022 12: 37
    -1
    The Airborne Forces are used exclusively as highly trained elite motorized infantry, the equipment of which does not at all correspond to the assigned tasks.

    Perhaps it would be more correct to say that these tasks assigned to the Airborne Forces do not correspond to its main purpose?

    How many people want to bury the best airborne forces in the world ... Create a normal army, for a country like Russia with its borders and "partners", it will not be superfluous to have 1,5-2 million soldiers, especially in the current situation. If you want "highly trained elite motorized infantry", then make such divisions with heavy equipment, and you won't have to plug all the holes of the Airborne Forces, the equipment of the Airborne Forces was created for the tasks of the Airborne Forces.
    Solve the issue with transport aviation. Even if a large-scale landing is only needed once in a lifetime, like a global nuclear strike, Russia should have such an opportunity, and the enemies should know this. Vasily Filippovich Margelov did not create the Airborne Forces in order to screw them up now, as they screwed up the Soviet Union.
    1. demiurg
      demiurg 28 July 2022 14: 17
      +6
      If you want "highly trained elite motorized infantry", then make such divisions with heavy equipment
      So there are 4/5 comments about this. In the Airborne Forces, they take the most well-prepared physically, with the best moral and psychological properties. Instead of divisions and brigades of the Airborne Forces, these best fighters should be created into elite units, shock units, as they used to be called. Or assault. With the best tanks, with the newest infantry fighting vehicles, with artillery on which the fly has not yet mated.
      And leave several battalions of airmobiles, and they should have enough turntables to take the personnel away at once.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 28 July 2022 17: 05
        -5
        Quote: demiurg
        In the Airborne Forces they take the most well-prepared physically, with the best moral and psychological properties. Instead of divisions and brigades of the Airborne Forces, these best fighters should be created into elite units, shock units, as they used to be called.

        This is strong, they take them to the Airborne Forces ... Not everyone will be taken to the Airborne Forces, yes, fighters are well trained there, there are traditions that they are proud of. It turns out that it is necessary to take and select, and not to make your own real guard in the ground forces. It turns out that it is necessary, in fact, to cut off the wings of the landing force, turning it into ordinary infantry. Why is there no one like Margelov to create shock guard units with heavy equipment, good infantryman training, traditions and pride in their unit, their uniform?

        They made complete bullshit out of an urgent call, but it was possible to have well-trained fighters, selecting the best for 3-5 years urgent, and prepare the rest (including girls) for civil defense and emergency situations during the year, with a mandatory course for a young fighter and further work out at the rest of the enterprises term of military service, to pay to the fund those who actually serve in the army? Nobody canceled the constitutional debt to the Fatherland, 3-5 years of real urgent, sufficient time to train good fighters, where the idea and duty will be added to the benefits and bonuses. If you want and you can, you serve full-time, if you don't want, you can't, work off your constitutional debt to the fund of those who will serve in your place.

        It's simple, the war has always been divided into front and rear, and where everything is for victory. So the best for battle will replenish the army, and those who pee on the bed will work in the rear, for the front, for victory.
        But, for this you need a socially oriented state and people's power, and not fellow oligarchs with their selfish interests.
        The war has already begun, we cannot win without a socially oriented state and people's power, without a strong army united with its people.
    2. UAZ 452
      UAZ 452 28 July 2022 20: 55
      +5
      How many people want to bury the best airborne forces in the world ...

