The largest modernization of combat equipment in the US Army

82
The largest modernization of combat equipment in the US Army
US Army M2 Bradley IFV. Photo by US Department of Defense


In the foreseeable future, the US Army plans to begin replacing its existing M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles. To this end, a promising program known under the designations OMFV and XM-30 is currently underway. By now, it has managed to move to the technical design stage and is gradually moving forward. However, the first results of the current work will not be visible for several years.



New attempt


Over the past decades, the US Army has attempted several times to launch development of advanced technology to replace existing models. Some of these projects envisaged a future replacement for the Bradley IFV.

The latest attempt to solve this problem started in 2018. Then they launched the Next Generation Combat Vehicle program, later called the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle. In both cases, they were talking about a promising IFV with certain features.

In March 2019, the Army approved the OMFV requirements and issued a request for information to potential bidders. It soon received several applications from defense industry companies interested in participating in the upcoming competition.


The Griffin III combat vehicle, which made it to the final round of the OMFV program. Photo by General Dynamics Land Systems

Work on the OMFV lasted for about a year. In early 2020, the Pentagon announced that the program's organization and requirements for the new IFV did not correspond to real capabilities. In this regard, it was closed and promised to be restarted in the near future.

Project XM-30


The OMFV program was relaunched in mid-2021, with five companies from the US and other countries joining the program. They were awarded contracts and funding. The preliminary design was given 15 months to complete, with the first results expected in early 2023.

In the first half of 2023, the Pentagon planned to compare the proposed projects and select the three most successful. However, due to certain circumstances, it was decided to limit the selection to only two finalists. In June 2023, they were General Dynamics with the Griffin III project and Rheinmetall with the Lynx KF41 IFV.

At this stage, the Army has chosen a designation for the future IFV. Until the end of the current program, it will be called the XM-30, or Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle. Then, after the competition is over and the vehicle is accepted into service, the “X” will be removed from the designation.

Under the June 2023 contracts, the two companies are to complete designs that fully meet Pentagon requirements. They will also build seven prototype armored vehicles, two sets of hulls and turrets for ballistic testing, etc.


Combat module of the BMP "Griffin-3". Photo Shephardmedia.com

Rheinmetall and General Dynamics defended their projects in August 2024 and then began building the prototypes. This work will take 18-20 months. The ordered products must be handed over to the army by the beginning of the 2026 calendar year, after which their testing will begin.

It is expected that the tests will take no more than one and a half to two years. Already in 2027, the Pentagon will draw conclusions and choose the most successful IFV. Then preparations for serial production and assembly of the first batch will begin. The new model IFVs should enter service in the 2029 fiscal year.

The modern approach


The current stage of XM-30 MICV development is officially called Middle Tier Acquisition Rapid Prototyping (MTA-RP). Its goal is to create full-fledged designs and build prototypes at the fastest rate and in the shortest possible time.

In order to speed up the development of the two projects, modern solutions and technologies are used. The main innovation was the engineering platform Modular Open Systems Architected (MOSA), which is a set of technologies, software products and technical solutions suitable for creating almost any land equipment. It is noted that the promising IFV OMFV / MICV is to become the first vehicle in the US Army created using such a platform.

The use of MOSA provides several important advantages. First of all, it simplifies and speeds up the process of developing new projects. In addition, this approach is expected to significantly facilitate further refinement of the basic project or the creation of its modified versions.


KF41 Lynx IFV, German design. Photo Wikimedia Commons

The participating companies found another way to speed up the work. They submitted ready-made armored vehicles to the competition, modified to meet the requirements of the US Army. As previous stages of the program showed, this approach suited the customer quite well.

Actual questions


On January 23, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a report on the progress and prospects of the XM-30 project. It generally acknowledges the progress made, but notes various complexities and potential problems. It also raises questions about the organization of the program and other topics.

Thus, CRS recalls that in February 2024, the US Army approved a new unit development plan, which provides for some reduction in the number of armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles in the troops. The service is interested in how these changes will affect the plans for the OMFV program.

CRS would like to receive information on how exactly and in what proportion the replacement of existing M2 IFVs will take place. It is also necessary to determine how many IFVs of the new model will be delivered to line units and what part of them will be designated as reserves.

It is assumed that the XM-30 product may be of interest to foreign armies. Whether the US will sell such products to friendly states is also unknown, but CRS requires that such plans be determined.


A Lynx vehicle entered in the Australian Army competition. Photo by Rheinmetall Defence

The research service raises another important question. It recalls the problems that armored vehicles have encountered in Ukraine. In the current military operations, anti-tank missiles have clearly demonstrated their potential. missile systems and UAVs for strike purposes. CRS believes that experience of this kind should also be taken into account in the prospective project. The army has already announced that various means of additional protection will be installed on the new equipment. How else the experience of recent years will be used has not yet been specified.

Visible progress


The Pentagon has already planned a replacement for the M2 Bradley IFV several times and even launched corresponding programs. However, due to various reasons, none of them reached full implementation. As a result, the army is forced to use an older IFV that no longer fully meets its requirements.

A new attempt to create the desired sample was made several years ago. The OMFV program has so far managed to successfully pass through the early stages and show certain successes. Whether the program will continue to be optimistic is still unknown. However, the current state of the work allows us to make positive predictions.

There is a possibility that this time the project of the prospective IFV will be completed with the desired result. This will be facilitated by the use of ready-made armored vehicles, a limited degree of their modification and a number of other factors. Nevertheless, the army will be able to use the results of the new program only by the end of the decade.

It should be noted that the current stage of the program is of particular importance. The participating companies have already determined the final appearance of their IFVs and their functions. Now they will have to demonstrate their ability to produce such equipment and then put it through tests. After that, it will become clear how successfully the last years have been spent and whether it will be possible to replace the old IFVs.
82 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -2
    3 February 2025 04: 43
    Dashing, oh dashing, 2018 wanted to replace it with a more progressive and new model, and since then, apart from prototypes and platforms, nothing that could be called a production model?! And this despite the fact that there are budgets, competition is present, and not the worst minds work for the US defense industry.
    1. +7
      3 February 2025 06: 09
      Quote: Murmur 55
      Dashing, oh dashing, 2018 they wanted to replace it with a more progressive and new model, and since then, apart from prototypes and platforms, nothing

      Now everything will go much faster - the experience of using the Bradley IFV and other Western models provides enough material for making useful amendments and changes, and the Trump government with Musk the optimizer will not allow the budget to be wasted - everything will be done quickly and quite rationally. But here it is time to look in the mirror and decide - what about our new IFV? "The Kurganets did not fire, and could not - too expensive and unreliable due to the high novelty factor. And the BMP-3M "Dragoon" and "Manul" proposed instead with the CORRECT configuration have not yet been launched into production. At the same time, in production since 2022 are absolutely useless "doroblo" for the Airborne Forces: BMD-4, "APC "Rakushka", "Sprut-SDM" for parachute landing and self-propelled guns on the BMD-4 chassis ... WHAT IS THIS?? For what?? For which Army and for what War?? What is all this airborne diversity with cardboard armor for?? Instead of all the assembly lines being occupied with this airborne misunderstanding, it would be much more useful and correct to launch the BMP-3M into production in both modifications - "Dragoon" and "Manul", they essentially only have different combat modules and complete unification of the chassis and hull. Why hasn't this been done STILL, and the Airborne Forces, whose units are used in the SVO as assault and infantry, are receiving expensive new armored vehicles with completely unsuitable armor resistance. This is even worse than sabotage.
      I am sure that 70-80% of all airborne forces equipment should be represented by the maximally protected BMP-3M of both modifications, as well as armored personnel carriers based on them. As a wheeled vehicle, the BTR-82B has already been shown at exhibitions with reinforced spaced armor, the CORRECT layout (power plant in front, ramp in the back), with a 3 hp BMP-500 engine and on a classic, well-developed and mastered by industry chassis. Motorized rifle units should also be armed with this equipment. But not only it! HEAVY armored vehicles are needed for assault infantry - based on a tank chassis, with the CORRECT layout (power plant in front, ramp in the back) and the level of protection of an MBT. Such a TBTR has already been created at UVZ and is undergoing testing, but the question arises - how many of these TBTRs and TBMPs (for TBMPs it is enough to install the "Kurganets" combat module and it will be enough) will UVZ be able to supply, if no one has removed plans for new tanks from it? New hulls have been built and are being equipped, this is all good, but I am afraid that organizing mass production, despite the apparent simplicity compared to the MBT, will be difficult for a number of reasons.
      Therefore, I will repeat what I have been writing about for the last 7-8 years - it is necessary to use the huge reserves of T-64 tanks from storage bases, there are 2500 of them. Designate one or two repair plants for this work, equip them with everything necessary, bring in engineering personnel from UVZ and Omsktransmash and, based on the T-64 chassis and hull, following the example of the TBTR-64 ​​from the Kharkov plant, start re-welding MBT hulls into TBTRs. It is the TBTR-64 ​​that should be taken as a model, although the choice of engine will still leave its mark. This should have been done the day before yesterday and we would already have about a thousand to one and a half thousand of these TBTRs. But it is never too late to start doing the RIGHT things. In war conditions, without diverting the main production from the construction of MBT, using the T-64 stockpiles and the method of reasonable cannibalism, from 2500 tanks, which will definitely never be used as tanks, it is possible to obtain in a short time from 1500 to 2000 TBTR with the level of protection of the MBT, with a BM from the BTR-82A (it does not need more), or by installing the BM of the "Kurganets" on some of them to obtain a TBMP. Moreover, at a price no higher, and as if no lower than the new MBP-3 and the BTR on its base. With an incomparably higher level of protection. Why this potential has not yet been used is a mystery to me.
      All NATO countries are equipped with highly protected IFVs, but our infantry still goes into battle on light amphibious armored vehicles, which have to be hung with sheds and which burn from ANY anti-tank ... yes, from any ammunition with a caliber of 25 mm. The example of the combat use of the "Bradley" and other highly protected IFVs showed how much more resilient they are and how they allow saving the lives of crews and troops when they are defeated. We have been harnessing this topic for too long, and as for the fact that we can "quickly go" ... practice and statistics of observation of post-Soviet quadrobers show ... without good whips - NO, they will not go.
      Maybe Belousov will pay attention to this topic? After all, in other positions he showed himself to be smart and quite resourceful... it's time to work with carrot and stick in this sector too.
      1. +3
        3 February 2025 07: 30
        I agree completely. But some traditions have settled in our heads, so to speak, "VDV power" and other nonsense that has been relevant for a very long time. As a result, a lot of money is spent on "elite" units as a priority, and the fact that the equipment is useless, hardly anyone cares. Maybe now the war will change the approach to everything, they will throw out these "traditional" lobbyists, and people will ride under the armor and not on it!
      2. +4
        3 February 2025 09: 54
        And the BMP-3M "Dragoon" and "Manul" proposed instead with the CORRECT configuration have not yet been put into production. At the same time, absolutely useless "doroblo" for the Airborne Forces will be in production since 2022: BMD-4, "BTR "Rakushka", "Sprut-SDM" for parachute landing and self-propelled guns on the BMD-4 chassis ...

        Or maybe the point is that the BMP-3 Manul and Dragoon that you listed are not wanted to be produced in principle, and not that their place is supposedly being taken by BTs for the Airborne Forces?
        For what?? For what Army and for what War?? What is all this paratroop diversity with cardboard armor for??

        Do you know what war will be like in the future?

        "The Kurganets did not fire, and could not - it is too expensive and unreliable due to the high coefficient of novelty. And the BMP-3M "Dragoon" and "Manul" proposed instead with the CORRECT configuration have not yet been launched into production

        What is so fundamentally new about it, the Kurganets, that it didn't even take off? If you want to get a high-quality and well-protected machine, be kind enough to fork out some cash. And your Manuls and Dragoons are the same cardboard jalopies, except for a more convenient layout.
        Speaking about the conversion of MBTs currently in storage into heavy infantry fighting vehicles... you probably know how many of these MBTs are suitable for such conversion in warehouses and how many of them we have in total?
        1. -6
          3 February 2025 10: 23
          Quote: Sanguinius
          Or maybe the point is that the BMP-3 Manul and Dragoon that you listed are not wanted to be produced in principle, and not that their place is supposedly being taken by BTs for the Airborne Forces?

