Reform of the Airborne Forces in the light of the experience of fighting in Ukraine and previous wars. Tasks, vehicles, weapons

87
Reform of the Airborne Forces in the light of the experience of fighting in Ukraine and previous wars. Tasks, vehicles, weapons

After a short essay on the combat path of various parachute formations, making sure that the parachute landing of troops as a means of engaging in battle is still in demand, and also that parachute landings do not lead to any such extraordinary losses if everything is planned and executed correctly and taking into account the situation, let's move on to determine the appearance of the Airborne Forces in the future Russian army.

Let's start not with the technical feasibility of the parachute landings themselves in the war, and not with whether it is possible to solve some problems with their help - these issues were discussed in the last part. In accordance with the methodology outlined earlier, let's start by answering the question:



1. Is there any point in parachute landing at all? What forces? What is the composition of the landing troops? Where, why and under what circumstances? Is it possible to abandon it in favor of landing from helicopters?

It is this question that is decisive.

Parachutes and helicopters


In the last article, it was already said why a helicopter landing is better than a parachute one, and there is no point in repeating it. Since landing from helicopters is a much more “profitable” event than landing by parachute from aircraft, then it is logical then to reduce the above question to the following: are there situations when helicopters are either inapplicable, or nevertheless, for some reason, turn out to be worse ?

The answer to it will give us a part of those boundary conditions within which it is the parachute formations that make sense.

So, in order.

1. Long range landing. IL-76 is capable of transporting troops over a distance of about 2 kilometers and disembarking, returning back to the airfield. For the Mi-000, this is a couple of hundred kilometers.

Thus, the first condition under which the presence of parachute formations makes sense is a drop at a great distance from safe landing sites on aircraft.

2. Large-scale landing. We recall the capture of airfields in Panama. The Americans threw almost 130 soldiers from S-141 and S-2 aircraft.

At the same time, in principle, they used helicopters in Panama, and they had where to take off from. But let's ask ourselves the question - how many helicopters would be needed? Suppose we are talking about a UH-60 with its 11 soldiers inside. Then, for the landing of only this group of soldiers, 263 helicopters would be needed.

In reality, of course, there is also the CH-47. The Chinook has 33 seats. At the same time, due to its carrying capacity, it is still possible to stuff soldiers into it, standing or sitting on the floor.

Let's assume that the first assault echelon in the amount of 1/3 of the forces is landed from the maneuverable and compact UH-60s, and the rest from the CH-47s, at the rate of "all seats are occupied plus one compartment on the floor (9 people), 42 people in total" .

Then we get about 88 helicopters in the first wave and 46 heavy ones next. Total 134.
Without taking into account technical breakdowns, etc. This is a lot. This is more than you can prepare for takeoff at one airfield. Moreover, take a look at the map.


Photo source: The US Military Intervention in Panama: Operation Just Cause. December 1989 – January 1990 by Lawrence A. Yates

4 points are circled with frames, in which troops had to be landed compactly. 134 helicopters for 4 such zones would be a lot.

Someone may argue that a lot of planes are needed - one battalion in those specific conditions required up to seven C-141s to drop personnel from an airborne division, and five to drop supplies and various equipment, while the rangers who fought light, they jumped in a company from four S-130s.

But the planes "skipped" the drop points very quickly, and did not land on the landing sites, of course, while trying to drop the landing force as tightly as possible. Technically, despite the dispersion of troops during landing, aircraft can drop soldiers sequentially onto the same site and fly away at top speed. Helicopters have zero random spread, but they need a place to land.

At the same time, the landing zone could be reached by helicopters, moreover, they were used there to a limited extent to help the landing force.

We look at the photo, it was taken at the exercises of the 101st Airborne Forces of the USA. You can see how many helicopters are in the air, and there are no more than 231 paratroopers on board, and this is if all the helicopters are completely crammed with troops, if a part carries a compartment with a couple of empty seats, then even less.

Now we just estimate the size of the landing zone for the battalion.


Photo: US Army

The second point is the landing time. When jumping from such a low height as 200 meters, the fighter is on the ground in 8-10 seconds after leaving the plane. The hypothetical enemy does not have much time to shoot at the fighter hanging under the dome, and there are a lot of them, they are already dispersed in the air.

We draw the final conclusion.

When the landing force reaches a certain number, it becomes "more profitable" to drop it by parachute, even with the possibility of landing by helicopter.

Here, however, a caveat is needed.

We are talking about paratroopers who land with a minimum of equipment, and not about mechanized airborne forces, like ours. For Russia, with its approaches, everything is changing - if you land with BMD and all other equipment, then you will need significantly more aircraft than the Americans, for now, just remember this.

3. Emergency landing. There are situations when it is simply not possible to transfer helicopters to a particular area. An example of such a situation was the French landing on the city of Kolwezi, in the province of Shaba, Zaire.

From the moment the decision was made to send the troops of the foreign legion to the moment the paratroopers entered the battle (the first wave was thrown onto the city hippodrome, right under enemy fire), less than three days passed.

No helicopter force could have been in place at that speed, under any circumstances.

It would have taken months to deploy field airfields near rebel-held areas and deploy helicopters there, which was unacceptable for many reasons: from the loss of French influence in Zaire, to the deaths of thousands of French citizens in Kolwezi.

4. From the examples with Panama and Kolwezi, as well as from the mass of others, another situation follows, while rather hypothetical - parachute landing from aircraft has almost no alternative when you need to achieve real surprise (not like it was near Gostomel, where helicopters went to the target under a missile shelling - if the Ukrainians knew about the level of protection of helicopters from MANPADS, they would simply place anti-aircraft guns in the right places).

Thus, we see exemplary "niches" of paratroopers. Let's repeat them for confirmation.

Long range landing.
Landing in large force.
Landing with extremely short preparation time.
Landing with the highest level of surprise.


What are the restrictions imposed on its use even in these niches?

First of all, it is air defense. If the enemy has unsuppressed air defense, the issue is closed.

Neither in Panama nor in Shaba was there any serious fire from the ground on the landing. The Americans in Panama were very afraid of MANPADS and anti-aircraft machine gun installations. Against the latter, they sent the AS-130 gunship, which, however, did not have to work on ZPU-4. Against the first, the night landing worked, before dawn.

What to do if the enemy has air defense?

If we are talking about a developed air defense system, with some unknown, but non-zero number of anti-aircraft missile systems, or even modern anti-aircraft artillery, then there is no way out - the landing will have to be canceled.

If it is known that in the landing area there is a small amount of means that can threaten aircraft in the air, then they can be “dealt with” with the help of specially trained sabotage and reconnaissance groups, whose actions should precede the landing, and success should be decisive for the final decision about the landing or its cancellation, which can be done even when the landing is in the air.

Against a low-tech enemy with only MANPADS, machine guns and the like, a night landing can help.

Another factor in the success or failure of the landing is the proximity of the attacked object to the sea - over the sea, on the side that does not have ships, there is clearly no layered air defense.

And by the way, in Panama, the landing operations were supported by SEAL fighters in fast boats.

The second factor is fighter aviation enemy. Soviet charters demanded the unequivocal achievement of air supremacy over the areas of flight, landing and airborne assault.

At the same time, in the chosen niche of the existence of parachute troops, in that part of it where we are talking about long-range operations, our aviation, due to the small combat radius of aircraft and the negligible number of tanker aircraft, will not be able to act systematically.

This requires very careful planning and precision execution of air strikes against enemy aircraft, if any, and its airfields, in order to ensure the landing of parachute troops and prevent them from being destroyed by air strikes. This also requires that the landing force have air defense systems, which will be discussed below.

Wouldn't it be easier then to refuse to disembark as well? It is simpler, but, as will be shown below, it is not always possible, precisely in our specific conditions. And that's why.

American paratroopers and our airfields


Let's digress for a second from the landing and turn to such a stage as planning operations. Troops can't basically just move around the terrain, they're more or less tied to roads. This postulate doesn't work well in deserts, but even there, maintaining roads is critical to supply, as the 2003 US invasion of Iraq showed.

But there are extreme examples. If in some locality there are only airfields, the distances between which are sometimes hundreds, and sometimes thousands of kilometers, there are no roads, and the ground is impassable, then control over airfields in such a locality means control over this entire locality.

If you have a million square kilometers of empty land with almost no roads, with one airfield in the center, then control of the airfield means control of the entire area.

It is this area that is the Russian Arctic and Chukotka. Let's look at how many airfields we have with concrete runways, plus take into account the Temp unpaved airfield, which can be landed by transport aircraft and KS-130 tankers.


Can you see how many points need to be captured in order to cut off the entire eastern part of the Arctic and the north of Eastern Siberia from us? There are really no troops there, it is impossible to transfer them there by land or sea, these are isolated points.

And now we recall what the airborne formations did mainly during their long history?

The capture of airfields and the reception of second echelons on them. This was to be done by our paratroopers in the Crimea. This was done by the fighters of the airborne brigades of the Red Army near Moscow. This was done by the Americans in New Guinea, the British in France, again the Americans in Grenada, Panama and Afghanistan.

From these points, you can then develop an air and airborne offensive into Siberia.

And - surprise - the United States has become the only country in the world that maintains an airborne formation in the Arctic, and at the same time the only country in the world that increases the number of its airborne formations, and it is in the Arctic. There was a brigade, there was a division.

Some might say that the war will still be nuclear. Well maybe though, but who said she would only nuclear?

We recall a more or less realistic scenario of a nuclear attack, in which the United States may not receive a nuclear strike on its territory, which was described in the article "World War 2030. What should we prepare for and what will be the role of the Navy". Now it is clear that she was very optimistic both about the timing and about the ability of the leadership of the RF Armed Forces to respond, but the main message has been the same since then - a significant part of the American nuclear arsenal will be spent on knocking out our nuclear forces, and after they finish, we still have something to fight for.
And to whom.