      And can you elaborate: by what criteria are our airborne forces the best in the world? And who is in second place? On the third? And who outside of our country agrees that our airborne forces are the best in the world? And what other armies have airborne forces, in the form of formations sharpened for mass parachute landing, with special airborne equipment? And you can find out - in what operations (but only for their intended purpose - massive, at least as part of a brigade regiment, paratroopers!) Our Airborne Forces gained fame as the best in the world?
  19. Rus_80
    Rus_80 28 July 2022 12: 41
    +1
    Sorry, but we have parachute and air assault units. Let the first ones stay with the airborne equipment, and the second ones - go in the direction of "weighting". Only change the ratio of personnel and equipment within 30-40% and 70-60%, respectively, in favor of the air assault. And also give the latter helicopter regiments (ideally), for example, two squadrons of transport and combat plus 1 support squadron on the Mi-28 / Ka-52. I dreamed of course, but everything seems to be logical. What do you think?
  20. E B
    E B 28 July 2022 14: 49
    +2
    You can compromise by making factory sets of additional armor, vehicles from the factory should have mounts for attaching additional armor, in peacetime, ride light, when necessary, hang up armor and go into battle!
    1. cat Rusich
      cat Rusich 28 July 2022 21: 15
      0
      Quote: E V
      You can compromise by making factory sets of additional armor, vehicles from the factory should have mounts for attaching additional armor, in peacetime, ride light, when necessary, hang up armor and go into battle!
      For such a compromise, you need to put on the car an engine with power, which allows you to hang additional 5-6 tons.
      That is, there will be an extra consumption of diesel fuel or gasoline in peacetime, when the engine will eat like a Kamaz, and cargo transportation like a GAZelle.
      hi
      1. E B
        E B 31 July 2022 14: 01
        0
        5-6 tons is a lot for an armored personnel carrier no extremes are needed, 2-3 tons will already be a good idea to keep 12.7
    2. Konnick
      Konnick 29 July 2022 01: 41
      0
      You can compromise by making factory sets of additional armor, vehicles from the factory should have mounts for attaching additional armor, in peacetime, ride light, when necessary, hang up armor and go into battle!