          Young man, if they haven’t been launched into production yet, it’s obvious that they didn’t want to launch them into production. lol Otherwise, they would have allocated money and launched it. Especially since both prototypes have long been known and shown to the authorities. But apparently the notorious "Landing Lobby" is stronger than Common Sense.
          Quote: Sanguinius
          Do you know what war will be like in the future?

          And what do you, young man, know about war?
          Not even about the future, but about the very present?
          From which Palestine are you writing? Vilnius? Tbilisi? Dnepropetrovsk?
          Quote: Sanguinius
          What is so fundamentally new about Kurganets that it didn’t even take off?

          First of all, the price and the new engine. The first is like the T-90M MBT, the second is still being fine-tuned, unreliable, although promising.
          Quote: Sanguinius
          If you want to get a quality and well-protected car, be kind enough to fork out some money.

          You will tell this to your girlfriend, if you have one.
          Yes? And how does she pay you off?
          Quote: Sanguinius
          And your same Manuls and Dragoons, the same cardboard janky-pykals, except for a more convenient layout.

          Young man, do you even understand what you are writing about? Are you our under-... composed elf? laughing What do you know about their level of protection? And about the price? Even with better combat capabilities than the "Kurganets"?
          I'll let you in on an open secret: the delays in launching the BMP-3M into production are most likely due to the same engine. The fact is that due to the increased protection, their weight has increased, without losing buoyancy, so to improve their mobility, it was decided to install an engine from the "Kurganets" on them... but it's not ready yet. Although you can use the native modernized 500-horsepower one, it will pull it off and give you some agility. But there's still nothing to launch it on. For now. New workshops have already been built and are finishing equipping them. And the lines that could be used right now are busy with orders for airborne equipment.
          Quote: Sanguinius
          Speaking about the conversion of MBTs currently in storage into heavy infantry fighting vehicles... you probably know how many of these MBTs are suitable for such conversion in warehouses and how many of them we have in total?

          I know how much of this equipment is in storage bases. I have a rough idea of ​​its condition. And of course I can imagine the complexity of the upcoming work. That is why I wrote this post.
          And what does Elf Artem know from all this?
          He can object to something concrete (I'm not even talking about something constructive). Does Artem have his own opinion?
          What do they know at the Elven Farm about the TBTR-64 ​​from the Kharkov Plant, which they demonstrated in 2010 and 2013? They just re-cooked it from a T-64. Very interesting work, worthy of all attention given the need for such equipment on the battlefield.
          1. +5
            3 February 2025 12: 26
            Young man, if they haven't been launched into production yet, it's obvious that they didn't want to launch them into production. lol Otherwise, they would have allocated money and launched them. Especially since both prototypes have long been known and shown to the authorities. But apparently the notorious "Landing Lobby" is stronger than Common Sense.

            Grandpa, this is your "landing lobby" - it's only in your fantasies, not connected with reality)
            Doesn't it bother you that when producing BT for the Airborne Forces, the same BMP-3s are produced regardless of whether they continue to produce BMDs and other airborne equipment or not... that is, if they wanted to produce the BMP-3 modifications you listed above, no airborne equipment would harm this.
            As for the lack of production facilities, I agree, but it is not the Airborne Forces' fault that all the "polymers" were squandered.
            And what do you, young man, know about war?
            Not even about the future, but about the very present?
            From which Palestine are you writing? Vilnius? Tbilisi? Dnepropetrovsk?

            But are we really talking about war, as an understanding of what war is!?)))
            We are talking about what the war will be like in terms of its conduct, its formation.
            From which ones?)) Well, I am writing from that "Palestine", which YOU specifically, together with the long-suffering Donbass and Luhansk region, officially joined in 2022, and which is now your Homeland, so be careful with "Palestines", you are our Nostradamus)))
            Young man, do you even understand what you are writing about? Elf, are you our under-... assembled? laughing What do you know about their level of protection? And about the price? Even with better combat capabilities than the "Kurganets"?

            Grandpa, don't act like a high-flying bird...how would you know about their "best combat capabilities" if both models didn't participate in combat missions?) Through theoretical assessments?)

            I know how much of this equipment is in storage bases. I have a rough idea of ​​its condition. And of course I can imagine the complexity of the upcoming work. That is why I wrote this post.

            Oh wow...the key word is "approximately" ahahaha.
            And this man here is telling me about a substantive conversation)))
            The fact that instead of your beloved T-64s, to replenish the troops with armored vehicles, they began to revive and replenish T-62 and T-54/55, says a lot. There are no such 64s suitable for resuscitation, and if there are, then not so many to cover the army's needs.
            And if you have RELIABLE and VERIFIED data on the state of our T-64 fleet...then you are most welcome to provide this data, you are our subject matter expert)))
            As for the need for heavy infantry fighting vehicles for our troops, no one denies it.
            1. -3
              3 February 2025 13: 55
              Quote: Sanguinius
              Oh wow...the key word is "approximately" ahahaha.

              So you have no idea why some of the most advanced Soviet tanks are not in service with the Russian Armed Forces? And you're trying to argue here? Ask which plant produced them, what problems there are with their engines, and why they will definitely not be returned to service as tanks. The guns are removed from them to replace the shot barrels, but without the Kharkov engines (which in the post-Soviet era at KhTZ were finally brought to mind and received a 1000-horsepower ultra-compact (not hyperbole) engine. So as tanks they will never return to service. But in the case of reconfiguration into TBTR (and welders will have to work oh so hard for this) their chassis and hull elements will still be quite useful. And any engine from the existing ones can be installed on them. The choice is small, but it is there. As a result, in the conditions of a well-equipped repair plant, it is possible to establish the production of TBTR from the existing T-64 hulls. They will not find any other useful application, and it is a pity to melt them down.
              Their technical condition is approximately the same as the condition of numerous (but already largely selected from bases) T-72, but this is of much less importance because only the hulls and chassis will be used, even the engine will be different. But it will be cheaper and faster than building such TBTRs from scratch to the detriment of the production of new T-90Ms. All T-72s can return to service with modernization. All T-62s can return to service with or without modernization (as a mobile highly protected fire weapon). And even all T-55s can return to service in the same quality as T-62s, fortunately there are plenty of shells for them in warehouses. But the T-64 cannot return to service, although it is much better and more advanced, on the same level with the T-80 and the best / latest Soviet modifications of the T-72 (the cheapest, most widespread, mobilization).
              The data on the number of tanks at storage bases before the SVO is open, you can see for yourself how many and what were left there. Now there are significantly fewer.
              T-64 - 2500 pcs.
              T-62 - about 2000 units (actively sold since Soviet times).
              T-55\54 - about 1500 units (many were disposed of in the post-Soviet period).
              Quote: Sanguinius
              I am writing from that "palestine" which YOU, together with the long-suffering Donbass and Luhansk region, officially joined in 2022, and which is now your homeland

              I was born in the Urals and my Motherland is the USSR. Because I finished school in the Ukrainian SSR, a military university in Vilnius, military training on the island of Saaremaa, the Gulf of Finland, the Estonian USSR, served in Transcaucasia, Azerbaijan. This is for the young quad biker to imagine WHAT the Motherland is, and what Russia is. Because the Russian Federation is not Russia, but only its largest fragment.
              Quote: Sanguinius
              Be careful with "Palestinians"

              It's clear - a victim of the Unified State and market relations. What brought him to VO with such pathos? Although who doesn't get brought here?
              Quote: Sanguinius
              Doesn't it bother you that when producing BT for the Airborne Forces, the same BMP-3s are produced regardless of whether they continue to produce BMDs and other airborne equipment?

              What kind of a set of words is this? The lines set up to produce the BMP-3 are churning out these vehicles at a rapid pace. But the lines that are reserved for producing the BMD-4, Sprut, Rakushka, etc. self-propelled guns for the Airborne Forces are producing something that is practically useless for the current and future conflicts due to its extremely low survivability. But at the same time, they have a high price (more expensive than the MBP-3) and take up production lines that could be used with much greater benefit.
              Why is that ?
              Yes, because the "Landing Lobby" pushed through the development and production of all this weakly protected stuff even before the SVO... The lines were set up, production was launched or was just starting up, but all the production cooperation had already been built. Obviously, that is why, with the start of the SVO, all the lines began to produce what they were set up for... but they were set up for the wrong thing. Because in war, completely different equipment is needed.
              You, young man, do not understand the topic under discussion at all, you probably cannot tell the difference between a T-64 and a T-62, you do not understand how production is organized and what factors influence the pace and quality of production, or the impossibility of a quick restructuring to a new type of product. Why, having neither knowledge nor practical experience, are you getting into an argument? After all, you have no idea about tanks, nor about the layout features of different types of infantry fighting vehicles, nor about combat tactics, nor about the survivability of this equipment on the battlefield. And you have nothing to do with military topics at all. You should go to another site and explain things to the girls.
              Quote: Sanguinius
              And if you have RELIABLE and VERIFIED data

              If I had reliable and verified data on the current state of the storage bases, I would definitely not write about this. But I remember the open data at the time before the start of the SVO very well.
              Quote: Sanguinius
              As for the need for heavy infantry fighting vehicles for our troops, no one denies it.

              And what is the meaning of your denial? Or non-denial?
              It is not up to you to make the decision. And even more so, it is not up to you to give advice or expert opinion on this.
              Quote: Sanguinius
              to replenish the troops with armored vehicles, they began to revive and replenish the T-62 and T-54/55,

              By the beginning of 2023, these tanks were sent to reinforce the troops going on the defensive. Specifically as a mobile, highly protected fire weapon, and not as tanks. As self-propelled guns. In addition, there were plenty of shells for their guns in the warehouses. But there were already serious problems with 122 and 152 mm shells. So, for the sake of guns and shells, they were dragged to the front.
              1. +2
                3 February 2025 15: 06
                So you have no idea why some of the most advanced Soviet tanks are not in service with the Russian Armed Forces? And you're trying to argue here?

                So why did you decide that I don't know this? Why are you making up my mind for me?) I quoted you)
                I was born in the Urals and my Motherland is the USSR. Because I finished school in the Ukrainian SSR, a military university in Vilnius, military training on the island of Saaremaa, the Gulf of Finland, the Estonian USSR, served in Transcaucasia, Azerbaijan. This is for the young quad biker to imagine WHAT the Motherland is, and what Russia is. Because the Russian Federation is not Russia, but only its largest fragment.

                Grandpa, what are you so mad about? Quad bikes or something!? I didn't say a word about the USSR. Oh well, if you like it so much, let the USSR be your homeland, but the trouble is, there is no such country. And now, your homeland is called the RF - the Russian Federation, and you can't get away from it.
                It's clear - a victim of the Unified State and market relations. What brought him to VO with such pathos? Although who doesn't get brought here?

                The man who started to grin and show his conceit in response to ordinary questions tells me: Take your pills already and calm down.
                Yes, because the "Landing Lobby" pushed through the development and production of all this weakly protected equipment even before the SVO

                What did they push through there!? Do you want to say that the Airborne Forces should have sat on their asses until 2022 and not been involved in developing their own branch of the armed forces!? How does this affect the production of heavier vehicles for the Ground Forces, instead of the same cardboard BMP-2/3, BTR-80A\82A, long before the Central Military District. Is the Airborne Forces to blame again!? Who is to blame for the lack of production lines? The Airborne Forces again? You are a strange person.
                Their technical condition is approximately the same as the condition of numerous (but already largely selected from bases) T-72, but this is of much less importance because only the hulls and chassis will be used, even the engine will be different. But it will be cheaper and faster than building such TBTRs from scratch to the detriment of the production of new T-90Ms. All T-72s can return to service with modernization. All T-62s can return to service with or without modernization (as a mobile highly protected fire weapon). And even all T-55s can return to service in the same quality as T-62s, fortunately there are plenty of shells for them in warehouses. But the T-64 cannot return to service, although it is much better and more advanced, on the same level with the T-80 and the best / latest Soviet modifications of the T-72 (the cheapest, most widespread, mobilization).
                The data on the number of tanks at storage bases before the SVO is open, you can see for yourself how many and what were left there. Now there are significantly fewer.
                T-64 - 2500 pcs.
                T-62 - about 2000 units (actively sold since Soviet times).
                T-55\54 - about 1500 units (many were disposed of in the post-Soviet period).