Just a few dozen points on our earth will be burned hundreds of meters deep. And radioactive dust will bring here and there. Moscow will not. Peter, perhaps, but no longer a fact. In general, Russia will not disappear anywhere.

To produce scenarios for a global war in an article is, on the whole, a thankless task, whoever wants to believe that the Americans are deploying landing troops in the Arctic just like that, let him believe, let the rest look at the map.

The question arises - what, if something happens, to knock them out of there?

Naturally, this also requires aviation support, but ensuring the regular presence of large aviation forces over the same Pevek, and not based on it itself (or simply attracting reserves from Alaska) is very difficult, there are no concrete shelters for aircraft at our airfields, parking very small, the planes on them will be vulnerable to missile attack, and so on.

There is some chance of eliminating the air threat with careful planning, at least temporarily. But troops can only be transferred by air, and they can only be landed by parachute. Then they will again need air defense systems.

Thus, in addition to a specific “niche in general”, our Airborne Forces begin to take shape in specific defensive (in this case, counter-offensive) tasks that require parachute landing. Moreover, specific tasks, with reference to the place, the enemy, along with the forces that the enemy in theory can have.

Are there any other such clear and understandable tasks? There is. Kuriles.

Japanese front


If someday Russia has a clash over the islands with Japan, and if it starts with the seizure of part of Russian territory by the Japanese, then the most competent move would be to quickly knock them out of there.

But this cannot be done by delivering troops by sea. It will be possible to deliver troops only by air and land only in a non-aerodrome way.

The distance from the South Kuriles to any absolutely place where a large military contingent can be loaded onto aircraft completely excludes any method of landing troops, except by parachuting with airplanes.

The question remains with Japanese aviation - where ours fly a little less than a thousand kilometers, the Japanese - several dozen.

After our Aerospace Forces proved themselves in Ukraine, fantasies about the struggle for air supremacy look like crazy delirium, especially due to the fact that the Japanese have a lot of missile ships that can be much more dangerous in air defense than ground systems, but We will postpone the issue of the Aerospace Forces for the time being - there is also something to work on there, and we proceed from the fact that, at least somehow, they will be able to interfere with Japanese aviation. There are resources for this, they have not gone anywhere, the problem is in the organization and in the personnel, as, indeed, everywhere else.

But in any case, in principle, there is no other way to drive the Japanese out of the islands within a reasonable time - in order to beat them back by amphibious assault, you need to defeat the Japanese fleet, and there is no land connection with the islands.

Thus, another very specific task is outlined on its territory, with reference to the place and the enemy.

In principle, this is enough. And the collapse of some of the states of Central Asia, and the sudden capture of Russian hostages somewhere in an underdeveloped state, and the need to urgently knock someone out of a poorly protected point far from the populated areas of the Russian Federation with a wide network of airfields will require the transfer of troops there by air, and the absence of nearby airfields will require their parachute landing.

And even our probable adversary gives hints about where and under what circumstances everything can happen.

And this is without taking into account the risk of some wars in underdeveloped countries, where parachute landings may be needed for the same reasons that the Americans needed them in Grenada.

Thus, the first question has an answer - there is a sense in parachute landing, it is approximately clear where. It remains only to give an answer to the part of the question "by what forces."

States and numbers - the first estimate


Having decided that, in principle, parachute formations are needed, and having understood why and where, you need to decide on their number and organization, at least approximately.
Here it is worth recalling the old claim that the entire Military Transport Aviation of the USSR could hardly land one division.

But here lies the slyness - it is not at all a fact that the division should land at the same time and all.

Let's look at history again. Often, parachute troops captured the airfield in the first echelon, the second one landed by landing from aircraft. An important point - the landing of the first and the delivery of the second echelons could be performed by the same aircraft.

The second point - the regiments of the division in those years would not necessarily have to be landed at the same time.

Thus, we make the first assumption - the very concept of optimizing paratrooper units for the size of the VTA is to some extent not correct. It cannot be called completely wrong either, in the same, for example, post-war USSR, the disproportion was simply monstrous, it is very large even now. But in general, we must determine the strength of the Airborne Forces based on tasks, and only then match it with the number of aircraft and find some kind of balanced ratio.

How many soldiers must be on the ground in order to knock out the Americans from the captured airfield? If we assume that only the 11th airborne division will operate in the Arctic, then it turns out that they have three parachute battalions, each of which can be reinforced by part of the airborne artillery regiment (as in Panama), and in the second echelon - from an infantry battalion delivered by air, plus support units.

In total, in the first parachute echelon - a reinforced infantry battalion with several guns, followed by another reinforced infantry battalion with some heavy weapons, anyone - and so on three airfields. This is what the 11th airborne division can do in a day.

It is clear that this is an estimate on the fingers, in reality everything can go differently, they landed more on the same two Panamanian airfields. Nevertheless, this is at least some kind of guideline.

Then our counterattack should begin, because the Americans with their aircraft will be able to bring a really large mass of troops through the air, and then they will not be able to do without nuclear strikes on their territory (and their cities).

To dislodge two American reinforced infantry battalions from an airfield where they did not have time to dig in and deliver heavy weapons, you need to have at least a regiment with superior firepower against them, or, alternatively, a brigade. And here we are not talking about the current states, but rather about the states of dismounted motorized riflemen with heavy weapons.

The modern parachute squad consists of 5 people and a commander, plus a driver and gunner-operator of the BMD. An attempt to drop the regiment or brigade proposed above with all standard equipment will lead to the fact that almost all military transport aviation will have to be put on the map behind some airfield. One Il-76 will not even lift a platoon on a BMD-4 to a significant distance. And without equipment, we have thin squads, platoons and companies.

Meanwhile, the IL-76 can land a reinforced company - 126 people. If she is on foot.
Or a company of 90 people, as it is now, and 36 fighters from some units of battalion subordination, for example, a fire support company - an analogue of American weapons companies.

At this point, we come to the need for some kind of "westernization" of the parachute troops - now they should become infantry, supported by heavy weapons, only in our conditions - self-propelled.

Let's think in numbers.

Three airborne (rifle) companies on foot - three Il-76s, with them 1/3 of the subdivisions of battalion subordination. Battalion command and control units - one more. In fact, this is a primitivization, and you will have to disperse control over aircraft, decide the order of taking command in the event of the death of a battalion commander, etc., but the approximate number of aircraft per battalion is clear - five ILs. Total. With a margin of six.

But the enemy has superiority in small arms, tactics focused on him, and some kind of howitzers and mortars. You need a quality amplification tool.

The answer is the old "Nonas" as artillery and mortars, BMD-4 with a 100-mm gun as a fire support vehicle (not for every squad). Quantity - based on the task, but to the maximum - 4-gun battery "Non" for each battalion and about the same number of BMD-4, instead of which you can use the Sprut-SD SPTP, just like a cannon, and not like a light tank ( he is not).

Both "Nona" and BMD-4 are thrown at the rate of 2 cars into the plane. In total, there are two aircraft for the artillery battery, and two more for the BMD-4. 9-10 aircraft per battalion.


Self-propelled artillery gun 2S9 "Nona"

More aircraft will be needed, for ammunition, it will be necessary to have at least a couple of counter-battery radars so that the Nonas can cover the enemy howitzers, leaving themselves from under counter-battery fire, and so on, these are several more aircraft. Let 2.
Total - 12.

Taking into account the fact that about 50 An-12s are still flying, ammunition and auxiliary equipment can be dropped from them, they just need more, let's take it as 4.

How many battalions will be in the regiment? Now there are three airborne battalions and an artillery battalion, in our case three battalions of 4 companies and 8 pieces of equipment.

The Americans in Panama had 5 aircraft with equipment and supplies for an infantry battalion, but there even artillery was included in the "equipment". Here the artillery is counted as part of the battalion.

It is easy to see that a regiment with heavy weapons, which is quite powerful for a parachute formation, is delivered and thrown out by about 36 aircraft, plus an aircraft to control the regiment or 31 IL-76 and up to 6 An-12.

This is a very rough estimate. It was made based on the fact that each of the battalions landed with 8 pieces of equipment, but in reality it could be different. Somewhere it will be possible not with three, but with two battalions to solve the problem, somewhere less military equipment will be needed.

The disadvantage of such a landing is that the landing site will have to be made far enough from the target to exclude the execution of the landing at the time of landing. But, again, there are different options and different situations, the order of disembarking units and dropping armored vehicles can be different. Somewhere you will need a battalion of fighters plus four BMDs plus a pair of Sprutov-SD for the main direction, a company with a pair of Non for the secondary, etc. And fewer aircraft will be needed. All figures are very approximate, but close to reality.

In any case, the appearance of the first echelon in the maximum number is determined. Strengthen it, if possible, then at the expense of a purely infantry component, which, however, may have special tasks.

Once again, no other option is possible. An attempt to land a regiment with today's states, with the amount of armored vehicles required today, is doomed a priori. There will not be enough planes, it will not be possible to ensure a landing in a compact group and quickly assemble, a little later the question of supplying this entire group with fuel (hundreds of tons per day) will arise, and this is all despite the fact that the airborne armored vehicles have zero survivability, and the purely infantry component is weak.

And the landing described above will require about a third of the IL-76 available today, which is also a very serious force, which is also dangerous to risk, but this, at least, may not completely deprive the country of the BTA in case of some kind of failure.

And then the same planes can throw out or land the second echelon by landing. What will be in it? First, transport.

The refusal to have BMD for each squad makes it possible to increase the number of BTR-Ds or trucks. Unlike the BMD, in the BTR-D (as an option, the new BTR-MD, in the future only the BTR-D will be mentioned, this is for simplicity) theoretically a full-fledged squad of 8 people can go, and there will still be room, albeit a little. The truck is even more spacious and can also be used for transporting goods. Both BTR-D and trucks can parachute to a safe area and go to the first echelon under their own power, if possible and necessary.