      A small comment that is better than a critical article.
  21. RusGr
    RusGr 28 July 2022 15: 05
    +4
    I also don’t understand what the hell the landing force did near Kyiv, on their pans, when the enemy has artillery, tanks, anti-tank systems, and they have nothing to fight against those weapons, shots of burned equipment
    near Bucha and a bunch of dead guys says that. And now, what do they have besides regular weapons? Landing - only as a cover for the borders of operational units or sabotage groups, but then we have MTRs, it seems !?
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 28 July 2022 15: 37
      +4
      There, they just did everything beautifully ... but the question is - Why??!!
    2. ratcatcher
      ratcatcher 28 July 2022 16: 50
      +6
      Because their task was to occupy a bridgehead. And wait for reinforcements. who came. But later than planned, and along the way they met much more active resistance than expected. Airfields also could not be used for the transfer of reinforcements. For the same reasons. And that's it. The timing of the plan has gone. The enemy organized the defense. He blew up a dam on the Irpen, and at the moment when they tried to force it. As a result, the plan to quickly capture the center of Kyiv failed. Stuck not even on the outskirts. In Kyiv, meanwhile, they distributed a large number of weapons, including anti-tank systems. As a result, the assault bogged down. And I had to leave with a gesture of "good will." It was possible not to leave. But then it would be necessary to build up and strengthen the grouping there through. And there were no people for it, apparently.
  22. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 28 July 2022 15: 36
    +2
    Translate them into highly mobile units....but determine exactly how many of them you need. Give the rest normal infantry fighting vehicles and tanks and guns ..... so that they fight on equal terms. Maybe transfer army aviation to their subordination ...
  23. Eug
    Eug 28 July 2022 15: 52
    -2
    In Ukraine, battles take place in a zone of very dense development with a high density of defense and the ability of ZSU to quickly transfer forces and assets to the landing point (even if a corridor free of air defense systems is provided). The mountains are also not the most suitable terrain for parachute landings (helicopter landings are another matter, it was not for nothing that there were a lot of DShMGs in the PV). Parachute landing should be used primarily when the enemy's defenses are loose and the landing force itself has the ability to maneuver. As far as I understand, in the Belarusian offensive operation of 1944, its use would have been very effective (but there was neither a VTA nor landing formations - they were destroyed near Kyiv in the fall of 1943, and even earlier), but in the Vistula-Oder one, similar in scale, it is no longer due to the high density of the defending forces and the possibility of their rapid transfer to the landing site and, accordingly, the blockade of the landing. In terms of technology - as for me, it is worth keeping the BMD in the same mass-dimensional characteristics, improving security by reducing the landing capacity (say, from 8 people to 4). It will be expensive - but, as for me, the security is worth it ...
    1. RusGr
      RusGr 28 July 2022 16: 21
      +1
      The question is, why such a BMD? If there is no way to drop behind enemy lines, what is the concept of it? And then, if only in a limited amount, maybe for some reason, suddenly ...
  24. ratcatcher
    ratcatcher 28 July 2022 16: 39
    +5
    The Airborne Forces in our conditions are close to the US Marine Corps. Only with an emphasis on airmobile use. Expeditionary force. Air assault. Such troops are important and needed. Quickly transfer to hot spots as needed. Giving them reinforcement if needed. But these are light troops. Here in the same 19th century there were Cossack units. Which precisely such functions often performed. Actively operated in Central Asia, in the Caucasus. If necessary, they received reinforcement in the form of artillery. Also in the army were hussar units.
    NoVDV - cannot be the main strike units for combined arms operations. They, too, will find an important place in the great war. But they cannot be the main striking force.
    As for parachute landings - in some cases they work. But again, where there is no layered defense. Surprisingly enough for the enemy. To take a bridgehead, for example, either at the beginning of the war, or in an area where the enemy is not numerous. Parachute landing is quite a rare thing.
    Transform the Airborne Forces into heavy infantry - why? We need a separate reinforced heavy infantry to fight a strong enemy during combined arms combat. With heavy infantry fighting vehicles, with tank armor. With reinforcement. But you can't send her on an expedition mission. They need highly mobile units that are fighting against a not very heavily armed, but mobile enemy. And this is the Airborne Forces. There is no need to turn "light cavalry" into "heavy" just because, due to distortions in our army, they are trying to use it for this. It is necessary to have both light and heavy cavalry ...
    Protection of military installations. Raids. expeditionary force. Fight against rebel and guerrilla forces. And finally - an unexpected occupation of objects or a springboard for an offensive.
    1. usm5
      usm5 28 July 2022 21: 41
      0
      All right.
  25. RusGr
    RusGr 28 July 2022 17: 25
    +3
    A bunch of questions about reforming the Airborne Forces, but a huge topic of questions about infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, about their replacements with "Kurgans", "Boomerangs". Where is this new technology and how it should look in the new war conditions. And in general about the prospects of armored vehicles on wheels.
  26. usm5
    usm5 28 July 2022 21: 39
    +1
    Most likely, for the specifics of the conduct of hostilities in Ukraine, the author is right. But is this conflict indicative of the methods of the great war? You always have to find a compromise between firepower, mobility and security. It seems to me that firepower and mobility are more important because mobility is also security. And it is much more effective to suppress the firepower of the enemy than to withstand his fire. But it would be more correct to equip the Airborne Forces with various equipment, depending on the nature of the combat mission. After all, the Airborne Forces are the elite.
  27. seacap
    seacap 28 July 2022 21: 59
    -2
    To begin with, I bring the news to many "experts", parachute landing is one of the many, and not the main, methods of delivering a fighter to the battlefield, due to many mandatory conditions. The actions of the Airborne Forces in the DRA, as an example confirming the alleged lack of need for airborne units and subunits, are extremely incorrect and speak only of low qualifications and understanding of the essence of the issue by the author of this opus, nothing.
    The effective use of units and formations of the Airborne Forces implies the conduct of strategic offensive operations on the scale of the front and army corps, the experience of planning and conducting similar scale operations among the combined arms commanders and the General Staff. Based on the limited military area, airborne units are used for their intended purpose, as highly mobile tactical units capable of acting independently in isolation from the main forces, to assault and capture, hold objects, and conduct raid operations. Having high combat training, and many of them having combat experience, these subunits, operating in the most difficult areas, have losses an order of magnitude smaller than combined arms subunits. By the way, there is still news for the author, all units and formations of the Airborne Forces have full-fledged artillery regiments and divisions, "heavy" tank companies, the main landing method is landing. So-so article, blah blah blah, about nothing, really topical issues are not raised.
    1. RusGr
      RusGr 28 July 2022 22: 30
      0
      I would like to see how it will operate in isolation from the main forces ... first you need to get behind the front line, regiment, brigade, etc. And get there by air through the front line with an enemy comparable in armament, fly over and land equipment and soldiers suicide. Even if part of the landing force reaches the landing site (which MANPADS, SAMs will not have time to shoot down), then in the landing area in the near future, the enemy will pull artillery, UAV reactive systems and everyone who has reached the point will be unwound in a heroic throw to the rear !
  28. Bogalex
    Bogalex 28 July 2022 22: 00
    +6
    One can only hope that the special operation in Ukraine will become an occasion for strategic changes in the most famous branch of the armed forces of modern Russia.