                Well, that is to say, you haven’t revealed anything fundamentally new to me, anything that I didn’t already know.
                Obviously, this is why, with the beginning of the Second World War, all production lines began to produce what they were designed for... but they were not designed for what was needed. Because in war, completely different equipment is needed.

                Well, if you understand...
                how production is organized and what factors influence the pace and quality of production, or the impossibility of quickly switching to a new type of product
                , then it won't be difficult for you to figure out with your head why the same BMD-4M and BTR-MDM are still being produced on that very assembly line that you blame so much.))) Namely, because the restructuring of the line for a new type of armored vehicles, plus in connection with the new models that have not been completed, will take a lot of time, and the equipment at the front is needed here and now, AHA))
                It is not up to you to make the decision. And even more so, it is not up to you to give advice or expert opinion on this.

                Phahahah, you'd think from your writing here, something would be resolved...the same senseless puffing up of the cheeks laughing
                1. -2
                  3 February 2025 16: 37
                  Quote: Sanguinius
                  And now, your homeland is called the RF - the Russian Federation, and you can’t get away from it.

                  Young man, if tomorrow your homeland is conquered by... say China (purely hypothetically), will you then call China your homeland?
                  The country I was born in was called the USSR, and before that it was Russia or the Republic of Ingushetia, only it was larger in size by the Kars and Erzurum regions, it also included Finland and Poland. The Russian Federation is a fragment of both of these empires, and when I was born there was no trace of the Russian Federation. So my Motherland is Russia-USSR. And the Russian Federation is my citizenship and place of residence. It is not for nothing that I listed the places where I served and studied, for me these are not foreign places, and this was my Country. And for you these are foreign states that you do not care about, your homeland is a fragment of former greatness, but this is not Russia, this is the Russian Federation. You probably have no idea that Russia is now, with pain and blood, regaining its integrity. Returning its lands and people, and not some invented "Ukraine".
                  Quote: Sanguinius
                  What kind of quad bikes are these!?

                  Well, how else can one classify with such a level of knowledge and outlook?
                  Quote: Sanguinius
                  Are you saying that the Airborne Forces should have sat on their asses until 2022 and not been involved in developing their own branch of the military!?

                  Once again for the especially gifted - the Russian Federation does not have enough aircraft for such a landing. And it is unlikely that it will in the foreseeable future. Even based on this, such parachute-landing equipment in such quantities is not needed, and during the usual transfer of troops by aviation, the aircraft is loaded with a BMD or BMP anyway - the carrying capacity is more than enough. But it is much better to fight on an BMP. And the parachute-landing "Sprut-SDM" with cardboard armor looks completely ridiculous. This was known and obvious even before the SVO, but the paratrooper deputies really wanted to "like grandma's time" to watch the landing of new equipment during exercises... But at the VO, even then, all the forums were filled with criticism of this stupidity - there are NO airplanes, parachute landings are impossible in modern conditions, and for a quick inter-theater maneuver by aviation using the landing method, ordinary armored vehicles of the Ground Forces will do. Therefore, if you need a light amphibious tank - make it on the BMP-3 chassis. And for self-propelled guns, too, the BMP-3 chassis. And for armored personnel carriers. Unification, simplification and reduction in the cost of procurement and operation, personnel training, a single spare parts base. But they pushed through - their own and special, with a whole line of completely new combat units that are not suitable for anything else. And now our paratroopers are forced to hang additional screens on their brand new BMDs and "Spruts", suffer unjustified losses and switch to normal armored vehicles at every opportunity. It was the same in Afghanistan, and in Chechnya. It is the same now. So all the mistakes were made in advance, now only the fruits are coming.
                  Quote: Sanguinius
                  , why are the same BMD-4M and BTR-MDM still being produced on the same assembly line that you blame so much on?

                  Young man, I have SPECIFICALLY explained this to you. That when the war/SVO and losses began, mobilization and increase in the size of the group, it was too late to think - they armed with everything they had and launched into production everything that was possible "here and now". Another thing is that this equipment is of little use in the SVO, and often even harmful, because it leads to unjustified losses. It would have been wiser to rebuild these lines, if not on the BMP-3M, then on the classic BMP-3, the benefit would have been many times greater. So one mistake entailed a whole bunch of others. The troops are sent equipment that the Army does not need - such is the price of a mistake and the stubbornness of parachute jumpers.

                  Quote: Sanguinius
                  senseless puffing out of cheeks

                  I have been writing on these topics for 8 years already. And UVZ has already made a TBTR exactly as the configuration should be. But the SVO has already reached a turning point, and there is no new equipment in the troops. It is necessary to advance and the infantry is pushing forward on motorized vehicles and old BMP-2s. This is not due to the extreme wisdom and cunning of plans, but to laziness, sluggishness, inertia of thinking and incompetence. No one prepared for the SVO in any way. There were not even mobilization plans or lists of reservists. Cheeks puffed up with importance at tank biathlons and parades poured out on us in 3 years of meat grinder, which has no end in sight.
                  Did anyone close to you die in this war?
                  Mine were killed. And someone else is still fighting.
                  This is the price of cheeks puffed up at parades and the intelligence of a quadruped in government positions.
                  1. 0
                    3 February 2025 18: 15
                    Young man, if tomorrow your homeland is conquered by... say China (purely hypothetically), will you then call China your homeland?

                    And what does this have to do with it?))) My homeland is Russia... and it is called the Russian Federation, just like yours, and at this historical stage it is within the limits and borders that exist now at the present moment and whether you like it or not, there is no escape from it.
                    So my homeland is Russia-USSR

                    Well, that's right, Russia is your Motherland, but I have to correct you, the USSR, according to your logic it is a place of residence... but I have to disappoint you, the USSR has sunk into oblivion.

                    Once again for the especially gifted - the Russian Federation does not have enough aircraft for such a landing. And it is unlikely that it will in the foreseeable future. Even based on this, such parachute-landing equipment is not needed in such quantities, and during a normal transfer of troops by aviation, the aircraft is loaded with a BMD or BMP anyway - the carrying capacity is more than enough.

                    For what kind of landing? Are you imagining parachute landings exclusively by divisions?
                    The fact that, based on the results of the Airborne Military District, a review of the Airborne Forces’ Joint Staff is overdue is clear even without you.
                    That when the war/SVO and losses began, mobilization and increase in the size of the group, it was already too late to think - they armed with everything they had and launched into production everything that was possible "here and now"

                    Well, if you understand this, then why blame the Airborne Forces, what do they have to do with it!?)))
                    They release what they can here and now.
                    You should finally decide for yourself whether this production can be quickly rebuilt or not. Otherwise, you are contradicting yourself.
                    classic BMP-3, the benefits would have been many times greater. So one mistake led to a whole bunch of others

                    Well, it's just as cardboard as the BMD, so where could it be more useful? That is, the ground forces ordered useless hardware for themselves before the SVO... but for some reason you blame the paratroopers again.
                    And UVZ has already made a TBTR exactly as the configuration should be. But the SVO has already reached a turning point, and there is no new equipment in the troops. It is necessary to advance, and the infantry is pushing forward on motorized vehicles and old BMP-2s. This is not due to the extreme wisdom and cunning of plans, but to laziness, sluggishness, inertia of thinking and incompetence. No one prepared for the SVO in any way. There were not even mobilization plans or lists of reservists. Cheeks puffed up with importance at tank biathlons and parades poured out on us in 3 years of meat grinder, the end of which is not in sight.

                    Believe it or not, I agree with every word you said in this speech. But what does the Airborne Forces have to do with it?
                    The Airborne Forces were built based on their own concept of use, the ground forces based on theirs. Is it the Airborne Forces' fault that the ground forces were unprepared for anything and that the Airborne Forces, Marines and special forces were in the forefront in 2022? Did the Airborne Forces hinder the development of armored vehicles for the ground forces!? Of course not! So ask the ground forces why they still don't have decent IFVs/APCs in service.
                    Did anyone close to you die in this war?
                    Mine were killed. And someone else is still fighting.

                    No, thank God.
                    I sympathize with your loss. And a speedy return to those who fight on the fields of the SVO alive and unharmed.
                    1. 0
                      3 February 2025 20: 03
                      Quote: Sanguinius
                      but I have to disappoint you: the USSR has sunk into oblivion.

                      Then another example (may this never happen): Russia is captured by "new citizens" and renamed to Wahhabistan. How will you call your Motherland in this case? Think about it. For many people, the concept of Motherland is somewhat broader than the existing state borders. Because they appeared recently.
                      Quote: Sanguinius
                      For what kind of landing? Are you imagining parachute landings exclusively by divisions?

                      Read carefully what I wrote above - airborne equipment in the Airborne Forces should be about 20-25%, no more. Specifically for parachute landing of reconnaissance and sabotage and vanguard units. All other equipment will still be delivered ONLY by landing. So let this equipment be real - for combat, so that it can withstand heavy bullets on the sides and 30 mm. in the forehead, as well as heavy shrapnel.
                      Quote: Sanguinius
                      They release what they can here and now.

                      Mistakes were made earlier. Especially regarding the "Sprut-SDM" and the self-propelled guns, they should have been made on a normal BMP-3 chassis - it is stronger both from shrapnel and from recoil. And maybe the Indians would not have turned their noses up when they needed a light tank for the highlands.
                      And even for the vanguard units of motorized rifle and tank divisions, a company of light amphibious tanks with an MBT cannon would be useful. But as it is - neither a candle to God nor a poker to the devil.
                      Quote: Sanguinius
                      Either this production can be rebuilt quickly, or not. Otherwise, you contradict yourself.

                      Yes, they have already been included in the plans, contracts have been signed. Here, with the beginning of the SVO, they should have quickly stopped, realizing that this is unnecessary and rebuilding the lines for BMP-3, even without the "M", they are already in serial production, there would be no problems with cooperation and tooling. And the troops would have received truly necessary equipment. But 3 years have already passed, new corps have been built, lines are being prepared, personnel are being trained, and the existing lines are producing some kind of nonsense that is not needed in this war, nor will it be useful in the future with NATO. Perhaps as a disposable one. But it's a pity for the soldiers in it.
                      Quote: Sanguinius
                      Well, it’s just as cardboard as the BMD, so where could it get any more useful?

                      What cardboard? BMP-3?? It can withstand heavy shrapnel, large bullets in the side, and 30 mm. in the forehead. And the BMP-3M with screens from the "Kurganets" and 30 mm. armor piercing shells with the sides. This is the difference, and a fundamental one - the BMD-4 will be torn to shreds by shell shrapnel, and the BMP-3 will most likely survive, or at least keep the crew and troops alive. They have the same weapons, and the BMD's armor can only withstand regular bullets with the sides. And heavy 12,7 with the forehead.
                      Quote: Sanguinius
                      That is, the ground forces themselves ordered useless hardware before the SVO... but for some reason you again blame the paratroopers.

                      It is not the paratroopers who are to blame, they are the most injured party. It is the Lobby that is to blame, for whom toys, pictures, parades and parachute parachute parachuting are beautiful during exercises. But in a real war, paratroopers are always the first to suffer from the shortcomings of their equipment. And it is unacceptable to treat the elite of our Army like this. They deserve much better. At least on the same level as motorized riflemen. And for parachute landings, 20-25% of specialized equipment is more than enough and more.
                      Quote: Sanguinius
                      Is it the Airborne Forces' fault that the ground forces were unprepared for anything and that the Airborne Forces, Marines and special forces were in the forefront in 2022?

                      The fault of the VPR is that there was practically no infantry in the RF Armed Forces. The vehicles were mostly manned by contract soldiers, but the infantry was mostly conscripts, who were not allowed. That is why the Airborne Forces, Marines, Special Operations Forces, and even the Russian National Guard were thrown into the battle. The situation was saved by our corps, which had infantry, motivation, and were seasoned, with combat experience.
                      What can you expect from the ground forces? They suffered less from this nonsense. At least they have equipment with some armor, and they have tanks. But the Airborne Forces only have soap dishes and fighting spirit. And the Marines in armored personnel carriers.
          2. 0
            3 February 2025 19: 35
            It seems to me that you are crossing all boundaries of correctness and politeness. It is absolutely impossible to conduct a discussion like this. I do not know you or your opponent personally, but such a tone and conversation through clenched teeth is UNACCEPTABLE.
        2. +2
          3 February 2025 11: 27
          Quote: Sanguinius
          Do you know what war will be like in the future?