Landed BTR-MD. Photo: Kirill Borisenko

Secondly, doctors, fuel and ammunition, also by parachute or landing method, depending on the situation.

If the capture of the airfield and the cleaning of the area around are successful, then it will be possible to immediately proceed to the landing force, and there you can bring in Tanks, and generally anything.

To whom should tanks be subordinated? For example, the division commander. In principle, states are a debatable issue. But it is precisely the transformation of the Airborne Forces from light mechanized troops into light infantry that is necessary if we still want to have airborne capabilities - real, not fictitious.

As a result, it turns out that the staff of the parachute squad in its foot part is approximately identical to that of the motorized rifle squad, the percentage of equipment becomes less, the infantry more.

After landing and in battle, the squad moves on foot, when unloading second-echelon equipment, it receives transport (non-combat) vehicles - BTR-D or trucks, armored vehicles with weapons begin at the battalion level, but after all heavy equipment is landed or delivered to the captured airfield (deployed on the theater during operations as part of the Ground Forces groupings), then the battalion commanders will be able to transfer the same BMD or Sprut SPTP to the company level, as a means of reinforcement, if necessary, and the regimental commander will also be able to have 122-mm artillery, and tanks. Just significantly less than motorized rifles have.


2S25M "Octopus-SDM1". This vehicle can be an airborne fire support vehicle instead of the BMD-4, if necessary.

Then the offensive force of the landing on the ground turns out to be more or less sufficient, and much fewer aircraft are needed for dropping than now. Moreover, such a landing, when switching to combat operations on the ground, without any landings, turns out to be quite strong infantry, at least relatively numerous and trained to fight on foot, but with heavy weapons and equipment.

We don't have enough infantry today, do we? How many regiments should the country as a whole have?

Let's look at the map again. A maximum of seven airfields, some of which will be enough for reinforced battalions simply because the enemy will not be able to deploy large forces there, for example, Temp or Chersky with its short strip.

It turns out that if the regiment involved in the liberation of the airfield then remains there for some time for defense or other tasks, and so in each case, then from five regiments and two battalions to seven regiments for the battle for the Arctic.

If the Kuriles, then one or two more.

Nine.

At the moment, this means that in the most difficult situation for the country and at the same time the most favorable situation for the Airborne Forces (we are already at war with America, but we still have the VTA and VKS as a whole, and in considerable quantities), for all conceivable parachute scenarios landing, three airborne divisions are enough. But these are still unlikely scenarios, to put it mildly. In reality, it will be much less. At the same time, even three divisions is significantly less than it is now.

We will return to the optimal number of airborne forces later, while we just remember the upper limit.

The composition of the Airborne Forces, and the tasks of the type of troops


The current composition of the Airborne Forces looks like this:

1. Command of the Airborne Forces
2. 38th Guards Control Brigade
3. 45th Separate Guards Special Purpose Brigade (2 OSP)
4. 7th Guards Air Assault Division (9 dshb, orb and detachment)
5. 76th Guards Air Assault Division (9 dshb, orb and detachment)
6. 98th Guards Airborne Division (6 pdb and orb)
7. 106th Guards Airborne Division (6 pdb and orb)
8. 11th Separate Guards Airborne Assault Brigade (2 dshb, pdb and orb)
9. 31th Separate Guards Airborne Assault Brigade (2 dshb, pdb and orb)
10. 83th Separate Guards Airborne Assault Brigade (2 dshb, pdb and orb)
11. 150th separate repair and restoration battalion
12. 35th separate medical detachment of the Airborne Forces
13. Ryazan Guards Higher Airborne Command School
14. 242nd training center of the Airborne Forces
15. 309th Center for Special Parachute Training of the Airborne Forces.


Thus, if we fight simultaneously with the USA and Japan, then we now have 2 divisions and 3 brigades extra offhand, and this is if you do not touch the 45th Guards. obrspn, for which there will always be specific tasks.

The number of airborne forces is approximately 45 people.

At the same time, fantasizing about battles with American paratroopers for our polar airfields is one story, but in reality, God forbid that one regiment has enough tasks for which it is necessary to parachute.

It is worth formulating now what a typical airborne formation or unit should be (and whether we need divisions at all).

So, a typical parachute task is to capture an important object, most likely an airfield. The maximum composition of the forces of the first wave of landing (parachute) is a regiment of three foot battalions, reinforced with a certain amount of military equipment (in the example above there were 8 units, this should not be taken as a dogma). In exceptional cases - reinforced by reconnaissance units.

In the second wave of landing forces - cars, armored personnel carriers for previously landed fighters, possibly tanks, artillery, for example, a division of 122-mm howitzers D-30, if we plan to drop them with a parachute, or a division of 152-mm howitzers, if not. Tanks, at least a company. Probably more infantry.

Let's try to make a sketch of what is at war with us in the limit. In the first echelon, we have a battalion jumping as part of the command, three companies of infantry, one company with group weapons, a platoon of 4 BMD-4s, which now just shoot and do not carry anyone without urgent need, 4-gun battery SAO 2S9. About.

In the second, BTR-D and trucks are additionally delivered. Here it is necessary to think over the structure of subordination. Which unit will include the BTR-D? A separate company of armored personnel carriers, the vehicles from which are attached "on the ground" to paratroopers? Include in the departments by machine? It is better to leave this question for later, perhaps it will even need to be worked out in exercises. One way or another, in terms of people, this is about a company, in terms of cars - more.

What else? Truck driver. Tank company. Regimental artillery battery, for example, six-gun. The weakness of this artillery unit is compensated by the fact that the battalion commanders have their own "Nons".

If we slightly strengthen the rear of this formation and give it a reconnaissance battalion instead of a reconnaissance company, we will get a four-battalion brigade capable of acting both as a parachute and as a motorized infantry (in our current terminology - motorized rifle).

What does such a brigade need in order to fight from helicopters? After all, such tasks will arise more often than parachuting. At a minimum, nothing. The same battalions just get into helicopters instead of planes. But these battalions cannot be strengthened. If artillery in the form of D-30 howitzers can still theoretically be transferred on the external sling of a helicopter, having developed a slinging system, then something heavier can only be used on the Mi-26, which are few in number, and it is extremely undesirable to lose them, which together will complicate their use in landing operations.

The question arises - how to strengthen the landing? It is also logical to have 120-mm mortars as a heavy weapon of the battalion, and to tow them use the Mi-8s deployed on an external sling or even in the cargo compartment of UAZ vehicles as part of a battery.

How to combine the presence of this unit with the fact that we have 120-mm mortars in the paratroopers and there are no crews? Perhaps, in the case of a parachute landing, they should be in the second echelon.

There are a lot of questions, but all of them are, firstly, solvable, and secondly, solvable with serial equipment, and below an attempt will be made to come up with full-fledged states.

There is, however, another question to be addressed. In Russia, the Airborne Forces is a branch of the troops of central subordination. Fighting together with the Ground Forces, solving the same tasks, the Airborne Forces are not part of them.

In an interesting way, our Airborne Forces provide an example of some kind of analogy to American marines - they are also semi-independent, have their own commander (commandant) and, until recently, duplicated the tasks of the army. Their role is also similar - it is rather not amphibious, but expeditionary forces. As well as the Airborne Forces, which flew on planes to Ukraine to restore order in Kazakhstan.

On the one hand, this is very wasteful. An airborne formation may well be subordinated on all issues, except for specific airborne ones, to the district commander, and on airborne ones - to some parachute service of the Ministry of Defense, be it created.
Having a separate backup management and command structure, a university, a rear, etc. is simply expensive. On the plus side is a special fighting spirit, awareness of oneself as elite troops and a willingness to take on any task for this reason alone. Is it actually a more valuable quality than you might think? But is it so valuable as to have a whole branch of the military under it?

Rather no than yes, at least from a rational point of view. Accordingly, either the command system of the Airborne Forces and their logistic support should be simplified, or they should be “attached” to the Airborne Forces with tasks that they could solve, and this justifies their special status, and not just existence in principle.

What could be the tasks? In any structure, the Airborne Forces will be inferior in their striking power to the Ground Forces in terms of combat power, simply because of a smaller number of heavy weapons.

But they also have a plus - airmobility. This is without discounts - rapid reaction forces, they can be airlifted with all their equipment.
The events in Kazakhstan have shown how important it can be to quickly deploy troops in other countries, and in the event of an attack, in your own.

Thus, in addition to parachute landing, which some future airborne forces will be able to perform more efficiently than the current ones, they need to be charged with any airmobile tasks, emergency transfer anywhere, and so on.

Accordingly, the command structures of the Airborne Forces should be a full-fledged body of military command, and not just another "Commander-in-Chief" engaged in logistics and combat training.

What else?

Since the airborne forces of the new look in our base are light infantry, then in a war in which they do not need to land anywhere, they can be charged with tasks for light infantry - assaults on settlements (naturally, with the necessary reinforcement), actions in wooded and tank inaccessible terrain. Also, their tasks should be raids and, possibly, counter-guerrilla actions.

To some extent, this can justify their autonomy if they do all this properly. In a real war, the headquarters and command of the Airborne Forces will have to form the usual corps administration and fight together with their troops so as not to require the formation of additional headquarters from the Ground Forces.
All this will make the existence of the Airborne Forces as a separate structure, if not fully justified, then at least not burdensome for the country, while maintaining the advantages in the form of high morale.

Roughly understanding what and why the new airborne forces will be, let's pay attention to what kind of military equipment they should have. And why.

Military equipment of the Airborne Forces


In the methodology of this study, two questions were posed in the last part, we will quote them:

3. After answering the second question - what should be the airborne armored vehicles? Why?
4. Does the Airborne Forces need non-landing equipment? What for?