    It won't. The cult of the Airborne Forces has been imposed for too long both on the owners of the blue berets and on the public. In this regard, "Uncle Vasya" planted such a fat "pig" on his own offspring that you want to cry from despair.
    The Americans, as it is not sad to admit, turned out to be much smarter in this matter.
    1. Skobaristan
      Skobaristan 28 July 2022 23: 21
      -1
      Here you have to work subtly. Yes, the Airborne Forces are currently elite infantry. Purely IMHO, leave it like small children, the ability to jump, to feel special. But change to an airmobile.
  29. Konnick
    Konnick 29 July 2022 00: 48
    0
    Nobody will cancel air mobility for military equipment, and this is not a whim of the Airborne Forces. The rapid transfer of equipment by transport aviation was, is and will be. But there will be no airborne units, only parts for performing specific tasks will remain.
    And since when did the Airborne Forces become the most combat-ready troops?
    Compared to motorized riflemen, they spend half the time on combat training, since the second half of the time is spent on parachute training. And in fact, we have the most combat-ready units, I will not talk about "musicians", these are the marines, the assault on Grozny and Mariupol showed this. But the Wagnerites are beyond competition.
  30. FRoman1984
    FRoman1984 29 July 2022 05: 25
    +2
    Reorganize the airborne troops into airborne assault troops. Essentially, airmobiles. Replace all these aluminum BMD-4M, BTRD, Nona, Octopus with heavy samples. Attach a helicopter regiment to the division. Regiment VTA to have at hand. This has been written about for a long time. Even under the Union, it became clear that no one would parachute anywhere from the Il-76. But the USSR sank into oblivion, and everyone was not up to the Airborne Forces, this is understandable, the task was to survive. But in the 2000s it became much easier, and after 2014 it was necessary to move faster, but we have no one in the Ministry of Defense to think, only builders, projectors and sycophants.
  31. Dimon-chik-79
    Dimon-chik-79 29 July 2022 09: 31
    +1
    With the modern development of reconnaissance and air defense systems, all these "fun" with airborne assault on "paper" combat vehicles have lost all meaning! For a long time it was necessary to transfer the Airborne Forces from the BMD to the BMP-3! For for the sake of ghostly illusions about landings from the sky, the units were deprived of a more or less normally protected vehicle!
  32. Baikal57
    Baikal57 29 July 2022 12: 18
    -3
    Do not touch the serial production of BMD-4M, on the contrary, in Chelyabinsk, try to restore the new production of BMD-2. Anti-tank carriers and anti-snipers are ideal.
  33. Pavel57
    Pavel57 29 July 2022 12: 26
    -1
    The Airborne Forces in their history were rarely used as intended, but no one drew conclusions from this.
  34. Sedoy
    Sedoy 29 July 2022 21: 45
    +2
    The main purpose of the Airborne Forces is to work behind enemy lines at especially important facilities.