          This is some very distant future. Because at the present moment (and in the near future) all the parachute-landing magnificence of the airborne troops is simply nothing to land with. In our military transport aviation, we have equipment for the maximum of a regiment with equipment, and entire divisions are filled with parachute-landing equipment.
          Why build an elite cartonium en masse, replacing the armored vehicle's protection with the ability to be dropped with a parachute, if this equipment in a combat situation is constantly being carried around on its sides from airfield to airfield and is landed by airborne assault? Or even travels by rail.
          1. 0
            3 February 2025 12: 38
            This is some very distant future. Because at the present moment (and in the near future) all the parachute-landing magnificence of the airborne troops is simply nothing to land with. In our military transport aviation, we have equipment for the maximum of a regiment with equipment, and entire divisions are filled with parachute-landing equipment.

            Alexey, no one denies that the Airborne Forces also need to be subjected to changes in both the operational staff and equipment. Within the bounds of reasonableness. But it is not worth abandoning parachute landing as such. In my purely personal opinion, I would leave two parachute-landing regiments for the needs of the Airborne Forces, everything else is airmobile and airborne assault units, but the thing is that we need VTA aircraft in any case.
            And I would like to know...how do you see the future of the Russian Airborne Forces?
            1. 0
              3 February 2025 13: 19
              Quote: Sanguinius
              But there is no point in giving up parachute landing as such.

              And I am not calling for a complete rejection of parachute landing. Someone has to seize and equip landing sites. wink
              I criticize only the principle of arming the Airborne Forces with parachute-landing equipment, for which they sacrifice the protection of individual units of armored vehicles and the firepower of the units. With the typical use of the Airborne Forces as airmobile motorized riflemen for the operational reinforcement of threatened areas, this leads to the fact that instead of reinforcing the infantry, the Airborne Forces themselves require reinforcement, primarily in terms of artillery and air defense.
              Quote: Sanguinius
              In my purely personal opinion, I would leave two parachute regiments for the needs of the Airborne Forces, and the rest would be airmobile and airborne assault units.

              Or a parachute battalion per division.
              Quote: Sanguinius
              but the thing is that we need military transport aircraft in any case.

              True. But the refusal of parachute landing means additional millimeters of height and tons of weight for the equipment, which were previously eaten up by the parachute landing platform. Plus the width x depth of the equipment during landing will be determined not by the dimensions of the parachute landing platform, but by the dimensions of the cargo cabin and cargo hatch of the aircraft.
              1. 0
                3 February 2025 14: 02
                With the typical use of the Airborne Forces as airmobile motorized riflemen for the operational reinforcement of threatened areas, this leads to the fact that instead of reinforcing the infantry, the Airborne Forces themselves require reinforcement, primarily in terms of artillery and air defense.

                Look, operational reinforcement of directions is necessary for what? In order to give time to full-fledged tank and motorized rifle formations to reach these defended lines.
                In offensive operations, the airborne units of the Airborne Forces will still not have the same capabilities as the Ground Forces. All combat work of the airborne/airborne assault units is based on the work of the rest of the army structures (Ground Forces, Air Force). You will not be able to fundamentally increase the protection of the Airborne Forces' armored vehicles in any way, unless you are going to give them heavy infantry fighting vehicles and heavy armored personnel carriers, but then there will be no talk of any airmobility.
                The DShB/PDB, in terms of armament with artillery weapons and air defense, are not fundamentally different from a motorized rifle battalion.
                True. But the refusal of parachute landing means additional millimeters of height and tons of weight for the equipment, which were previously eaten up by the parachute landing platform. Plus the width x depth of the equipment during landing will be determined not by the dimensions of the parachute landing platform, but by the dimensions of the cargo cabin and cargo hatch of the aircraft.

                And you are looking at the root. Maybe, in order for such a problem to be solved, maybe it is time to think about designing a new wide-body military transport aircraft like the C-17 Globemaster III, or the An-22A (only with turbojet engines)? And for the new, more protected equipment, accordingly, develop new PDPs and, in addition, solve the problem of air transportability of heavier equipment (the same Abrams fit into Globemasters with a reserve and heavier Bradleys are transferred without problems, unlike us, where to transport a T-72B3 on an Il-76, that's a real dance with a tambourine)
                1. 0
                  3 February 2025 22: 00
                  Is it possible to install armor plate mounts on the equipment, which can be dropped separately/optionally, and if possible, the crew installs them on the ground?
                  As for airdropping of equipment, the experience of the SVO, in my opinion, has shown that it may be very necessary, but not against the regular army. If another Prigozhin or Ukrainian group makes a sudden breakthrough to Moscow or captures a region, then by blocking airfields (in the regions there may be 1-2 of them) or rail travel, you can throw off the possibility of transferring troops there, and then, like with Sudzha, they have not been able to knock them out for six months. In such conditions, the Airborne Forces will be the only option.
      3. +2
        3 February 2025 10: 29
        Quote: bayard
        For what?? For what Army and for what War??
        In 1939, England and France declared war on Germany, a period known as the "phony war." The Germans bypassed the Maginot Line through Belgium, France capitulated, the British fled to the island, abandoning their equipment near Dunkirk. Now, what is our SVO, which they stubbornly do not call a war, and which has become a semblance of a "phony war," with the difference that a strange military operation is not sitting back, but frontal assaults, as if the Germans were taking the Maginot Line head-on. Can what is happening be considered a standard of modern warfare, characterize the necessary equipment for such tactics? The Airborne Forces were created for a real war, and the equipment there corresponds to its tasks. The trouble is that we do not have a full-fledged army, without which we can fight like this for another 3 or 10 years, laying down men in frontal assaults for each village, and regretting that we do not have a "Maus." The BMP is primarily a universal vehicle, for thick armor specialization is needed, this is a heavy APC (transport function) and BMPT (specialized fire). All on a tank base, as an option, it would be possible to create an BMP on the BMO-T base, as in the photo.
        1. +2
          3 February 2025 11: 36
          Quote: Per se.
          The Airborne Forces were created for real war, and the equipment there corresponds to its tasks.

          The problem is that in a big war the Airborne Forces will also not be needed. Because this war will end in a few hours, when one of the sides considers that the threshold has been crossed - and the hands of the famous clock will close at 12.
          And yes, I would very much like to see a support detail for the landing of the Airborne Division. Taking into account the suppression of air defense, gaining air superiority and isolating the combat area. smile
          1. +2
            3 February 2025 14: 15
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Because this war will end in a few hours.
            Let's remember that bastard Brzezinski.Russia can have as many nuclear suitcases and nuclear buttons as you like, but since 500 billions of dollars of the Russian elite are in our banks, you have to figure it out: is this your elite or is it already ours? I do not see a single situation in which Russia will use its nuclear potential».
            If so, and there are such suspicions about the SVO, when the people are getting poorer, suffering and dying, and the "elite" has only increased the number of billionaires by 2024. So, is nuclear weapons necessary if no one will use them, like chemical weapons in WWII? Probably, they are necessary, let them be. As for the Airborne Forces, it is not their fault that there was no "armored lobby" or "motorized rifle lobby" nearby, as well as decent combat training, because of which paratroopers are plugging all the holes. It is as if the navy sent submarines into battle only in the surface position, and then said, why do we need these shells, they are sunk even with light guns. If it were not for the selfish interests of the Russian "elite", then they would not hide the "red lines" and "gestures of goodwill", whining and dependence on the West. Is a real war only total mutual destruction? If, in addition to “we haven’t even started yet,” we would have started fighting seriously long ago, and not pretended to butt heads with our partners, we fight here, we trade here, the airborne operation in Gostomel would have been the first swallow in our victory.
            1. +2
              4 February 2025 11: 07
              Quote: Per se.
              Let's remember the bastard Brzezinski. "Russia can have as many nuclear suitcases and nuclear buttons as it wants, but since the Russian elite's 500 billion dollars are in our banks, you still have to figure it out: is this your elite or is it ours? I don't see a single situation in which Russia will use its nuclear potential."

              And in such a situation, even conventional military forces are not needed - they will not be used in the same way.

              It's just that over the last quarter century the West has been doing everything possible to hammer a simple thesis into the heads of the comprador elites: without your country you are nobody, your money is ours, and you yourselves are disenfranchised meat in the dock, or even at the firing squad.
              Want to be a corrupt elite in a living country? Welcome to the company of Aven and Friedman.
              Do you want to hand over your country to the West's guarantees? Welcome - Milosevic, Gaddafi and the Syrian army are waiting for you. And yes, if you hand over Russia - you will have nowhere to run, there is no other Rostov.
              1. +2
                4 February 2025 14: 32
                The West is doing everything possible to hammer a simple thesis into the heads of comprador elites: without your country, you are nobody
                not a bad idea, maybe someday they'll hammer it into the empty heads of our rich people
              2. 0
                5 February 2025 09: 21
                Quote: Alexey RA
                And in such a situation, even conventional military forces are not needed - they will not be used in the same way.
                It looks very much like this, with 3 years of SVO and "we haven't started anything serious yet"...
              3. 0
                6 February 2025 02: 10
                Quote: Alexey RA
                It's just that over the last quarter century the West has been doing

                It is not the West that does this, but the logic of capitalism itself. Just as the complete trash in equipping the RF Armed Forces is determined by it. That is why this very corrupt "elite" conducts this strange magical operation the way it does. Causing bewilderment and a bunch of questions from the naive layman.
                1. 0
                  6 February 2025 10: 52
                  Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
                  It is not the West that does this, but the very logic of capitalism's functioning. Just as the complete trash in equipping the RF Armed Forces is determined by it.

                  The first is possible.
                  But the second completely contradicts the modern logic of capitalism. Because in a situation of merging business and the state (Dick "Halliburton" Cheney or the Bidens), the armed forces of the state serve as a tool for expanding the markets of the companies of this state. Simply put, the military force of the state facilitates negotiations of "private" business and protects its interests after the conclusion of contracts. If you do not want to feed your army, do not be surprised later by coups in "zones of interest" with the seizure of property and the results of "Stockholm arbitrations".
                  1. 0
                    7 February 2025 00: 53
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    But the second completely contradicts the modern logic of the functioning of capitalism.

                    Well, where does it contradict, if, for example, we remember how everyone saved on their military after the collapse of the USSR? The same thing happened to us. We remembered about the military only when we leaned pitchforks against the wall.
                    1. +1
                      7 February 2025 13: 44
                      Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
                      Well, where does it contradict, if, for example, we remember how everyone saved on their armed forces after the collapse of the USSR?

                      But at the same time they maintained their armed forces in a state suitable at least for destroying all sorts of Yugoslavias, Iraqs and Libyas.
                      Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
                      They remembered about the Armed Forces only when they leaned the pitchfork against the wall.

                      Hell no. We were shown the pitchforks back in 2014. It was perfectly clear where things were heading. So what? Nothing - biathlons, parades, parks and exhibitions. And they even managed to publicly screw up at the exhibition - remember the TUR shooting at one of the "Armies".
                      1. 0
                        9 February 2025 16: 37
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        But at the same time they maintained their armed forces in a state suitable at least for destroying all sorts of Yugoslavias, Iraqs and Libyas.

                        Yes, indeed. But this is still not the full complement of the Internal Affairs Directorate.
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        Hell no. We were shown the pitchforks back in 2014. It was perfectly clear where things were heading. So what? Nothing - biathlons, parades, parks and exhibitions. And they even managed to publicly screw up at the exhibition - remember the TUR shooting at one of the "Armies".

                        Well, they tried.
                        https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2873928.html
                        But "biathlons, parades, parks and exhibitions" proved stronger.
        2. +4
          3 February 2025 12: 31
          Quote: Per se.
          The Germans bypassed the Maginot Line through Belgium, France capitulated, the British fled to the island, abandoning their equipment near Dunkirk.