The complexity of the answers to them is obvious. If the Airborne Forces perform tasks with parachutes, then all first-echelon equipment must be airborne, which imposes severe weight and size restrictions on its characteristics. If the second echelon also lands on parachutes, then the same is true with its equipment. If the second echelon lands on the airfield by landing method, then the requirements for equipment are different, it should simply be possible to transport it by plane. IL-76 allows you to transport even the T-72 tank, if there is time for unloading.




And if units or formations of the Airborne Forces go on the offensive like ordinary troops on the ground? Then you need the most powerful and well-protected military equipment, such as tanks.

And if we are talking about landing from helicopters? Then everything should be suitable for transportation by helicopters.
To understand the issue, the Mi-8 can carry a load weighing no more than 4,5 tons on an external sling, and with special modifications. This is a GAZ car. Nothing harder to carry on the Mi-8.


Transportation of artillery pieces on the external sling Mi-8

We have too few Mi-26s, and unloading armored vehicles from it is a slow process, suitable for forces in the second echelon of the landing, in a safe zone.

That is, all equipment should be light, up to 4,5 tons, and ideally less, because the greater the load, the less the range of the helicopter, the risk of accidents.

These are contradictory requirements, often mutually exclusive. Nevertheless, we will list the military equipment that the landing force needs - briefly. With the delivery method, we mean - this is not something that can be done, this is what needs to be done. If, for example, the landing party goes into battle as a regular ground unit, without any landings, then instead of the BMD-4, you can take tanks with you, and the BMD-4 is simply not needed. For the equipment that will be used not in landing operations, but in combined arms operations, one of the methods of delivery to the theater is indicated - “under its own power”.

1. SAO 2S9 "Nona". The critical unit is perhaps the most important. The ongoing hostilities in Ukraine have shown the destructive role of 120-mm mortars when used correctly. At the same time, the Nona is also self-propelled, that is, it can escape from the return artillery fire, if any. It can be used both in the first and second echelons, delivered by parachute, IL-76 - by landing method, Mi-26, as well as under its own power.

2. BMD-4. As already mentioned, now this machine will be used as a means of fire support, capable of direct fire. It is now more of a mobile gun mount than a BMD. Instead of landing, she will carry the crew's property and some stocks of materiel. Delivered by parachute, IL-76 landing method or Mi-26. In the future, the BMD may be replaced by some kind of light amphibious tank.

3. BTR-D or BTR-MD "Shell". Used as a transport vehicle. Since we are increasing the size of the squad to a motorized rifle squad, it becomes impossible to transport the entire squad on the BMD. Now it fits only in an armored personnel carrier. The only type of airborne armored personnel carrier is an armored personnel carrier on the BMD chassis.

These vehicles can be used for their intended purpose when they are delivered according to the number of fighting squads, or as transport vehicles, for transporting ammunition, separate groups of military personnel, commanders, taking out the wounded, etc. Delivered by parachute, Il-76 by landing method or Mi-26 .

4. STPT "Sprut-SD". Self-propelled airborne anti-tank gun caliber 125 mm. It is used instead of the BMD-4 or together with them for fire support of foot paratroopers. The disadvantages of the Sprut are its mass, the IL-76 will not be able to deliver and parachute two such machines, so their use will be limited. The same problem is when delivering to the Mi-26 - with such a load, its range drops. Therefore, "Octopus" is an optional tool. Delivered by parachute or Mi-26, with IL-76 by landing method only when the situation does not allow unloading tanks (this is a long time). Upon receipt of a light airborne tank by the Airborne Forces, the Octopus is removed from service, as is the BMD.

5. Main battle tanks. The main means of fire support on the battlefield, due to the small number of tank units in the landing units, are not used independently, they support infantry with fire. Delivery - with IL-76 by landing method, if the situation allows, or on its own.

6. Howitzer D-30. In conditions when we will not create our own M777 for a very long time, the only fully airmobile artillery gun is the D-30 howitzer. In the future, it may be replaced by another system, but now it has no alternative for the Airborne Forces. It is delivered by parachutes or on an external sling by Mi-8 helicopters, or under its own power in tow. When working with helicopters, helicopters provide maneuver for artillery, moving it behind the advancing troops.

7. Car KAMAZ-43501 Airborne Forces - parachute-landing truck. It is used for all transport tasks in any operations, delivered by parachute, by landing method from IL-76, to Mi-26 and under its own power.

8. Armored car "Tiger" or equivalent. It is used for the same purpose for which it is used in other branches of the military, including reconnaissance groups, but it must be possible to parachute it. Should be delivered by parachute, with IL-76 by landing method, by Mi-26 and under its own power. It must be said that the new Typhoon-VDV vehicles look quite suitable, but with them the issue of import substitution arises in a very acute form. There, even the wheels are imported, and in Ukraine all these components (on other cars) were identified. There will be problems with their supplies.

9. Car UAZ-Profi. This pickup truck should be used when landing from helicopters, along with a 120-mm mortar, as a regular means of transporting or towing it. Any other transportation in the interests of the landing force can also be carried out on it. This machine is needed, in principle, only when the troops operate from helicopters. And only because the Russian Federation has nothing more suitable. The main delivery method is on the Mi-8, on an external sling, optionally with the Il-76 landing method, if necessary. It can be used for rear transportation, as well as at the point of permanent deployment just like a small tonnage truck. And ideally - the adoption of a diesel modification for supply.


UAZ "Cargo" and 120-mm mortar in the back. Now this UAZ model is not produced ...


But "Pro" is produced. Photo: zr.ru


UAZ on the external suspension of the Mi-8, however, is different. Photo: frame from the video of the Zvezda TV channel

10. Large armored car. A large armored car with a high level of security and a combat module with a 30-mm cannon or a 14,5-mm machine gun is used as a regular means of transporting a squad and 1-2 attached people, taking out the wounded, delivering property, and in some cases as a means of fire support. Needed for actions not related to landing. Delivered with IL-76 landing method or under its own power. Again, the Typhoon would fit, but the import ... Perhaps the new Ural-Akhmat armored truck will do. But he needs to be re-armed.

11. Issues for study - the possible return of GAZ vehicles to the Airborne Forces instead of KamAZ. Cons - lower carrying capacity, the inability to tow the D-30 howitzer. Pluses - much easier landing, more cars per plane.


GAZ vehicles are in many ways better suited to the Airborne Forces, but they are not without flaws. Photo: Vitaly Kuzmin

The second question to be studied is whether it is necessary to introduce 152-mm self-propelled artillery into the airborne units. It will be useless for landing operations, but very useful if the landing goes into battle on the ground, like infantry.

However, in terms of the composition of the equipment necessary for various actions of the landing units, a large overlap is already obtained. And "Nona", and transportable / towed 120-mm mortars, and BMD, and tanks, and BTR-D, and armored vehicles ... Next, the staffing table for all this equipment will be proposed in relation to how the "new" Airborne Forces should fight in its main quality, but self-propelled guns may not fit into the structure.

This issue will be considered below, but for now it should be considered debatable. Next, consider the relationship between the strength of the Military Transport Aviation and the Airborne Forces.

Airplanes and parachutists


The network has the work of Marc de Vore "Airborne Illusion: Institutions and the post-war evolution of the airborne forces" (The Airborne Illusion: Institutions and the Evolution of Postwar Airborne Forces).

Her brief summary: the parachute as a way to enter the landing did not justify itself, those who continue to develop and have paratrooper formations are just fools. The biggest fools, of course, are Russians, and in second place are the Americans. But the Britons are great, they left themselves one parachute battalion, and good.

The arguments, so to speak, are extremist, besides, the assessment of the effectiveness and significance of airborne operations was made with distorting the facts and without disclosing the causes of losses and defeats, but one thesis is important to us, namely, that the “price” that this or that the country pays for the presence of its airborne troops, you need to include the cost of military transport aviation, capable of delivering them in the right quantities and landing them.

The thesis is correct - it is necessary. But this is if there are no other tasks for it, or if the scale of other tasks is much smaller than that of the landing ones. If not, then the logic should be different. But the question of the ratio of numbers is important nonetheless.

Let's return to the beginning of this article - to the number of aircraft that are needed for the landing of a conditional regimental landing group. Yes, it is approximate, but no matter how reasonable reinforcements we give to this landing force, it will not increase radically.

So, we need 37 Il-76s or 31 Il-76s and 6 An-12s. And how many of them does Russia have in total? Listed, approximately 110 Il-76 and 57 An-12.

That is, it is possible to successively throw out one landing after another with 37 aircraft, and there are also aircraft to compensate for losses. And two can be landed at the same time, and there is also a reserve, albeit a very small one (out of 110 Ils “on the wing”, God forbid, half, with the An-12, most likely, even worse). But even so, with the new states, there are more or less enough forces.

So what should the ratio be?

In general, it can be defined as: the number of aircraft sufficient to sequentially drop all existing regiments or brigades (which will be taken as a base in future airborne forces) one at a time, plus compensation for losses in each sortie, in accordance with acceptable standards.

It is clear that these standards need to be determined, but, generally speaking, with such a scheme, it turns out that we have at least one and a half times more military aircraft than now, and with the replacement of the An-12 with new, more efficient aircraft, we already simply playfully close the needs of the Airborne Forces if they remain within the "equivalent of three divisions in terms of numbers, working in regiments or brigades." And if there are even fewer...

And then, together, the Airborne Forces and the VTA form a structure that, in principle, can be used anywhere and against any enemy, as long as there is somewhere to take off from.
It remains only to figure out what means of air defense to equip the landing units, and you can proceed to the final definition of their appearance.

Продолжение следует ...
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

87 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    6 October 2022 05: 48
    I thank the author for the article ... very interesting in that it considers bad and very bad options for military operations ... though I don’t see in the article, taking into account the events in Ukraine, the role of unmanned aircraft, Hymars and the advantages of American intelligence.
    1. 0
      6 October 2022 09: 04
      The author described the all-round defense of Russia ...