    if they arrive...
    with the current Western means of reconnaissance (from space to earth) and air defense, this is hardly ...
    at the moment, in the NWO this is neither a landing nor an infantry ...
    like a landing party - there is no work there and they don’t conduct it, like infantry - there is not enough "heavy" - they play the role of "light" infantry ...
  35. komandir8
    komandir8 29 July 2022 23: 37
    +3
    In order to lift into the air and throw out the VDD in a combined way, almost the entire fleet of Russian military transport aviation is required. Either it is necessary to increase the number of aircraft by several times, which will take a long time and costly, or transfer part of the Airborne Forces to the organizational structure of motorized rifle divisions. After the Second World War, the Airborne Forces were never used in hostilities for their intended purpose and with the release of large parachute troops, except for the 103rd Guards. Airborne Forces, which was landed by landing in Kabul, where there was no layered air defense system, and the one that was available was quickly suppressed and neutralized. And in the future, the division performed combat missions, like a motorized rifle division, but was inferior in its fire and strike capabilities due to the specifics of its combat mission. The same thing happened in the North Caucasus and now in Ukraine, except for the landing of troops from helicopters in Gostomel.
  36. Yarik
    Yarik 30 July 2022 14: 17
    -1
    As we were told ... BMD is like about AAVTOVAZ, no longer a tractor, but still NOT a car.
  37. squid
    squid 30 July 2022 16: 50
    +1
    absolutely right. the best human material is used with the most unsuitable weaponry. remove the fuck all these bmd and give out normal tanks. if impatient - keep the name and berets, but convert from airborne to assault. and the airmobile units themselves should be landed on helicopters in tactical assault forces.
    By the way, the same applies to the Marines - tanks instead of floating armored personnel carriers.
    today's Russian sun - as if a bunch of seasonings without a main course. paratroopers, marines, special forces, sailors, military space, the National Guard, etc., etc., only one thing is missing - normal infantry with normal weapons.
    1. abc_alex
      abc_alex 31 July 2022 16: 33
      0
      Quote: squid
      convert from airborne to assault. and the airmobile units themselves should be landed on helicopters in tactical assault forces.


      That is, to repeat the unsuccessful experience of the US Armed Forces. And in the end, to come to what the shtatovites came to - to the complete unsuitability of the "airmobile" units for any kind of war, except for the anti-monkey one. Even during the war with Iraq, the US no longer risked using their "airmobile" units except in small groups for reconnaissance and target designation.
      But "give out tanks" is generally from a parallel universe. Let me remind you that the US "777", with all their shortcomings and exorbitant price, was made precisely so that they could be "issued" to airmobile units.

      I agree with you - Russia needs good "normal infantry". But I remind you that extremely little attention to this type of troops arose precisely because of the "fashion trends" of recent times. It was precisely because of these tendencies that all sorts of "experts" convinced everyone that "the time of tanks has passed", that "the time of infantry masses has passed", "the time of conventional bombs and shells has passed" and in general the time of absolutely everything that is not blessed by the Pentagon has passed. But now it suddenly turned out that the time of tanks, cannon artillery and "cast iron" from aircraft did not go anywhere and did not go away. And that all this perfectly coexists and complements modern guided weapons.