          This can work once (although it worked twice for the Germans in both World Wars) due to the element of surprise at the very beginning of the war. Then they (especially with us) were not so lucky. Although of course they are masters of maneuver warfare - 1941 and 1942 are witnesses to that.
          But that's definitely not what we're talking about, right?
          We are talking about equipment for the Airborne Forces. For which (the Airborne Forces) we do not have Military Transport Aviation. And this problem is unsolvable in the short/medium term - the industry named after citizen Manturov is NOT CAPABLE of building such aircraft in series. Only in experimental/small-scale batches of 6 units per year. And of these, at least 2 units are for AWACS (A-50U, which are now being riveted from scratch, and A-100, of which 2 units are already undergoing testing), and another 2 units for Il-78MD-90A fuel tankers. In total, 2 units per year remain for the VTA. And they simply cannot - are not capable of more, no matter how much they puff themselves up with promises. Because they have not trained personnel, they do not want to pay people, cooperation has not been established, there are not enough engines - they SIMPLY CANNOT make them in the required quantities either. This is our irreplaceable hero-top manager, citizen Manturov.
          Not to mention that parachute landings are impossible over the territory of a country with any kind of air defense. It would simply be a one-way flight and everyone understands that. After all, even having captured the airfield in Gostomel, the planes could not be accepted there. Not even by landing.
          So there is no point in dreaming about some other wars where we will be "allowed". They will not be allowed - all our enemies have air defense.
          Therefore, if parachute landings of a mass nature are impossible (at least by a regiment or a brigade), then it remains to use the Airborne Forces as airmobile rapid reaction forces. In fact, our Airborne Forces have always been used this way, when in real life. And if these are airmobile forces with landing landings, then ... why do they need parachute-landing equipment? No, 20-25% of the fleet may be like this and in some special/exceptional cases it may really come in handy. BUT NOT MORE THAN 20-25% of the fleet! And all the rest of the equipment must be NORMAL and sufficiently protected at least from heavy bullets and large fragments. And withstand 25-30 mm shells head-on. That is, it must be the BMP-3M and the BTR based on it. Il-76MD-90A it doesn't matter what to take on board - two BMD or two BMP. But for the fighters themselves it is much safer and more reliable in the BMP-3M. In addition, the BMP is always cheaper than the BMD simply because of its greater serial production. In addition, unification with other branches of the military, it is easier to solve the issues of spare parts and repairs. So I am categorically for arming the Airborne Forces and Marines of the Navy with new BMP-3M and armored personnel carriers based on it.
          Quote: Per se.
          The Airborne Forces were created for real war, and the equipment there corresponds to its tasks.

          The Airborne Forces always and in any war start with their cardboard equipment, and already in the course of it with deep relief switch to NORMAL, and at the same time maximally protected equipment of motorized riflemen. Remember Afghanistan, Chechnya, and of course the SVO. After all, the heart bled looking at our paratroopers - selected personnel on ridiculous duralumin "soapboxes". And the BMD-4 in terms of protection is not far from these ersatz ... And for some reason they came up with the "Sprut-SDM" with a parachute ... WHY ?? I wrote about this 5 years before the SVO began, because I live in Donetsk and knew and foresaw what kind of war it would be. I wrote exactly the same about the TBTR. Because all countries of the world are switching to highly protected equipment for infantry, abandoning amphibious vehicles for the sake of better protection.
          Quote: Per se.
          The problem is that we don't have a full-fledged army.

          That's why it doesn't exist, because they made up fairy tales for themselves, and built a Little Army under these dreams... In which the number of Ground Forces with all services, headquarters and rear services is ONLY 280 thousand!! This is even less than the number of the Russian Guard at that time (350 thousand)!! And what could this "army" fight? Especially when entire divisions refused to go into battle and broke contracts? Remember this disgrace of the Little Cozy Army? And they went out only with sufficiently motivated and relatively experienced corps of the two Donbass republics. Which were hastily mobilized, because only a little more than half of the declared staff was in service - Shoigi's quad bikes taught them over the years of "truces".
          Quote: Per se.
          so we can fight for another 3 or 10 years, killing men in frontal assaults for each village

          So who is the towers' doctor? They seem to like laying down, they haven't gotten tired of it in 3 years, while the men, out of despair (some) and at the call of a patriotic heart (others), haven't died out... But they do die out, too. In frontal assaults.
          We did not choose War - War chose us. And War sets the conditions. No matter how you fantasize about "Vertical Reach", it (War) will very quickly bring you down from the skies to the sinful earth plowed by shells, bombs and mines. And you will not proudly soar on a parachute and revel in the beauty of the opening views, but will bury yourself deep in the ground, listen to this sky, stretch anti-drone nets, and shoot at these buzzing and stinging insects with everything you have. This is where both clay pigeon shooting skills and the skills of a hunter of feathered game will come in handy.
          Quote: Per se.
          The IFV is, first and foremost, a universal vehicle; thick armor requires specialization: a heavy armored personnel carrier (transport function) and a BMPT (specialized fire function).

          BMPTs have not shown themselves to be very survivable from FPV. And the firepower is often excessive. And it is expensive and does not take airborne troops. For the conditions of war "a little earlier" such a division into BMPT\ShMPP and TBTR was the best, I myself have described this many times in detail on VO ... but the conditions of war HAVE CHANGED. And in these conditions, we "right now" need a TBTR with a combat module from a BTR-82A - this is the simplest, fastest, sufficient in firepower and the least expensive in terms of money and time to create. Uralvagonzavod has already created a TBTR - a NORMAL TBTR with the right layout. But the troops have not heard of such yet, apparently they are testing and improving.
          Quote: Per se.
          it would be possible to create on the basis of BMO-T

          Why this paleotechnic again?? This machine was created for something completely different - for radiation and chemical reconnaissance of the area, so that without going to the ground and without collecting radioactive dust (or poison) on boots and clothes, you can take air samples, and with a special probe - soil/dust samples. And quickly back to the cabin, so as to bring in less infection.
          How are you going to climb onto this cuttlefish, especially if you are in combat and/or wounded? To demonstrate acrobatics (when dismounting) and rock climbing (when landing)? In full gear, in full kit... And having climbed onto the podium, to become a "machine gunner's dream"... Have you ever wondered why in the armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles of Western (and other) countries, the usual doors/flaps were replaced with a ramp? FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF DISASSEMBLY AND BOARDING! To be quick and convenient. Because the fighters in the kit should not look at where to jump and not break their legs, but around themselves, assessing the situation and determining the threats - where the enemy is, where they are shooting from, where are the landmarks, where you can take cover... that is why you need to dismount as quickly and without problems as possible. And load and carry in the wounded in the same way - quickly and without circus sketches.
          So there is no need to reinvent the wheel - everything has been invented before us. And all our new equipment was created exactly like this - with a front MTO and a rear ramp. T-15, Kurganets-25, Boomerang, BMP-3M Dragoon/Manul. Only they were prototypes, and they remain so. And the enemy has thousands of such highly protected and convenient equipment. So there is no point in being smart in the face of our own shame, we need to solve the issue of supplying such equipment to the troops as quickly as possible. And what I wrote above is the fastest and least expensive way to solve this problem.
          There is no need to argue, because there is simply nothing to talk about, our quadrobers have wasted all the time allotted to them for rearmament of the Army. Now, as always, during the war and with the strain of life, we will have to create all this right now and as it turns out. Stop mocking the fighters with the stupidity of our leadership. The fighters must be PROTECTED in the War.
          Because women don't give birth to new children.
          And for this they need their own men.
          Don't suggest Wahhabis, they won't fight for the Russian Federation. To earn money, rob, mock - that's always easy. But all these "MMA champions" are not eager to fight at all.
          1. 0
            3 February 2025 13: 34
            Quote: bayard
            That's why it doesn't exist, because they made up fairy tales for themselves, and built a Little ... under these dreams, in which the number of Ground Forces with all services, headquarters and rear services is ONLY 280 thousand!! This is even less than the number of the Russian Guard at that time (350 thousand)!! And what could this "army" fight? Especially when entire divisions refused to go into battle and broke contracts?

            There, in addition to the "five hundredth" contract soldiers, there was another problem - conscripts. Who, in the Makarov-Serdyukov reform, should not have been in the "small army" at all! Conscripts were supposed to be trained in the training centers and training units, forming a mobilization reserve for the deployment of the BHVT if everything goes badly. And we happily filled the brigades with conscripts first, and then the divisions that succeeded them - and then we started scratching our heads, because conscripts are not allowed in the SVO. And we returned to what was on 08.08.08 - a tactical hodgepodge of regimental scale is fighting on behalf of the division, into which they scraped together everyone who could be sent to the combat zone.
            Quote: bayard
            Why this paleotechnic again?? This machine was created for something completely different - for radiation and chemical reconnaissance of the area, so that without going to the ground and without collecting radioactive dust (or poison) on boots and clothes, you can take air samples, and with a special probe - soil/dust samples. And quickly back to the cabin, so as to bring in less infection.

            Ahem... Don't confuse the BMO-T with the RHR vehicle. The BMO-T is a pure heavy armored personnel carrier for transporting German gunners with ammo.

            Another "departmental combat vehicle" of our army. The chemical troops are generally distinguished by this - they already have two of their own MLRS.
            Quote: bayard
            Have you ever wondered why in the APCs and IFVs of Western (and not only) countries the usual doors/wings were replaced with a ramp? FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF DISASSEMBLY AND BOARDING!

            Yeah... and, as it turns out, for FPV convenience.
            1. +1
              3 February 2025 14: 28
              Quote: Alexey RA
              There, besides the "five hundredth" contract soldiers, there was another problem - conscripts. Who, according to the Makarov-Serdyukov reform, should not have been in the "small army" at all!

              Well, Shoyga is good at inventions. But he restored forts, built a church on a vacant lot - strange, gloomy, but with money from the Ministry of Defense and voluntary-forced "donations" from military personnel.
              They seem to have a head in which they eat... but nothing more. And Zadornov laughed at the Americans...
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Ahem... Don't confuse the BMO-T with the RHR vehicle. The BMO-T is a pure heavy armored personnel carrier for transporting German gunners with ammo.

              A heartbreaking sight - tank-level protection with built-in dynamic protection and... a machine gunner on top... "naked, but cheerful".
              And of course the flamethrowers on horseback... oh, what imagination the chemists have... they must have sniffed something while making up such things.
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Yeah... and, as it turns out, for FPV convenience.

              For FPV now all targets are convenient, especially if on a wire. And this is really already a huge problem.
              1. +1
                4 February 2025 10: 53
                Quote: bayard
                A heartbreaking sight - tank-level protection with built-in dynamic protection and... a machine gunner on top... "naked, but cheerful".

                Well, they were accepted into service in 2001, and deliveries began in 2009. Back then, one could only dream of a remote-controlled missile system.
                Quote: bayard
                And of course flamethrowers on horseback

                So this is a parade. Everyone is sitting on the armor - motorized riflemen, paratroopers, and chemical workers.
                Normally, RPO officers must sit in the wheelhouse.

                1. 0
                  4 February 2025 12: 44
                  Quote: Alexey RA

                  So this is a parade. Everyone is sitting on the armor - motorized riflemen, paratroopers, and chemical workers.
                  Normally, RPO officers must sit in the wheelhouse.

                  Yes, I understood that it was a parade, but the machine gunner really inspired me.
                  The car is strange, the seating position is not just uncomfortable, but truly heroic, the protection is fine, but that’s if you sit down once and don’t stick your head out.
          2. +2
            3 February 2025 14: 52
            Quote: bayard
            Why this paleo again?