      PS. Recently there was a speech where the Airborne Forces were praised and refused any reforms.
      1. +2
        7 October 2022 06: 51
        The airborne troops have always done their job commendably, but these elite troops need to be reformed all the time, because equipment is being modernized and tactics are constantly changing. In addition, the enemy is constantly studying the tactics of using our landing force and preparing for it. And this affects the performance of the task by our troops.
    2. +1
      6 October 2022 12: 20
      Yes, this will now be a common moment for all the sun
  2. 0
    6 October 2022 05: 55
    Great article! And what's great about it is this:
    Thus, the first question has an answer - there is a sense in parachute landing, it is approximately clear where.

    and this!
    now they must become infantry, supported by heavy weapons, only in our conditions - self-propelled.

    The rest just adds to the shine!
  3. +3
    6 October 2022 06: 15
    But in any case, in principle, there is no other way to drive the Japanese out of the islands within a reasonable time - in order to beat them back by amphibious assault, you need to defeat the Japanese fleet, and there is no land connection with the islands.

    Read up to this place and ofigel. I decided to look at the author. Timokhin!
    Once again, I propose to write the author's name AT THE BEGINNING of the article. Or start a new rubric "alternative fantasies"
    1. +5
      6 October 2022 07: 32
      The article is a transfusion from empty to empty. Technique 60-80, machines the same. Everything that is written has been written before. Get a fee? It’s better to write about “star wars” and it’s even more interesting. And to smash Japan and the United States with a landing party - either the author overslept or didn’t sleep. Or the morning coffee of the wrong “caliber”. is the author sure that there will be no such teams? The traders who rule before the lamp are the life of soldiers and the reputation of our (not theirs) country. They will sell everything for candy wrappers, and even demand beads.
  4. +13
    6 October 2022 06: 29
    Recapture the Kuriles by airborne assault under the dominance of the Japanese at sea and in the air? They will crush them with supplies, including heavy equipment and artillery. Not to mention the shooting of ILs in the air.
    As for the rapid transfer of troops to recapture the northern airfields, this is not a quick matter - to collect troops. Most likely, the air defense systems will already be there, and enemy fighters will hang in the air until the landing force unfolds.
    1. +3
      6 October 2022 07: 08
      This speaks of one thing - border airfields, initially, must be prepared for self-destruction. At a minimum, it will reduce interest in itself, as a maximum, it will reduce the offensive potential and the supply of those remaining.
    2. 0
      6 October 2022 12: 09
      The Japanese will have to take out aviation, otherwise it will not work.
      But it's real in principle, if not stupid
      1. +3
        6 October 2022 14: 38
        And then take out their fleet?
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        The Japanese will have to take out aviation, otherwise it will not work.
        But it's real in principle, if not stupid
        1. +4
          6 October 2022 19: 42
          Do you want to stir up KSHU in the comments? No problem, look for a mediator, adult uncles will show you how such things should be done.

          According to the situation with the fleet. See where he will be. The Japanese fleet is large and strong, but it has a very important task - covering Japan from air and missile attacks from the Sea of ​​Japan.
          And one more important task - the blockade of our sub-forces, whatever they may be.
          If you miss Warsaw, she will send you a convoy with troops to the bottom.
          You can't miss.

          Everything there will be difficult in fact, and for us, with proper training of the troops, it is not hopeless.
          1. +2
            7 October 2022 04: 52
            Warsaw 1500 km and the La Perouse Strait must be passed, and the Japanese should surpass the river. I wouldn’t even bet 1k10 on the delivery of an airborne assault to the Kuriles against the Japanese. They will notice the concentration, the rise too. The shooting of Mariana turkeys will begin.
            Mine landing points during the threatened period, and drag missiles to Sakhalin .. What else can you do there? There is no hope for the fleet and aviation. They will take the Kuriles, if without nuclear weapons. Kaliningrad region too
            1. 0
              16 October 2022 00: 06
              The concentration can just be very far from the theater of operations, nuclear weapons at air bases in such a situation are quite applicable, especially if you don’t comment on politicians for several days and pretend that nothing happened.
              The problem will be ships, their air defense, well, no one says that everything needs to be solved ONLY by paratroopers.
  5. 0
    6 October 2022 06: 52
    During the fighting, the Airborne Forces show themselves very well in battles that are uncharacteristic even for themselves, therefore the money spent on them has already gone to good use ...
    1. +4
      6 October 2022 18: 07
      And full-fledged and fully equipped motorized rifles will show themselves even better. The current airborne forces are an anachronism, but consuming quite a few resources.
      1. -5
        6 October 2022 18: 18
        And you don’t count the money allocated for the Airborne Forces, you need to count the stolen ones .. if you don’t steal for everything
        And in fact, the Airborne Forces in Afghanistan, and in Chechnya and Ukraine show that they are the best, everything else is just your vision
        It would be nice, of course, to strengthen the Airborne Forces with T-90 tanks and Terminators, and then in general, in a combination of firepower and moral-volitional qualities of the personnel, they would have shown themselves even better! You should not touch the Traditions of the military branch, you can change tactics, weapons, but traditions are sacred!
        1. 0
          7 October 2022 11: 08
          And in fact, the Airborne Forces in Afghanistan, and in Chechnya and Ukraine show that they are the best, everything else is just your vision


          Yes, they do not show this, in no way are they better than motorized riflemen.

          but tradition is sacred!

          This is stupidity, you need to keep up with the times, and not rely on traditions.
  6. -2
    6 October 2022 07: 02
    well? and when will an aircraft carrier appear in all this writing?)
    1. +1
      6 October 2022 14: 07
      wait, right now, kaptsov with armor will pull up ....
  7. +1
    6 October 2022 07: 05
    how the author famously gathered with paratroopers to cover the Arctic from the Americans and beat off the smokers from the Japanese! wait to be surprised - for sure in the second part an aircraft carrier will appear from the bushes
  8. -1
    6 October 2022 08: 12
    We must begin to reform the entire army, and not just a separate branch of the armed forces.
    Civic Politicians brought our native army to complete "amazement". Now the situation is worse than in the 90s.
    According to the article, you don’t need to invent anything, take the example of the United States, where their airborne forces, airborne infantry and infantry differ only in that some have parachutes, while others do not. The requirements for personnel light infantry are the same.
    1. -4
      6 October 2022 08: 52
      now the airborne forces are showing excellent results near kherson as infantry
    2. +2
      6 October 2022 12: 18
      But Gerasmiov and Co. cannot be called civilians in any way. Shoigu joined them and rode for 10 years, replacing work with PR for himself.
  9. -2
    6 October 2022 08: 48
    I am impressed.
    "Discovered" Timokhin for himself.
    Thank you!
  10. -4
    6 October 2022 08: 49
    "Ostap hasn't eaten anything since yesterday. Therefore, his eloquence was unusual."
    1. 0
      6 October 2022 12: 18
      Well done, earned 50 rubles, keep it up laughing
  11. -3
    6 October 2022 09: 19
    We need stealth transporters for the Airborne Forces, like a flying wing.
  12. +4
    6 October 2022 09: 49
    to cut off from us the entire eastern part of the Arctic and the north of Eastern Siberia?

    Let's be logical. Well, the Yusovites threw a landing on Tiksi and captured it. AND??? What's next? How is it proposed to supply the landed? How to transfer more or less decent weapons to them? Risk transporters? At such a distance over our territory? Bad nema .. Convoy by sea? Will it work? Without icebreakers and other things? Is not a fact. What then is the meaning of this? Well, a hungry and angry airborne division is sitting in the middle of the tundra - to whom and how will it interfere? Indeed, in order to cause us real trouble, long-range air defense and anti-ship missiles must be transported to the captured piece in order to control the sea and air at a critical point. And how to deliver them to her? In general, the idea of ​​​​such an operation is somehow not very clear ..
    1. 0
      6 October 2022 10: 30
      Well, the Yusovites threw a landing on Tiksi and captured it. AND??? What's next?

      2 options:
      1st to pretend that nothing happened.
      2nd drop troops and destroy the enemy.
    2. +1
      6 October 2022 12: 14
      How is it proposed to supply the landed?


      Dill artillery with a caliber of 122 mm is supplied by an air bridge from the bottom of Pakistan, where shells are made for it.
      And the Britons carry them.
      And that's just one example.
      In all sorts of ways, five or six battalions can be supplied by air for some time.
  13. -1
    6 October 2022 10: 25
    This is interesting... That's just... The Americans capture Anadyr, Pevek, Tiksi. And ours deliver a retaliatory nuclear strike on ... That's right, on New York, Washington, Los Angeles, Boston, Houston and the list goes on. How long will the missiles last? Not exchanging for military bases, missile silos and airfields. And after that, the paratroopers can sit on the captured bases until the bears eat them. There will be no change.
    1. +1
      6 October 2022 12: 16
      Get in the habit of clicking on links in articles, they are there specifically so that you understand the whole picture, including options with nuclear answers.
  14. +1
    6 October 2022 10: 35
    As far as I know, the Airborne Forces have not had purely airborne units for a long time. There is one battalion of paratroopers in the regiment, the rest are for landing landings. To act as infantry, to reinforce divisions, there are tank companies or battalions. Now we need to add UAVs to the states, maybe something else, but in principle, our paratroopers are the most belligerent and equipped troops.
    By the way, troops are thrown out by helicopters in waves. I participated in this. In the first wave, there were about 40 helicopters, in the 2nd and 3rd, 20-25 each. The landing site is small in the mountains, and nothing, everyone was accommodated.
    1. +1
      6 October 2022 12: 17
      Well, count how many people were there, and how it would be possible to land them in a single wave.
      This is exactly what I am writing about.
    2. +2
      6 October 2022 12: 46
      As far as I know, the Airborne Forces have not had purely parachute units for a long time.
      You don’t know well, or rather, you don’t know at all)))
      1. 0
        7 October 2022 08: 49
        You don’t know well, or rather, you don’t know at all