      Therefore, my opinion is that there is no need for throwing from one extreme to another. And the infantry does not contradict the Airborne Forces. They complement each other. The development of the classic "infantry" should go its own way, and the development of light infantry should go its own way.
      1. squid
        squid 1 August 2022 04: 34
        0
        something is not clear about what kind of "unsuitability" we are talking about in the case of the US Armed Forces. All tasks were successfully completed.
        if we were told that "the time for ordinary *** has passed" - then where are all the "unusual" ones? where are the strike drones, satellite constellations, analogues of excaliburs, etc., etc., and at least kazy on tanks, normal drill aircraft and normal secure communications - things that have been known for more than a decade? something does not look like what is happening some unjustified bias in high-tech. on the contrary, it looks like all the tens of trillions of GPV were embodied mainly in beautiful reports in secret folders, but in fact we are fighting with Soviet weapons, modernized in places.
        as for the airborne forces, the viciousness of the concept of "elite" nature of this type of troops is absolutely obvious. to take the best personnel, disproportionate funding, and as a result - only big losses on cardboard boxes. and the complete absence of parachute landings, which have been preparing for the past 70 years. and for all this 45000 people (despite the fact that all the ground forces are 280 thousand and the infantry is not enough). Yes, even 35000 Marines with the same problems. and let's reduce all these flying-floating seasonings from a quarter to 5-10% of the total, remove their priority in terms of the quality of human resources, and reduce funding to the same 10%. this will just be a normal mutual complement and a departure from extremes. and we will send the best personnel and high priority to heavy strike units, as saturated as possible with heavy weapons, and not to "light infantry".
  38. Krilion
    Krilion 31 July 2022 00: 49
    0
    Well, finally, at least someone dared to write the truth about the crazy concept of the Airborne Forces and useless airborne equipment ..
  39. Mister who
    Mister who 31 July 2022 10: 35
    0
    It’s funny when I read about a large caliber for the Airborne Forces, this is not a shootout in a shooting range for you, the Airborne Forces land close to the enemy and work in close contact, the main thing for the Airborne Forces is speed and mobility. Cover the entire area with a smoke screen, you can pre-treat the area with bombers, parachute under the nose of the enemy, and quickly storm the bream, then withdraw to the next theater of operations. Write in a simpler way that the Airborne Forces are now being used for other purposes and close the question. Now we need to develop drones and algorithms for combat operations without operators. From the very beginning, it was clear from the size of the group that the operation would get bogged down, millionaires were not even able to block cities, and if the group was spread over the territory, it threatened to break through the front line. Therefore, there is a positional, step by step cleansing and promotion, this is for a long time. It would be possible from the beginning to close the western border from the territory of Belarus with a tank army, resolving the issue of supplies and move the entire fist of forces from the territory of Belarus to Kyiv, where the main task would be to capture the capital and eliminate the enemy’s headquarters, this would undermine the entire enemy operation - there is no supply , morally, and without the commands of the headquarters, everyone would have fled, which is also kind of bad, it would be hard to identify and eliminate them later, a kind of sleeping cell, so they designate themselves on the battlefield hu is hu. For strong fortified areas, the army and artillery are used, the airborne forces are used in separate areas, the enemy breaking through the front or an unfavorable position in certain areas, or taking important or key objects, quickly and with lightning speed close the issue, for which they need wings. True, all the concepts of a warrior are becoming obsolete, in connection with the already ongoing industrial revolution, it is necessary to revise the concepts and switch to robotization with algorithms. Future robot wars.
  40. Ivan Mak_2
    Ivan Mak_2 31 July 2022 18: 32
    0
    Quote: bayard
    Do you imagine its value?
    And the pace of production of this new product for the industry? In the conditions of the ALREADY ongoing conflict?

    Even if they produce 10 units per month, this means that they will be more reliably protected by 10 more crews, which will be able to fend off the supply of 10 units of similar Western equipment. Even the very presence of such equipment in the troops will raise morale.
  41. Ivan Mak_2
    Ivan Mak_2 31 July 2022 18: 42
    0
    The main purpose of the Airborne Forces is to work behind enemy lines at especially important facilities.
    An example of the use of the Airborne Forces in our time could serve as the Gostomel landing force. Helicopters were used as transport and means of fire support there. And the ground equipment arrived on its own. Here are the modern realities of application, under which the requirements for technology should be adjusted.
  42. Architect
    Architect 1 August 2022 07: 50
    0
    . Pay attention to how successfully the Terminator BMPT is currently operating in Ukraine.