            Thank you for such a detailed comment. I will say this about the Airborne Forces: it is not the Airborne Forces that need to be limited, but the training of tank crews and motorized riflemen needs to be improved, and a normal, not optimized army needs to be created. Also, Afghanistan, Chechnya, even Syria, this is not a war with a full-fledged army, this is a war with militants who often used guerrilla tactics, attacking military columns. In addition, these are low-water areas where floating equipment is not needed. A police, counter-guerrilla type MRAP would be more suitable. Another matter is territories with continuous water obstacles. In any case, it is better, as in Afghanistan, to fight against the spirits on a mountain serpentine with army equipment than against NATO with the geography of Europe with police equipment.
            About drones, there is a KAZ. Why can't it be used not only against incoming anti-tank missiles, but also against quadcopters, why can't the protection of the upper sphere be improved? I have spoken out more than once about a highly protected "tandem" IFV, where the landing function (specialization) is for a heavy APC, and the fire specialization is for a BMPT. Moreover, a BMPT can have different types, including one with a 57 mm automatic cannon. You will also remember "Akhzarit", which was made on the basis of the T-54/T-55, we had a BTR-T variant. In addition, I will say that to work with tanks, the number of troops must be reduced to 4-6 people, like a storm troop. This optimizes a lot in a good way. Of course, this is just my personal opinion, but you can't add anything without sacrificing anything, both armor, and a turret with a gun, and troops with comfort. Therefore, I am a supporter of specialization for heavy equipment. By the way, the Israelis deliberately did not install heavy weapons on their very heavy armored personnel carriers like the Namer, so that no idiot would think of sending them next to tanks.
            1. +2
              3 February 2025 15: 25
              Quote: Per se.
              In any case, it’s better, like in Afghanistan, with army equipment against the spirits on a mountain serpentine, than with police equipment against NATO with the geography of Europe.

              For Europe, both geographically and in terms of war with NATO, it is precisely heavy, highly protected equipment that is needed. Ideally, a motorized rifle division should have an assault brigade on heavy armored vehicles, a combined arms brigade on floating BMP-3M (they have a fairly high level of protection, but buoyancy is preserved), a tank battalion, an artillery division on self-propelled guns (SPG) and a support regiment on wheeled armored vehicles and with a fleet of vehicles.
              Quote: Per se.
              I have spoken out more than once about a highly protected "tandem" IFV, where the landing function (specialization) is performed by a heavy APC, and the fire specialization is performed by a BMPT.

              I also wrote about this many times for 5-6 years even before the SVO, namely about the TBTR, BMPT\ShMPP (assault infantry support vehicle) and a tank. The tank covers from a distance, the BMPT\ShMPP goes into the thick of things and crushes\suppresses the infantry, the TBTR follows and clears the space with airborne forces. But the war made its adjustments and ... in principle, the combat module of the "Kurganets" on the TBTR turns it into an analogue of the Terminator in terms of firepower. There is one gun, but its performance is sufficient, there is an ATGM, it seems that they even integrated an automatic grenade launcher. But at the same time, it also carries troops, and can pick up the wounded, and it will be cheaper than the "Terminator". But the most important thing is that it is easier and more convenient to organize anti-drone protection on such an IFV. Well, there is less diversity in the troops - the TBTR and TBMP only differ in modules.
              Quote: Per se.
              To work with tanks, it is necessary to reduce the number of landing forces to 4-6 people, like a storm group.

              In principle, I agree. But for this, it is not necessary to reduce the space of the landing compartment at all, just instead of 2-3 landing people, you can take an additional ammo pack, grenade launchers, mines, some equipment, property, dry rations and dressings ... in short - use the additional space to good use.
              Quote: Per se.
              but it is impossible to add anything without sacrificing something: armor, a turret with a gun, and the landing force with comfort.

              In principle, the Kurganets module and the BTR-82A module are both unmanned and are submerged slightly into the hull from above, so the interior space will be approximately identical, but the external dimensions and weight are different. There is no point in creating several completely different vehicles; it is much more practical to make a TBTR and TBMP on one hull, but with different modules. And the modules can be with a 57 mm cannon (if this is considered useful), and with a reinforced armor turret from a BMP-3, and a command vehicle, an electronic warfare vehicle ... yes, any specialized in / on the hull of a good TBTR can be made. But the base and the hull must be one.
              1. +1
                4 February 2025 06: 59
                Quote: bayard
                There is no point in creating several completely different vehicles; it is much more practical to make a TBTR and TBMP on one hull, but with different modules.

                I would say on one tank base, one tracked chassis, for example, T-72/T-90. In your version, as I understand it, either an emphasis on the landing force, or on enhanced armament with a common hull (TBTR and TBMP) is assumed. What will such a TBMP be - with an assault force, a transport that is better not to climb in front of tanks, so as not to kill the infantry that has not dismounted. Without an assault force, a semblance of a BMPT, but with ballast from the troop compartment. In addition, what is seen as a minus of the module, it is equipped and isolated, like suspended containers with additional weapons on an airplane/helicopter. This obviously limits the ammunition to the volume of the module, which is hardly good for a fire support vehicle, for which the supply in the module is clearly small. In addition, for the function of specialized fire support, in order to climb into the very hell, protection is needed even higher than that of a tank. With a common hull, internal volume for the landing force, its armor, plus the module, all this is the dimensions and weight. Therefore, in my opinion, fire support is the BMPT, where the weight is gained without a heavy tank gun, due to which the protection and ammunition of a lighter 57 mm automatic cannon or two 30 mm are strengthened. Here we can even talk about the revival in a new capacity of a "missile tank", instead of the forgotten IT-1. An approximate view of such a tank is in the picture below. A heavy APC should, in conjunction with tanks, transport assault groups. Reducing the landing force to 4-6 people will allow not to increase the internal volume with a more comfortable placement, that is, not to increase the dimensions of the vehicle, will reduce the time of dismounting the group, as well as possible losses in the event of a defeat of the APC with non-dismounted infantry.
                1. +1
                  4 February 2025 07: 49
                  Quote: Per se.
                  I would say on one tank base, one tracked chassis, for example, T-72/T-90

                  This has already been done - UVZ has made and is testing a TBTR on the T-90/72 chassis. There was a video there for a few seconds, but it is clear that there is no module yet, the chassis and the overall layout solution are being tested. And since the base vehicle has already been created, then anything can be assembled on its basis - the modules can be very different, we have already created enough of them, choose any. It is more reasonable to make the basic version of the TBTR with the BTR-82A module - sufficient firepower, light, not bulky, quite sufficient to cover the landing force during dismounting and evacuation from the battlefield. And its troop compartment (presumably) is exactly for 8 people, when the Kharkovites made their TBTR-64 ​​for 14 unequipped (without armor and body kit) soldiers. BMPs based on it can be anything: even a turret with a 57 mm. automatic and ammo for the entire troop compartment (put a loader there and fight for 3 hours straight - a joke), even a BM "Kurganets", which is the most rational, or from a BMP-80 for greater firepower, or come up with something else. The level of protection of such a TBTR can be in the lateral projection even much better than that of a tank - spaced armor, where only the citadel has up to 30 mm., and the outer plate at the level of the cut of the track shelves can be from 40 to 5 mm. and have dynamic protection on top. Below the level of the track shelves - screens with ERA "Kontakt-64" like modern tanks. With such spaced armor and effective ERA, the protection of the sides will be very seriously higher than that of the MBT. I don’t know how UVZ implemented it (judging by the picture, that’s exactly how it was), but on the TBTR-35 ​​it was implemented exactly like that (and the weight with ERA was only 32 tons, without ERA about 64 tons... and the TBTR-10 ​​also has a double roof - armor spaced 15-XNUMX cm apart, which reduces vulnerability even from a cumulative jet at large angles to the normal).
                  As for the reincarnation of the "missile tank", what prevents the implementation of the "Chrysanthemum" complex (I hope I didn't make a mistake in the name) installed on the BMP-3 chassis - just mount this complex on the TBTR and it will already play with completely new colors.

                  As for the "Terminator" ... I think the cruel joke was played by the fact that this machine was conceived as a new one with maximum saturation with firepower ... And it turned out to be very expensive, quite complex and the command of the Ground and Tank Forces could not decide on the place of this machine in the battle formations for a long time. Because even the classification as a BMPT confused the military. At one time, I proposed reclassifying it as a SHMPP and using it not only to protect tank columns on the march and accompany them in battle ... but also as a vehicle for direct fire support of infantry at the very tip of the attack ... approximately as the English "Matilda" was originally made (very powerful armor and two machine guns ... well, this is in place in the advancing formations). That is, its concern is assault.
                  So, for these purposes, the Terminator turned out to be quite expensive and ... it definitely couldn’t take ATGM shots into battle - any bullet or fragment threatened the vehicle with destruction or loss of combat capability. A simpler and cheaper option was needed. And it was created - BMPT-72, aka "Terminator-2". Up to 300 of them were delivered to Algeria and they are happy with them endlessly. It’s very simple and cheap - we take the BM "Terminator-2" on the podium and install it on the shoulder strap ... of ANY old tank. At least the T-72, at least the T-62, at least the T-55 ... and we get the "Hellish thresher of the front line". Cheap, powerful, highly protected and highly productive "combine of death". They can be made in large quantities right now and inexpensively to support our assault infantry, taking old ones from storage bases T-55, T-62, T-72 first modifications - without turrets, but having overhauled the chassis and MTO. We put the module on the podium and - into battle. The crew is 3 people, the cost is minimal, the production rate can be calculated in hundreds per year, up to a thousand, and without straining too much. As long as there are enough modules. And all the old tanks immediately become new assault vehicles.
                  Well, I also wrote about using the potential of all 2500 T-64s at storage bases - their chassis and hulls can be used as a basis for TBTR - so that it would be faster, cheaper and without loading the main capacities of UVZ - with the forces of repair plants. But it looks like the time has already been lost for this ... apparently no one was working on the project - Shoigu's servants didn't give a damn about it, and Belousov apparently didn't have the time or attention to it. But I would sincerely like to be pleasantly surprised and realize that I was wrong. hi
      4. 0
        3 February 2025 13: 15
        Quote: bayard
        The BTR-82B with reinforced spaced armor has already been shown at exhibitions as a wheeled vehicle

        Cardboard BTR-82. Shoigu's version is considered a modern armored vehicle, although it does not withstand mines and shrapnel. A machine for meaty assaults.
        1. 0
          3 February 2025 14: 04
          Type BTR-82B into a search engine, you will be greatly, and perhaps pleasantly, surprised. It has a completely reconfigured vehicle, with reinforced armor, a more powerful engine (500 horsepower), a front MTO, a rear ramp, but the same chassis, well-mastered by industry. It no longer floats, but withstands 12,7 and 14,5 mm bullets and heavy fragments with its sides. The combat module is the same.
          But so far I have only seen a prototype at an exhibition; there have been no rumors about launching this into production.
          1. 0
            6 February 2025 02: 33
            Quote: bayard
            BTR-82B

            Shoige and others who built Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok should have launched such a machine into production a little earlier than 2025. Because even the most adequate people understood how everything would turn out in the end. But those who sawed off the money had no time for this. And Crimea apparently turned their heads. This is just fantasy, you can saw off the money and do nothing and suddenly grab such a tasty morsel. But the reality of 2022 plunged their faces into the mud. Which is what they actually deserved.
            1. 0
              6 February 2025 03: 46
              Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
              Shoyge and others who built Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok should have launched such a machine into production a little earlier

              For what they were building, the Army was not needed at all. That is why the RF Armed Forces had fewer personnel than the Russian National Guard - 280 thousand against 350 thousand. That is how they were explained. That Russia does not need a sufficiently trained reserve, nor mobilization plans. But biathlon, parades... it is so great and uplifting... Especially if you also build a very strange temple on a vacant lot in the middle of nowhere.
              And then the SVO happened...
              1. 0
                7 February 2025 01: 01
                Quote: bayard
                The army was not needed at all

                It was needed. But here's the problem, they were trying to save money and line their pockets. And they didn't do anything the old-fashioned way. It worked out with Crimea. And as a result, the common soldier was washed in blood in the SVO and continues to wash his face while they, with their crooked and greedy little hands, somehow trying with all their might to overcome their exorbitant greed and incompetence, try to do something. Just like flashbacks of the Russo-Japanese war, one to one.
                1. +1
                  7 February 2025 04: 04
                  Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
                  It's like a Russian-Japanese flashback, exactly the same.

                  That's right. Because they built a state "like under Nikola-2". And just as under the feeble-minded Nikola-2 they were able to carol only Shame and Defeat, so the current ones are trying.
      5. 0
        3 February 2025 14: 11
        BTR-82B with reinforced spaced armor, CORRECT layout (power plant in front, ramp in the back), with a 3 hp engine from the BMP-500 and on a classic, well-developed and industrially mastered chassis.