        Your comment is reminiscent of the expression "self d ....... to".
        of the four airborne divisions, two were converted into airborne assault divisions, in the regiments of the 1st battalion under parachutes, the rest by landing.
        Do you have other information?
        1. +1
          7 October 2022 09: 29
          Of course, what does the most reliable, so to speak, from the very center)))) ... 76 and 7 became the DShD, everything is correct, and those battalions that became the DShB in the regiments also have the practice of parachute jumps and landing cargo , armament by parachute. And 106 and 98, as they were, and remained VDD, as part of the RAP.
  15. +9
    6 October 2022 11: 07
    One pleases that the Airborne Forces are allowed to live on. Unfortunately, the last 40 years have shown that our armed forces are not able to use the airborne forces for their intended purpose. The experience of Ukraine confirms this. Paratroopers in the trenches are nonsense. DRGs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine have been skating and skating around the Kharkiv region with impunity while specially trained and trained specialists, our paratroopers, are sitting in the trenches in the Kherson region. What prevents the use of the Airborne Forces to suppress the DRGs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with landing from helicopters and aircraft into the areas where the enemy’s DRGs are detected is not clear. The armament of the Airborne Forces is appropriate. There is a lot of talk about the insufficient power of the Airborne Forces weapons to confront a serious enemy. By definition, the Airborne Forces are not intended for direct confrontation with motorized riflemen - this is an axiom. In Russia, there is the Aerospace Forces (military space forces) and a large group of airborne forces, which is in no way connected with the Russian Aerospace Forces and is controlled by combined arms specialists. Why not tie the Aerospace Forces and the Airborne Forces closer together? If a soldier of the Airborne Forces is trained to issue target designation to the forces of the Aerospace Forces (Caliber, Iskander, long-range MLRS, missile weapons of aircraft and helicopters) and if they achieve a high level of coherence, then what opportunities will the Russian Armed Forces get behind the enemy’s front line, behind enemy lines. Even small airborne groups will become not only a serious problem for the enemy, but also an insurmountable obstacle for the enemy. Such a landing party (with fire support from the Aerospace Forces) landed in the rear of the group advancing today in the Krivoy Rog-Kherson direction could completely cut off the grouping that had broken through our defenses from the supply lines and accelerate its complete destruction, or surrender, but the landing party performs tasks unusual for it.
    1. 0
      6 October 2022 12: 15
      To do this, at least they need to be prepared for airmobile operations - see the article, for example.
      1. +1
        6 October 2022 14: 09
        They are ready for airmobile action. There can be no doubt about this. Whether they are ready to interact with the Russian Aerospace Forces is a question, and whether they are ready to eliminate the enemy’s DRG in cooperation with aviation is also a question.
        1. +4
          6 October 2022 14: 23
          There, we have some kind of terrible trash going on with the VKS ...
          As for airmobiles - I wouldn't be so optimistic - they land as infantry, without heavy weapons.
          The D-30 on the Mi-8 suspension was last worn in 2019, in my opinion, and these were one-time experiments.
          Yes, and we ran out of 122-mm shells.
          We do not have pickup trucks with 120-mm mortars for delivery on an external sling.
          Only at exhibitions
          Well, they will bring anti-tank systems, UAZ-469s and 82-mm mortars, which they then carry with their hands.
          And what's the use?

          They are not quite ready to tell the truth.
          1. 0
            7 October 2022 02: 09
            Aerospace forces and aviation are equipped with a variety of high-precision long-range missiles. These weapons should be used as fire support for paratroopers in the depths of the enemy's defenses. If the distance from the front line is less than 100 km. RZSO systems will provide fire support. When fighting enemy DRGs (which do not have heavy weapons and air defense systems, like paratroopers), helicopter and aircraft landing can be used in our rear, (after all, they flew to Gostomel) with fire support from local artillery. The task of the landing, ideally, is to detect the enemy without disclosing its location, to block it, immobilizing it, if possible, with corrected art. and air strikes and ensure its complete destruction with the involvement of additional forces and means, if necessary.
    2. 0
      6 October 2022 12: 25
      Because in the BU SV about airborne assaults, one and a half pages are written, from where the commanders from the infantry understand what to do with it and how to do it right)))
      1. 0
        6 October 2022 14: 24
        The Airborne Forces have their own charter. So, it must be looked at.
        1. 0
          6 October 2022 14: 37
          the fact of the matter is that they do not watch it, and if they do, it is very rare and small))))
    3. 0
      6 October 2022 20: 43
      Aerospace Forces are aerospace forces, not military space. Iskanders and MLRS belong to the missile forces and artillery of the Ground Forces.
      1. 0
        7 October 2022 06: 24
        No one has canceled interspecific cooperation between the branches of the armed forces. Another painful issue is the subordination of the Airborne Forces. Unfortunately, the leadership of the ground forces, for reasons known only to them, does not come up with anything better than to drive the lightly armed airborne forces into the trenches. At the same time, behind the enemy DRG (moving on high-speed vehicles), motorized rifles run on tanks.
        1. 0
          8 October 2022 18: 54
          Here I think the problem is in logistics, the enemy has intelligence and communications, we don’t. The same Starlink terminal weighs only 4kg, is powered by a car battery and works anywhere in the world, something like that for our armed forces is just space technology.
          1. +1
            9 October 2022 00: 53
            We have the Airborne Forces and the Aerospace Forces, which exist independently of each other and do not interact in any way or do not interact closely enough. The Aerospace Forces need accurate target designations, the Airborne Forces need serious, high-quality, guaranteed fire support, not like in Gostomel. The Airborne Forces could become the eyes, ears, arms and legs of the Airborne Forces on the ground, and the Airborne Forces could be guaranteed to provide fire support and transportation for the Airborne Forces. In this case, everyone would do their own thing for which they were created. Of course, airborne support alone is not enough and it is not always advisable (they cannot do without the support of MLRS and long-range artillery), but this issue is also solvable and you should not lump everything together. One thing is certain and understandable - Markelov (a reconnaissance saboteur) created the Airborne Forces not for trenches, but for the effective destruction of enemy infrastructure with the support of other branches of the military. They must be highly mobile and move at high speed over rough terrain, aiming artillery and aircraft at enemy concentrations and infrastructure facilities, and can also be used to destroy the enemy’s DRGs, as they have adequate training, skills, mobility and commensurate weapons. Actually, the DRG of the Armed Forces of Ukraine is doing exactly this in our rear, while the Russian Airborne Forces are sitting in the trenches instead of motorized riflemen. If in Afghanistan the Airborne Forces were engaged in sabotage groups on transit routes, and not in cleansing operations and did not work instead of motorized riflemen, then the results could be different. We have been stepping on the same rake for 40 years.
            1. -1
              9 October 2022 18: 18
              Well, I’m writing, you can forget about the Aerospace Forces and the airborne assault until there is a way to suppress air defense. This means that only the DRG remains, and here the Armed Forces of Ukraine have a great advantage in the presence of UAVs and communications.
              1. 0
                10 October 2022 01: 11
                Large paratroopers of the operation rarely make sense, since they require careful preparation. Behind the front line, large UAVs are most likely not always justified, since they make a lot of noise and attract attention. For reconnaissance, it is more expedient to use small quiet vehicles. Most likely there are.
  16. +1
    6 October 2022 12: 19
    However, in terms of the composition of the equipment necessary for various actions of the landing units, a large overlap is already obtained. And "Nona", and transportable / towed 120-mm mortars, and BMD, and tanks, and BTR-D, and armored vehicles ...

    The meaning of landing is to quickly get to the desired object, and not to rush to it by land or water. Accordingly, if you want to have such an opportunity, you must have special parts sharpened for this. Using them as light infantry on the battlefield is the same as throwing riot police at the enemy.
    In addition, the capture of an object by a landing party is not the ultimate goal, the main task of the landing party is to hold it until the main forces arrive or hour H, i.e. defense. And on the defensive, all these Nonas, BMDs, tanks, BTR-Ds and armored vehicles are just slow-moving targets for the enemy, besides taking up space on the plane from the supply of ammunition for defense. Yes, and in defense, you will have to constantly move so that you are not covered at once by the enemy’s art, according to which, in any case, he will have an advantage over you, albeit temporary, but.
    Therefore, you will not be able to save and use anything other than what is carried in your hands. Hence the conclusions about what kind of heavy weapons the landing party needs. Against infantry, possibly tanks and planes.
    1. 0
      6 October 2022 12: 53
      In addition, the capture of an object by a landing party is not the ultimate goal, the main task of the landing party is to hold it until the main forces arrive or hour
      The landing force can have a bunch of goals and objectives, capturing and holding something, one of them ... the main function is to conduct raid operations behind enemy lines, for this there is equipment there. And so that the equipment does not become an easy target, the defense of the Airborne Forces units must be active, sit on the defensive, this is not for the Airborne Forces ... well, at the expense of "carried on hands" when with AGS, ATGM, 82mm mortar, with Utes or Cort run a mile or two, I would interview you on the topic of outdoor activity)))
      1. +4
        6 October 2022 14: 27
        the main function is to conduct raid operations behind enemy lines, for this there is a technique. And so that the equipment does not become an easy target, the defense of the airborne units must be active, sit in a dead defense, this is not for the airborne forces


        What about air delivery of fuel?
        You don’t broadcast Margelov’s beckoning world here, these doctrines DO NOT WORK in the modern world.
        1. +1
          6 October 2022 14: 34
          With the delivery of fuel by air, as well as with the delivery of everything else by air, firstly, there is a concept like separation of the rear, and secondly, no one is talking about landing and going into a deep raid for three months, like the heroes of Kovpakovtsy, if the head works, then everything else, as a rule, works the same way.
    2. -1
      6 October 2022 19: 51
      Hence the conclusions about what kind of heavy weapons the landing party needs. Against infantry, possibly tanks and planes.