    Well, how does it work successfully?
  43. certero
    certero 1 August 2022 10: 13
    -1
    The lobby of the Airborne Forces is too strong, so there will be no conclusions.
  44. acetophenone
    acetophenone 1 August 2022 13: 01
    0
    The Navy screwed up. But there will be no conclusion. Too strong lobby.
    The Airborne Forces screwed up. But there will be no conclusion. Too strong lobby.
    Aviation ... Intelligence ... But there will be no conclusions. Too strong lobby.
  45. sansan2
    sansan2 1 August 2022 13: 51
    +2
    In the entire history of the use of the Airborne Forces in our country, as far as I know, not a single successful operation with a mass parachute landing was recorded, they either had partial success and huge disproportionate losses, or were catastrophically unsuccessful. So it can analyze the use of airborne forces. Even the German airborne operation to capture Crete was literally a pyrrhic victory and undermined the Wehrmacht's capabilities for such operations for a long time. Parachute landing is still true and effective on a limited scale, covertly, without combined arms combat, raid, sabotage, reconnaissance, and for these tasks it is important to have effective means of communication, observation and detection, and target designation. Especially in our age, when distances for strike systems are only a matter of the value of the target and the cost of ammunition, a critically important target, if necessary, can be obtained on the other side of the planet. In my opinion, the further way for the transformation of the Airborne Forces is the airmobile forces for the rapid deployment of constant combat readiness, for the rapid projection of forces in different parts of the world, the deployment of the landing method. Otherwise, it is simply an analogue of the Japanese kamikaze, the determination to give one's life with low efficiency.
  46. Baikal57
    Baikal57 1 August 2022 14: 07
    0
    In three shifts, if the BMD-4M goes, plus the new alloys are lighter and stronger, then the 30mm anti-sniper will be perfect, Tulyaks will be able to reduce the recoil to zero and double the muzzle velocity, then they can easily counter-battery with 12mm UAS at 100km, they are good in the series go, thousands are gone for sale.
  47. Maluck
    Maluck 2 August 2022 06: 43
    0
    Not a strategist, but I think that the Airborne Forces will still be reformed towards the DRG. A massive landing, in modern conditions, is unlikely to go unnoticed, and if so, covering the landing site with artillery will not be a difficult task. Then it remains only to block the group.
    At the same time, the landing of a small DRG can be carried out much more discreetly. And if several landing groups are distributed over the area, then the probability of completing the task increases.
  48. Dimon-chik-79
    Dimon-chik-79 2 August 2022 12: 02
    +1
    What is stated in the article is more than fair and the problems as well as their solutions lie on the surface. Large-scale airborne assaults with the current development of air defense and reconnaissance means (with all satellites and drones) must be forgotten! And leave it to the special operations forces for their small specific raids and operations.
    "The first disturbing calls were heard back in Afghanistan, when light armor, more precisely - BMD-1 and BMD-2, began to be replaced by regular motorized rifle armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, paratroopers on the battlefield did not work for their intended purpose, but only replaced motorized rifle units of the army. Simply because this elite branch of the military was the most combat-ready "
    These are not bells, these are alarms! Even then, it was necessary to revise the goals, objectives and tactics of the use of the Airborne Forces, and of course, arm this branch of the military in an appropriate way. For more than 30 years and several warriors, no conclusions have been drawn, and now it’s 22, and all the same airborne paper BMD-2s, in which paratroopers still die without modern weapons corresponding to the tasks.
    In my purely personal opinion, the Airborne Forces should be armed with floating BMP-3 "Dragoons", non-floating BMPs created on the basis of the main T-72 tank for airborne assault formations, the use of the base of which will reduce the cost and allow the mass production of these vehicles, floating self-propelled guns with 152mm cannon, anti-aircraft missile systems are also capable of overcoming water obstacles. Motorized riflemen should transfer from cardboard BMP-2s and even more so BTR-80/82 to heavy non-floating BMP-3s, but in place of the BTR-82s mentioned, a redesigned BTR-90 with a front-mounted MTO and a simplified transmission. And all these Kurgans, and Boomerangs, due to their high cost, should be left to the rapid reaction forces. Here is an opinion.
  49. Arabfun
    Arabfun 2 August 2022 23: 02
    0
    Aerospace VKDV troops are their future - Moon, Mars
  50. Georgy Sviridov_2
    Georgy Sviridov_2 2 August 2022 23: 22
    0
    The main purpose of the Airborne Forces is the strategic reserve of the General Staff ... These are the people who can be transferred during the day even to Kaliningrad, even to Vladivostok, including landing if the subdromes are either destroyed or are at a great distance from the front ...
    In the Far East, parts are minuscule. Only the airborne forces can quickly build up a grouping there, and modern very fast wars are making everything more in demand. While ordinary units will travel for 2 weeks on trains, the defenders will already fall there and cities will be captured, not to mention the fact that trains with equipment are excellent targets in themselves.