        CORRECT arrangement

        This is the correct layout for an infantry fighting vehicle, not an armored personnel carrier. An armored personnel carrier is not intended for combat. Its purpose is transportation. And Suvorov (not Rezun) correctly wrote that for an armored personnel carrier, two exits from the troop compartment are much better than one in the event of an attack on a column.
        And for a heavy IFV on a tank base, the best layout is Gusev's (here Eduard Perov retold Gusev's article), i.e. the side boxes are at the back, the engine is at the front. Stepping over the side box input shaft casing is not the same as climbing over the engine.
        1. 0
          3 February 2025 14: 47
          Quote from: ln_ln
          For an armored personnel carrier, two exits from the troop compartment are much better than one in the event of an attack on a convoy.

          This could have been true for its time, when the enemy only had rifles and moved in columns, now everything is different. And the TBTR and even the medium-protected APC (based on the same BMP-3M) should have a stern ramp, so that the soldiers do not jump around like goats. Now, in full gear, this is much more difficult for them. So now there is only a stern ramp and no alternatives. In addition, now the APC often moves together with the tank in the same formations. Landing and boarding should be as fast and convenient as possible. Otherwise, we will lose to the enemy and suffer unjustified losses. We urgently need to launch the BTR-82B, TBTR and BMP-3M with a stern ramp into production.
          1. +1
            3 February 2025 14: 57
            Moreover, now the APC often moves in the same formations as the tank

            This should absolutely not happen.
            Yes, and the TBTR and even the medium-protected APC (based on the same BMP-3M) should have a rear ramp

            But not a wheeled APC.
            1. 0
              3 February 2025 15: 31
              Nowadays, troops no longer move in dense columns, and all modern wheeled APCs have a rear ramp. Even the MRAP.
              Quote from: ln_ln
              Moreover, now the APC often moves in the same formations as the tank
              This should absolutely not happen.

              War conditions demand it. Moreover, it is often wiser to leave the tank at some distance to provide cover fire, and the infantry goes forward to clear the area. It is not like they are going to be rushing across the field on foot. The TBTR is the best choice for such tasks.
              Quote from: ln_ln
              But not a wheeled APC.

              The aft ramp allows for more rational and harmonious use of the interior space, and it is also more convenient to leave the car.
              1. 0
                3 February 2025 17: 05
                and it's more convenient to leave the car.

                Suvorov's argument was that if the enemy attacks the vehicle from one side, it is better to disembark from the opposite side, and not from the stern, where you come under fire. In this situation, there is no time for convenience.
                1. -1
                  3 February 2025 18: 23
                  Quote from: ln_ln
                  Suvorov's argument was that if the enemy attacks the vehicle from one side, it is better to disembark from the opposite side, and not from the stern, where you come under fire. In this situation, there is no time for convenience.

                  This was for the then supposed war in Europe, when our troops were stationed in the GDR and at the first Green Whistle were supposed to rush forward in such wedges at the English Channel and the Atlantic Ocean. Of course, in marching columns along European roads, with ambushes and other outrages.
                  And now we are fighting again on our own land, fighting in positional battles, gnawing through defenses. The enemy does not attack us from behind a bush along the route, but we first iron him out with FABs, artillery and MLRS, clear him out with FPV and only then the infantry goes. Therefore, we need highly protected armored vehicles for assault infantry, and specifically with a stern ramp - quick disembarkation, quick landing, movement at maximum speed under artillery fire and all possible weapons. Messing around and crowding in narrow side hatches is unacceptable, especially since the soldiers are now in maximum heavy equipment. So only a ramp.
                  1. 0
                    3 February 2025 22: 02
                    This was for the then supposed war in Europe, when our troops were stationed in the GDR and at the first Green Whistle were supposed to rush forward in such wedges at the English Channel and the Atlantic Ocean. Of course, in marching columns along European roads, with ambushes and other outrages.

                    Exclusively after the cleanup of the TNW.
                    That's why they didn't make a normal IFV, but called it a tracked APC.
                    1. 0
                      4 February 2025 03: 24
                      Quote from: ln_ln
                      Exclusively after the cleanup of the TNW.

                      Well, now we are definitely fighting without it. And then the main emphasis was on speed of movement and forcing water obstacles on the fly. That is, all infantry equipment must be floating. And therefore lightly armored. In Europe, there are a lot of rivers across our future offensive. There was also experience of forming rivers on the fly at the very end of WWII on American amphibious vehicles. The experience was liked then and in the future it became the basis for the technical specifications.
                      The need for heavily armored vehicles for infantry was recognized in the late USSR, but they did not have time to implement it.
          2. 0
            6 February 2025 02: 40
            Quote: bayard
            There is an urgent need to launch the BTR-82B, TBTR and BMP-3M with a rear ramp into production.

            This isn't even funny. Who will do this? The same ones who couldn't do a damn thing in 8 years to properly equip the Russian Armed Forces, not fake?
            1. 0
              6 February 2025 03: 57
              Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
              This isn't even funny. Who would do this?

              Well, we have what we have.
              And it has us.
              Nevertheless, UVZ TBTR with a normal configuration has been made. As well as prototypes of "Draguna" and "Manul". The question is about launching it into series.
              Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
              Couldn't do all this in 8 years

              In war, even quad bikes start to think and move faster. What if they have an epiphany?
              They were essentially building a police army until 2022 - for police and peacekeeping operations. And they were constantly EMPHASIZING this - in every interview. That we need a Small, Cozy one. That "we have enough planes already" and "think about what to produce instead of planes", "Maybe saucepans".
              So they met the war with "pots" and in "galoshes".
              And they were surprised.
              1. 0
                7 February 2025 01: 07
                Quote: bayard
                In war, even quad bikes begin to think and move faster.

                These are quad bikes. And our drivers only started to chatter about upcoming victories with their hands. That's basically the whole result for three years. And this is despite the fact that they screwed up hard all these three years. Having sunk the cruiser Moskva, having lost the Kharkov region, having surrendered Kherson, and ultimately having let the VSU into the Kursk region.
                Quote: bayard
                Nevertheless, UVZ TBTR with a normal configuration has been made. As well as prototypes of "Draguna" and "Manul". The question is about launching it into series.

                What's the point? We should be pushing the military industry hard right now in three shifts so that the army gets the latest weapons. Because the longer we get stuck in Ukraine, the bleaker the country's prospects. But no, our Minsk and Istanbul negotiators at the helm seem to be completely relaxed.
                1. +1
                  7 February 2025 04: 08
                  Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
                  Our Minsk and Istanbul negotiators seem to be at the helm and are completely relaxed.

                  They are always relaxed. There was an old film (I think it was French) called "The Unbearable Lightness of Being".
      6. The comment was deleted.
      7. +1
        3 February 2025 16: 54
        It is necessary to use the huge reserves of T-64 tanks from storage bases, there are 2500 of them.

        I agree with you on almost everything. Except for this☝️.
        And why are you so sure that these 2500 units of the specified tank model are in storage bases?!! And not sold or cut up for scrap metal?!
        1. 0
          3 February 2025 18: 09
          Quote: Murmillo
          Why are you so sure that these 2500 units of the specified tank model are in storage bases?!! And not sold or cut up for scrap metal?!

          Well, I know this for sure, because I saw photo reports from storage bases. True, a couple of years have passed, but they definitely weren’t put into circulation, even T-55s aren’t sent for scrap metal now, and it’s simply impossible to sell them - no one ever wanted to buy them. They’re too expensive and complicated. Everyone loved the “simple” and convenient T-72, like a Kalashnikov assault rifle, and the T-64 was 2-3 times more expensive. At the same time, it was much more capricious in maintenance. But it had a very good fire control system and a very good thermal imager for that time. In terms of avionics, it was on par with the T-80 of the same generation. But its chassis is weak - it was originally designed for its own weight of 34 tons + 5 tons of reserves. And in the course of development, it added weight and as a result, exceeded the previously designated threshold. Of course, they strengthened its suspension, but of our three MBTs, its chassis was... the worst - it was simply overloaded, the rollers were too light.
          But for the TBTR, its chassis is quite good. The Kharkov TBTR turned out to be 34-35 tons in full trim. Even if we get 39 tons, it will flutter like a butterfly. The suspension will say "a big pioneer thank you."
          Quote: Murmillo
          2500 pc

          That's how many there were before the start of the SVO. The guns were removed from them, but the hulls and chassis are awaiting their fate. In my opinion, the fate of finding a new life in the form of a TBTR is quite enviable. It will never be a tank again, but a TBTR - easily.
      8. 0
        6 February 2025 20: 28
        high novelty coefficient

        Again "novelty coefficient")
        And the Americans don't encounter it? And the Ukrainians who switched from BMP-1 to Bradley and CV90?
        And the Soviet army that switched from BMP-1/2 to the troika? And the NATO Europeans who switched from the antediluvian bottom to Boxers and VBCIs?
        And everything is “new” for you. You have to fight with slings; the coefficient of novelty is generally negative.
        And the BMP-3M "Dragoon" and "Manul" proposed instead have the CORRECT configuration

        How is the layout of the Dragoon and Manul more “correct” than the layout of the Kurganets and BMP-1?
        At the same time, in the series from 2022 there are absolutely useless "doroblo" for the Airborne Forces: BMD-4, "BTR "Rakushka", "Sprut-SDM" for parachute landing and self-propelled guns on the BMD-4 chassis ... WHAT IS THIS?? For what?? For which Army and for what War?? What is all this airborne diversity with cardboard armor for??

        How is the armor more cardboard than the APC? Do you know how to drop a tank with a parachute? How much does the firepower and mobility of an airborne unit increase with and without these vehicles?
        Oh right, I missed the "novelty factor" again. The BMD is a dead-end branch, they should have dropped the rifles and machine guns separately in containers like in the good old days, and instead of equipment, issued the Airborne Forces airborne folding bicycles.
        We don't need the BMD-4, we need to quickly move the turret in the BMP-3 to the back...
        Therefore, I will repeat what I have been writing about for the last 7-8 years - it is necessary to use the huge reserves of T-64 tanks from storage bases, there are 2500 of them.

        And what will the repair departments do with this garbage? In 8 years, hasn't it occurred to them that if you take equipment out of storage, you first have to replace a good half of the parts that haven't been produced for decades, and then maintain it in that condition?
        And if you take the 64 and just put the MTO and chassis from the 72 on it, then maybe it's easier to just send everything to be melted down? Only the hull will remain. And even less will remain from the hull after the reconfiguration, and taking into account the addition of metal for the construction of the hull with the troop compartment, it turns out that melting it down will be even cheaper.
        And in the end it will work out
        heavy
        APC with the armor of that very 64ka, which can be penetrated by any anti-tank gun on the modern battlefield. And it will be heavy only in weight and cross-country ability...
        All NATO countries are equipped with highly protected TBMPs

        What?
        An example of combat use of the Bradley and other highly protected IFVs showed how much more survivable they are and how they allow saving the lives of crews and troops when they are defeated.

        Anti-splinter liner, ceramic plates and DZ and BMP-2 will turn into that very Bradley. But there is nothing written about it here, only about the sawing of the 64 and Dragoon.
        1. 0
          7 February 2025 03: 56
          Quote: English tarantass
          And the Americans don't encounter it? And the Ukrainians who switched from BMP-1 to Bradley and CV90?

          Switching from the old to the new is a pleasure. The question is how this new and "in no way similar to the machines of previous generations" (quote from President Medvedev, who articulated the technical specifications to the designers for the "Kurganets" and "Armata") can be obtained from the industry. If the price of a duralumin BTR/BMP is equal to the cost of a new MBT? And its dimensions are much larger than a tank? Especially if there is an alternative that will be 3-4 times cheaper? On a proven chassis, with a new modification of a proven and reliable engine, with a wider choice of combat modules and at existing capacities, production lines and with well-established production cooperation.
          A high coefficient of novelty is not scary in the military (although there will be more trouble for the technical service there), for industry it results in the restructuring of not only production lines, but also the entire technological process, the entire line of production cooperation. And this is time, money, nerves, retraining of personnel. Which ultimately leads to an even greater increase in the cost of the product, a slow increase in the pace of production, and failure to meet the deadlines for rearmament. As a rule, when faced with such a prospect, the customer cancels the order or suspends the issue, which is essentially the same thing.
          The "Kurganets" has no combat or technical advantage over the BMP-3M "Manul" (even if the modules are the same) except for the price and dimensions. Weight - 25 tons versus 21 tons for the BMP-3M, with a lower height and overall dimensions. And the price is 3-4 times lower than the "Manul".
          And which model will the customer choose?
          The one that is cheaper and easier to operate, with equal combat capabilities.
          Quote: English tarantass
          How is the layout of the Dragoon and Manul more “correct” than the layout of the Kurganets and BMP-1?