      So you listed almost all conceivable options - except perhaps for anti-ship and strategic missiles.
  17. +3
    6 October 2022 12: 19
    If someday Russia has a clash over the islands with Japan, and if it starts with the seizure of part of Russian territory by the Japanese, then the most competent move would be to quickly knock them out of there.

    If the Japanese, without hesitation, decide on such a volt, Russia will not have any competent moves. Unless by that time teleports for the transfer of manpower and equipment from one point of space to another will appear in service. Everything else is the author's wet dreams, crashing against harsh reality.
  18. -1
    6 October 2022 12: 23
    Comrade Timokhin, get over your idiotic attempts to discuss something that you don’t understand at all, from the word “completely”. Starting with "clumsy" terminology, ending with an elementary lack of knowledge of the organizational and staffing structure of units and units of the Airborne Forces. I'm not talking about tactics at all. Before you write something, find on the Internet the Combat Charter of the Airborne Forces Part 3 (other DSP and Secret), read it, you will get many answers to your questions, and at least don’t watch outright nonsense, although maybe you don’t will help)))
    1. 0
      6 October 2022 14: 33
      Such a comment is usually called the word v_y_s_e_r
      Do you have anything to object to?

      For example, there is something to object to the fact that the VTA will not master our mechanized airborne forces?
      In addition to the fact that PDO in 5 snouts is a very worthless anecdote, is there anything to object to?
  19. +2
    6 October 2022 13: 49
    If attack aircraft do not fly over the front line, then we will not need the Airborne Forces for a long time.
  20. +4
    6 October 2022 13: 56
    hi
    As they say, the stability of the results is a sign of mastery.
    Since 2018, there has been an observation of one commentator who is now in the bath: ""The author is distinguished by a very strange manner of writing articles.
    The first half of the text is trash, fumes, altistoria.
    The second half of the text, when it comes to the glands, is a relatively realistic overview of the situation.
    ""

    Well, there are no complaints about the pieces of iron.
    Although there is, of course: how to make the equipment landed on helicopters has already been invented, it is called Wiesel1 / 2, the weight is 2,9-4,1 tons.
    https://topwar.ru/1121-boevaya-desantnaya-mashina-vizel-i-vizel-2-wiesel.html
    As grandfather Stalin said to designers, "you don't have to do the best, copy what you have."

    And according to the "thrash" - right now the Airborne Forces are conducting combined arms battles. Losses are calculated by the "Shoigu number" and already in the Airborne Forces, IMHO, they are mobilizing people.
    How long the SVO will last is unclear.
    We need equipment for combined arms combat, something needs to be solved with drones and anti-drone systems - the Airborne Forces have real problems "above the roof."

    And the author reflects on the war with the United States and the landings in the Far East. The BD theater has "the eastern part of the Arctic and the north of Eastern Siberia" - well, really "thrash, waste, alhistoria".
    But why alhistoria?
    Is it possible to start the NWO there too, pin ... dosy know that Alaska and even California are primordially Russian?
    1. 0
      6 October 2022 14: 31
      Although there is, of course: how to make the equipment landed on helicopters has already been invented, it is called Wiesel1 / 2, the weight is 2,9-4,1 tons.
      https://topwar.ru/1121-boevaya-desantnaya-mashina-vizel-i-vizel-2-wiesel.html
      As grandfather Stalin said to designers, "you don't have to do the best, copy what you have."


      Well, let's give the staff of the battalion with the Wiesels, how many supplies are needed to deliver this property, etc.
      Where to produce them write
      I have all the combat equipment in the article, or at least serial.
      And what do we have for der Russis Wiesel?
      1. 0
        6 October 2022 16: 18
        hi
        Probably, in terms of equipment for helicopter landings, you are right.
        To understand the issue, the Mi-8 can carry a load weighing no more than 4,5 tons on an external sling, and with special modifications. This is a GAZ car. Nothing harder to carry on the Mi-8.

        Even the armored Tiger is heavier.
        No one, IMHO, especially now, will bother with new armored vehicles. Perhaps they will give something armorless to the Airborne Forces, such as a buggy (I saw an advertisement for such a domestic product a couple of times).
        It’s a pity that the Wiesel concept in terms of helicopter landings (and mobile operations) is very interesting.
        1. +1
          6 October 2022 19: 48
          Well, what about alhistoria in the end?
          Can you quote from the text?
          1. +1
            7 October 2022 00: 00
            hi
            Excuse me, but not only "altistory", but also "trash" and "fuel".

            However, if you do not like the word "altistory" - you are considering the events of the near future - let's replace it with "combat futurology".
            Moreover, you turn out to be right in terms of future forecasts: some time ago you supported the idea of ​​"PMCs with heavy weapons", I was categorically against it - and now, your forecasts came true, but mine did not.

            Now about combat futurology / alhistoria, trash and waste.
            First, this is your entire article "World War 2030..."

            Secondly, these are your arguments about the capture by enemies (judging by the text - the United States) "the entire eastern part of the Arctic and the north of Eastern Siberia","From these points, you can then develop an air and airborne offensive in Siberia". Your entire text about the war in the Far East and Siberia with the United States is "trash, waste and alhistoria", including "our counterattack should begin, because the Americans with their aircraft will be able to bring a really large mass of troops through the air, and then it will be impossible to do without nuclear strikes on their territory (and their cities)".

            Your reasoning about Japan and the Kuriles, on the contrary, is realistic, IMHO, provided that Japan believes that it can carry out this trick quickly, under the slogan of a "humanitarian mission", for example.
            With the exception of: "we will postpone the issue with the Aerospace Forces for the time being - there is also something to work on there, and we proceed from the fact that, at least somehow, they will be able to interfere with Japanese aviation""The distance from the South Kuriles to any absolutely place where a large military contingent can be loaded onto aircraft completely excludes any method of landing troops, except by parachuting with airplanes. .... in any case, in principle, there is no other way to drive the Japanese out of the islands in a reasonable time - in order to beat them back by amphibious assault, you need to defeat the Japanese fleet, and there is no land connection with the islands. "
            IMHO, in the event of the capture of the Kuril Islands, it makes no sense to send troops there on the heads of the landed Japanese from the word "absolutely", only a vigorous loaf remains (with understandable risks of such loaves in response from Japan or its ally).

            But in principle, even where you, IMHO, are wrong, it is still interesting to read. Because IMHO, you reflect the views of a certain (not the worst) part of the military on reality and the future. This is very interesting, believe me - the military, at the moment when the question is already about the NMD in the new territories of the Russian Federation - what will they be able to keep in the near future - the military is thinking about battles with American paratroopers on Pevek and Anadyr.
            1. +1
              7 October 2022 03: 20

              Now about combat futurology / alhistoria, trash and waste.
              First, this is your entire article "World War 2030..."

              Secondly, these are your arguments about the capture by enemies (judging by the text - the United States) of "the entire eastern part of the Arctic and the north of Eastern Siberia", "From these points you can then develop an air and airborne offensive into Siberia."


              1. Why do the Americans practice missile strikes from SSBNs along low trajectories?
              2. Why are they increasing the number of parachute troops in the Arctic?

              If what I write is trash and alhistoria, then you probably have some rational versions for this, right?
              Or maybe the video from MV-2030 is computer graphics, and the 11th airborne division is not really there?
              1. 0
                7 October 2022 11: 39
                1. This is a very interesting question: "Why do the Americans practice low-trajectory missile strikes from SSBNs?"
                I came across data in one Internet discussion (also with reference to Lisbeth Gronlund and David Wright) that there is a possibility, after improvements, of launching the same Trident along a flat trajectory. But at the same time, IMHO a) accuracy is lost and b) the inability to use several BBs.
                Since this theoretical possibility is nowhere described as being "worked out by the Americans," would it make it difficult for you to provide these data? Otherwise, I will treat this as an American landing on Pevek.

                2. "Why are they increasing the number of parachute troops in the Arctic?" also a good question. The Americans claim that they are bringing troops in Alaska into one division. "Although the new division will be airborne, the major general notes that it will not be fully airborne. One brigade will be an infantry brigade.
                According to Military.com, the flag change will affect the combat teams of the two brigades the most; the 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne) and the 1st-25th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division. These brigades will be renamed the 1st and 2nd Brigades Combat Teams of the 11th Airborne Division.
                "
                "There may not be conflict right now – and hopefully there never will be conflict in the Arctic – but we must be prepared to act there.”
                Iris A. Ferguson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Arctic and Global Resilience
                Russia is only 55 miles from the United States in the Bering Strait. Russian officials say their bases and assets in the Arctic are defensive in nature, but they are arming their icebreakers with Kalibr-K missiles, Defense Ministry officials said. “We are increasingly seeing activity happening in the Arctic region from them,” she said.  
                China, another strategic competitor to the US, is thousands of miles from the Arctic. However, Chinese leaders are "trying to infiltrate the Arctic," she said. "They call themselves a near-Arctic nation, even though they are not even remotely near the Arctic." 
                Chinese leaders are trying to adjust international norms and governance structures in their favor, she said, and they are aware of their economic coercion globally and in the Arctic region. “Therefore, we are very attentive to their activities and want to ensure the protection of our interests in the region,” she said.  
                The Arctic is often overlooked, "but it's a place where we have tremendous territorial equity, really, for our defense needs, our ability to track and respond to threats, and our ability to project force," Ferguson said.  
                The Air Force bases its premium aircraft in Alaska because they can be easily deployed to respond to crises throughout the Indo-Pacific. It is also a key stop for aircraft refueling. The Army has established the 11th Airborne Division in the region to develop expertise in Arctic mobility and operations in extreme cold weather.
                More than a dozen parachutes dot the skies as the paratroopers land in the snow-covered mountainous terrain.
                From a military standpoint, the region is a key national defense hub, with missile defense facilities, radar, early warning, and more in Alaska and Canada as part of the North American Aerospace Defense Command.  
                The latest U.S. Department of Defense Arctic strategy sees the region as a path closer to home. “The priorities of this defense strategy are to protect the homeland, ensure that our national interests are protected, and work with countries to solve common problems,” Ferguson said. "The main goal is to ensure the preservation of peace and stability in the region."
                "

                I hope that the issue of the American landing on Pevek is closed, or at least lost its relevance for some time.

                I would like to note that, in general, consideration of the issues of "rotted American warheads", "landing on Pevek" and other "trash and frenzy with alhistory / combat futorology" against the background of the battles near Kherson causes a cringe.
                By the way, I periodically listen to your friend M Klimov (cognitive conversation I. Strelkov / E. Mikhailov / M. Klimov) - a sane person is in contact with reality.

                And there are no questions for your articles "for hardware", interesting.
                "For iron", IMHO, it would be nice to consider options for refueling in the air for both helicopters and transport aircraft. IMHO, again, in the likeness of the A330 MRTT, it would be nice to make tankers based on transport workers, and not special ones. aircraft.
                1. +1
                  7 October 2022 14: 14
                  Since this theoretical possibility is nowhere described as being "worked out by the Americans," would it make it difficult for you to provide these data?


                  There, according to the link, there is a video of shooting, and not just one. Where are you looking?

                  The arctic often overlooked,but this is a place where we have huge territorial justice, in fact, for the needs of our defense, our ability to monitor and respond to threats, and our ability to project force»
                  ...
                  The army created the 11th airborne division in the region to develop experience in the field of Arctic mobility and operations in extremely cold weather conditions.
                  Over a dozen parachutes dot the sky when paratroopers land in snowy mountainous terrain.


                  I don't even know what else you need.
                  Although there are untrained people, for example, the General Staff.
                  Here on VO, too, apparently.

                  I would like to note that, in general, consideration of the issues of "rotten American warheads"


                  Did the GAO report on this topic pass you by? Or did you just not master English?
                  If the US government itself is talking about this, then what other arguments do you need?

                  Have you passed the medical examination for a driver's license?
                  1. +2
                    7 October 2022 14: 48
                    There, according to the link, there is a video of shooting, and not just one. Where are you looking?
                    "Where is there? Try to at least make a print-screen from your article. Just don't forget the topic, "a video about the Americans, Trident and a flat trajectory."

                    I don't even know what else you need.
                    Although there are untrained people, for example, the General Staff.
                    Here on VO, too, apparently.
                    I understand everything, autumn is in the yard, but repelling the landing on Pevek and Anadyr is too much. And with the General Staff it is still normal (compared to some Internet strategists) about regroupings in the direction of Pevek.

                    Did the GAO report on this topic pass you by? Or did you just not master English?
                    If the US government itself is talking about this, then what other arguments do you need?
                    hand face. You can't even read and understand an elementary text written "for politicians".

                    Have you passed the medical examination for a driver's license?
                    what are you, where do I go. But I can type well with my toes.

                    Let's not blur the topic.
                    You make a print-screen from your article, where there is a link to the video "Americans launch the Trident on a low trajectory."
                    And give it as an answer to this post.
                    I undertake to remove "trash" from the stable expression "trash, waste and alhistoria" in this case.
                    1. +1
                      9 October 2022 12: 50
                      You can't even read and understand an elementary text written "for politicians".


                      At this stage, a decent and respectable person must confirm with something that the US Government Accounts Chamber, instead of a real audit, the results of which, by the way, have some indirect confirmation (for example, an analysis of the statistics of Minuteman's test launches leads to the same conclusions), writes "text" for politicians.
                      Do you have any arguments besides the voices in your head that this is a "text for politicians"?

                      You make a print-screen from your article, where there is a link to the video "Americans launch the Trident on a low trajectory."
                      And give it as an answer to this post.


                      My apologies. It turns out that I did not insert vidos into the article, only a link to a scientific study on the topic, there really are indications that such work is being carried out. And you didn't read.

                      Okay.

                      Here's a video. For example.



                      [media=http://youtu.be/WfhpE8NNE40]


                      Especially on this one, everything is clearly visible, and it is it that does not fit in, a coincidence
                      http://youtu.be/WfhpE8NNE40

                      Well, this work - http://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/ru/archive/1992/06/depressed_trajectory_slbms_a_t.html
                      we don't skip.
                      Unique in content "leak". True, not only everyone can comprehend what they read, and there are no color pictures there, but I still advise you to try it, suddenly master it.
        2. +1
          6 October 2022 22: 34
          Quote: Wildcat
          like a buggy (I saw an advertisement for such a domestic product a couple of times).

          They are already fighting. There were photos of our Sarmatians-2. There is an armored version.
      2. 0
        10 October 2022 15: 12
        How do you feel about landing gliders?
  21. +3
    6 October 2022 14: 55
    I liked it very much, I look forward to continuing. But the author wrote exactly the Soviet doctrine, but it won’t work today, it will be a Pyrrhic victory at best. Why do I think so, no one will give up the military airfield for good, everyone will fight to the death, especially if it is the only one on the whole district.
    The Russian Aerospace Forces lack a lot, tankers, ultra-long-range UAVs such as the Global Hawk, strike vehicles such as the AS-130 Spektr, they are in great demand in capturing the airfield, as well as surrogate bombers based on the S-130 or S-17, which can simply shoot the entire living creatures on and around the airfield, and the United States has an advantage, they have an MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor and have worked out refueling helicopters in the air, which is exotic for the Russian Aerospace Forces.
    1. 0
      6 October 2022 19: 49
      American Doctrine.
      After all, they captured airfields from the air.
  22. +1
    6 October 2022 18: 16
    I didn’t understand from the article how air defense is provided?
    1. 0
      6 October 2022 19: 49
      In the next part there will be air defense, and staff.
  23. +1
    6 October 2022 21: 34
    We recall the capture of airfields in Panama. The Americans threw almost 130 soldiers from S-141 and S-2 aircraft.

    examples like this don't mean anything...
    with the same success, you can tell how to fight with the Zusuls ...
    comparable armies need to be compared, both in terms of armament and manufacturability ...
    with developed reconnaissance / air defense (both mobile and manual), all this pin dosovsky starfall would not even reach the target ...

    as for the landing, in our opinion, with songs, dances and heavy equipment, then the landing (if they reach it) should take place in an "open field" - all this horde will still need to be collected, then find your cars, ammunition, etc. etc. - this can take a lot of time (and this is without taking into account the terrain, only spread over the territory) ...
    and then move forward to the goal ...
    and given the level of pindo-intelligence, they will already be waiting for ours there ...
    so we can scare with such a landing, only the same Zusuls ...
    its showed all the viability of our doctrines ...
    when they hit an equal ...
  24. +1
    6 October 2022 21: 44
    "... The deployment of field airfields near the areas captured by the rebels and the transfer of helicopters there would have taken months, which was unacceptable for many reasons: from the loss of French influence in Zaire, to the death of thousands of French citizens in Kolwezi ..." there were Belgians. Zaire is a former Belgian colony.
  25. 0
    6 October 2022 22: 33
    It is not entirely possible to agree, but much FOR.

    According to the technology rationalization proposal:
    - you need a light multi-purpose armored car (an analogue of a scorpion or an arrow)
    - instead of UAZs, the Sarmat-2 buggy (and its armored version Sarmat-3) and BARS are much better suited.
    - instead of Akhmat, Spartak (development of the military-industrial complex-Ural) will go in perfectly, since he is in the series.

    Light armored cars and buggies are both means that can be transported by helicopter, as a traveling, reconnaissance, patrol, etc. vehicle, as well as a mobile carrier for mortars, ATGM crews, AGS, cords and launchers for loitering and reconnaissance drones.
  26. 0
    7 October 2022 14: 19
    Thanks to the Author! I correctly understood that with the current approach, the country will be taken away, but the Airborne Forces will return it? Fully consistent with what I see now. First, screw up the country's economy, then start raising it, at the cost of the lives of its best men. And only Medvedev will remain and will balabol. Himself for himself.
  27. 0
    7 October 2022 19: 19
    Finally, a normal article about the Airborne Forces. And then all are "not needed", "disperse".
    1. 0
      18 October 2022 21: 41
      It's like, the enemy dropped a landing on our northern airfield, and we have to drop ours on parachutes in order to beat him off with small arms with limited ammunition? maybe it’s better to build a road to the airfield and come in tanks
      1. 0
        19 October 2022 11: 12
        Quote: agond
        maybe it’s better to build a road to the airfield and come in tanks
        Will you be in time?
        1. 0
          19 October 2022 18: 02
          If the airfield is military, then there should be a garrison armed with serious weapons, air defense missiles, artillery and tanks and a serious supply of ammunition, fortifications, at least the same trenches, trying to capture such an object with an assault force that arrived on transport planes over many thousands of kilometers is a dubious matter unless obviously hopeless
          1. 0
            19 October 2022 18: 29
            And the Jews captured (in Africa, true, but nonetheless). And the security was broken. In addition, if the airfield is civilian, then it will also be able to receive NATO military aircraft.
  28. 0
    26 October 2022 12: 24
    There is a certain logic in the author's reasoning.
    To be completely honest, I never understood why the Airborne Forces needed BMD-3 and -4? Taking into account the fact that there is nothing to lift the armor that is. BMD-1/2, BTR-D and Nonu should be considered the absolute limit in terms of combat weight. If you need a fire weapon to defeat a powerful OFS direct fire, then Nona, as our "partners" say, "Welcome forever!" If you set yourself such a goal, perhaps on the basis of Nona you will get a light tank a la Scorpio with a 76-90-mm gun. The 90 mm D-62 smoothbore gun was considered for light tanks in the 60s, the 85 mm Sting was tested in the early 80s.
    A very large range of equipment for "similar" purposes. No one will attach the same units to the BTR-D and some "armored vehicles".

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"