          Both have the correct configuration. It was the BMP-3M that was messed up by simply converting a light amphibious tank prototype that was not accepted by the military into an IFV without changing the configuration. And then the acrobatics with landing and airdropping began.
          Quote: English tarantass
          How much does the firepower and mobility of an airborne unit increase with and without these vehicles?

          20-25% of parachute-landing equipment in the Airborne Forces units will be more than enough to conduct parachute landings in banana republics for police purposes. Such landings will not be conducted anywhere else. Because an infantryman with a MANPADS in the landing area is enough, and everything immediately goes wrong. And there is also air defense, aviation (an old MiG-17 or MiG-19 with cannons is enough). In addition, we do not have military transport aircraft for this. And what is beyond doubt - we will not have any. We do not have and will not have many hundreds of Il-76 (maybe several dozen), An-12, An-22, An-124, An-26 in the end. We will not have any of this. And no one will risk the remaining crumbs. Therefore, the maximum possible transfer of troops by military transport aircraft is by landing, and this is already airmobility. And for this, equipment with a parachute in the butt is of no use. For individual cases, say, for dropping vanguard units, 15-20-25% of the equipment can be BMD-4. But the rest - exclusively BMP-3M. It makes no difference to the aircraft who is being transported, but the soldiers have much more serious protection. And it floats too.
          Quote: English tarantass
          if you take the equipment out of storage, then first you need to replace a good half of its parts,

          Well, using the cannibalism method, assemble 2500-1000 TBTRs from 1200 tanks. Rather than simply melting them down. Because this is a solution for wartime and pre-war times, when you need a lot, quickly, without disrupting the plans for the release of the main equipment and for reasonable money.
          Production of a new T-90 chassis is minus one tank. Using the T-64 chassis is + one new tank for the troops and + a new heavy armored personnel carrier for the troops. Reasonable cannibalization will save time and money, reduce delivery times to the troops and save the lives of our soldiers. But it will speed up the execution of the combat mission and bring Victory closer.
          Quote: English tarantass
          APC with the armor of the same 64, which can be penetrated by any anti-tank gun

          Not any. Side screens, spaced armor of the citadel, dynamic protection coating "Kontakt-5" not only on the forehead, but also on the sides, gratings, nets, "barbecue" from drones. As a result, from the side such a TBTR will be protected even better than a tank (due to spaced armor and side fuel tanks - diesel fuel extinguishes a cumulative jet well). With less weight.
          But the main thing is that it will withstand heavy fragments, small-caliber artillery shells and effectively counter antitank missiles with non-tandem warheads.
          Quote: English tarantass
          Anti-splinter liner, ceramic plates and DZ and the BMP-2 will turn into that very Bradley.

          BMP-1 and 2 are hung with screens and grilles in the field as best they can. It helps, but not much. But while they exist, they fight with them. With unjustified losses. Because they lost 8 years of preparation for the SVO in biathlon.
          Quote: English tarantass
          ceramic plates and DZ and BMP-2 will turn into that very Bradley

          It's not that simple, there's also the factor of the engine, suspension, mobility in such a kit, cost and time frame. And I didn't write a detailed dissertation, but a commentary on the topic of modern infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers of the medium and heavy class. And not about the modernization of antiquities, which is also necessary, but reasonable and justified.
          Quote: English tarantass
          only about the rework of the 64 and Dragoon.

          Because they are the only ones needed on the battlefield.
          TBTR-64 ​​- as a quick and budget solution to the problem. For the future - new ones on the T-90 chassis.
    2. +2
      3 February 2025 09: 20
      Quote: Murmur 55
      And this is despite the fact that there are budgets and competition.

      No matter how much I paid attention, they stumbled every time precisely because of the budget. Their BMPs always come out "golden", and if you calculate how many of them are needed to saturate the troops, even the inflated budget of the Pentagon "begins to shake"... Well, the second reason for such a leisurely fuss with the new BMP is that the existing one is not yet so hopelessly outdated. Bradley turned out to be, surprisingly, a platform suitable enough for numerous modernizations...
      1. +1
        3 February 2025 10: 37
        Quote: Doccor18
        Their BMPs always turn out "golden", and if you calculate how many of them are needed to saturate the troops, even the inflated budget of the Pentagon "begins to shake"...

        Well, in the US there is now an updated version of McNamara as the Minister of Defense, and Musk with his Ministry of Optimization. So I think they will soon find/select the most suitable project, and knock down the price, and will strictly control pricing and order fulfillment. Remember how the Oliver Hazard Paris frigates were designed? That was the same principle. In general, that period of planning, drawing up technical specifications and designing military equipment samples was brought to amazing perfection and maturity in the US. I suspect that something similar can happen now - the guys in Trump's team are too young, sharp and smart. But this is still an assumption based on initial observations and historical analogies.
        Quote: Doccor18
        Bradley has proven to be a surprisingly capable platform for numerous upgrades...

        But the American military is no longer satisfied with either the caliber of the gun or (apparently) the level of protection. The Bradley is a fast machine, but there are problems with cross-country ability on our soils in the muddy season.
        1. +1
          3 February 2025 14: 09
          hi
          Quote: bayard
          Remember how the Oliver Hazard Paris frigates were designed? That's the same principle... I suspect that something similar could happen now.

          I really wouldn't want that, but it looks like it could very well be...
          1. 0
            3 February 2025 14: 33
            Quote: Doccor18
            I really wouldn't want that, but it looks like it could very well be...

            Well, Trump has picked a brave team.
            But he is killing our sworn enemies, so I wish him only good luck in this (with our and his enemies).
            Well, it's time for us to learn again. How long have we rested on the Soviet laurels "we have the best armored vehicles", but in war it turns out like this - we don't have anything highly protected except a tank. But the enemy does. Thousands.
            hi
    3. -1
      3 February 2025 19: 39
      Maybe not dashing, but better than ours. According to the experience of the SVO, even the ancient M113, in concept, turned out to be better than our vaunted BMP. We, apparently, did not have time to realize at a certain point that the multi-million Soviet army no longer exists, and that in the current wars, we will attack not with fronts, but with squads. But the Americans understood the essence of modern wars long ago.
      1. +1
        3 February 2025 19: 42
        Sevastiec hi, well, yes, and that’s why they use technology that is far from new, and they are still switching to a new caliber in rifles, and by the way, they also do not have effective protection against drones and unmanned aerial vehicles.
        1. -1
          3 February 2025 19: 45
          Far from the first freshness, what kind? Can you be specific?

          So what if they "move over"?

          It's not that they don't have "effective defense," it's that their defense is, in fact, much better than ours.
          1. -2
            3 February 2025 19: 49
            Strategic bombers, when was the last Abrams released, how old are their submarines, how is their defense against drones more effective? Precisely against drones. Or does the US Army not use 113? And the article is about how since 18 they have been dancing around a new IFV and apart from prototypes, nothing so far.
            1. +1
              4 February 2025 05: 03
              You have "tar, honey, sour cream, nails - all in one boot." In order, please.

              We were talking about the BMP specifically. The best BMP today is the Bradley. That's just a fact. Whether they dance or not, the Ukrainians are doing better than our army when it comes to delivering assault vehicles to the front lines, which can't even organize mass production of tactical vehicles. That's the end of it.

              Now, we can move on to bombers. What exactly bothers you about them?
            2. 0
              6 February 2025 20: 36
              And the article is about how they've been dancing around a new IFV since 18 and there's nothing yet except for prototypes

              It's not even like that there.
              No prototypes were created. They look between Lynx and Griffin.
              Lynx is already a separate and ready-made option, which the Germans themselves have already developed for themselves and even put into production. True, only for export, they do not have enough money for themselves, they consider it unreasonable to buy an expensive Lynx, when they have not even fully switched to Pumas yet.
              And the Griffin is ancient. Almost from the 80s. It is being developed separately on an initiative basis, everything is being improved and finalized. Once upon a time, the Americans wanted a light tank, and the Griffin was made for this competition. Since then, the Americans have been announcing competitions for light tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, and the Griffin is being constantly being developed for this purpose.
          2. 0
            6 February 2025 20: 31
            Far from the first freshness, what kind? Can you be specific?

            Quote: Sevastiec
            Based on the experience of the SVO, it turned out that even the ancient M113, in concept, turned out to be better than our vaunted IFVs.

            By the way, how is the M113 better than the BMP?
            1. 0
              Today, 05: 06
              In its main task. The task of the IFV is to transport infantry from point A to point B, preferably alive. The M113, not to mention the Bradley, copes with this better than our IFVs.
              1. 0
                Today, 14: 40
                BMP task

                Providing fire support for motorized rifle units. This was the original purpose of the BMP and remains so to this day. Someone figured out that it would be possible to combine a light tank with an APC so that the infantry, which needs the support of heavy armor, would not simply ride on the roof of the tank's MTO, and so that the APC, which had previously been used as a mobile firing point, would have higher armor and firepower.
                Have you ever wondered why cars need
                transport infantry from point A to point B
                guns and full-size turrets? Trucks can handle the task of transporting infantry.
                At the same time, I fundamentally do not understand how the BMP as a vehicle is worse than the M113? The armor is the same, the tracked chassis is the same.
  2. -4
    3 February 2025 05: 47
    When you print money yourself and have production, why not develop concepts...Before the beginning of the new century, you can develop...
    Most likely, the IFV, as a combat unit on the battlefield, will give way to various drones with AI. Movement of personnel, delivery to the combat area, fire support - all this will require new characteristics and properties from the IFV. They are not specified here. What is new in armor, what are the latest developments in protection against drones? There is none of this.
    I can assume that in the future, the development of individual equipment for a single soldier will begin, which will include new protection, some kind of exoskeleton, camouflage, weapons, etc. A kind of terminator in the form of the same knight, only in modern armor. Moreover, the creation of humanoid robots involves the creation of a kind of universal soldier coupled with AI.
    But both our generals and the American ones are preparing for the last war. The concept of future (global) wars is a complete cleansing of the territory from the enemy's manpower, in our case - from the population... Without noise and dust... And they will create such weapons... It is much easier than fighting with fists...
    1. 0
      3 February 2025 06: 10
      yuriy55 hi, they have been working on terminators for decades now, and there is no real success in sight, they are constantly working on new equipment, but we only hear about exo at the prototype level, so the coming wars are wars like the current conflict in Ukraine with some changes.
      1. 0
        3 February 2025 06: 20
        Quote: Murmur 55
        Terminators have been in development for decades now

        Why not? They'll show an invisibility cloak, a miracle laser, an exoskeleton, or a bulletproof vest... The main thing is that it's easier to dress up a large number of people than to produce a certain number of cars...
        1. 0
          3 February 2025 06: 24
          yuriy55, if I understood correctly, the problem with exo-skeletons and terminators is the power sources, and as for modernization, look how many Yankees are switching to a new caliber in rifles, and it is not clear when they will switch, although everything is fine from the financial side and there are no problems with production.
      2. 0
        6 February 2025 20: 39
        only about exo we also hear at the prototype level

        Why prototypes? I have seen different versions of ready-made ones. If you want, buy them. For your own money and very expensive. But they still exist.
    2. +3
      3 February 2025 08: 00
      Here you are in vain... no drones will replace the BMP and other familiar elements. "Bradlya" even in the modification almost 30 years ago (A2) showed itself simply amazingly, and in the meantime the Americans are upgrading the fleet to the A4 version, which included the APS. Now they will improve the APS and it will work from and on FPV, which will reduce their effectiveness to a minimum.
  3. 0
    3 February 2025 12: 09
    Overall, the Bradley showed itself well, good protection, I liked the demonstration battle, where two Bradleys against our T-72, what is this, that we need a normal IFV with a 57 gun, like the edge of a 37 mm gun on the T-62, 72
    1. 0
      3 February 2025 15: 25
      Quote: air wolf
      Overall, the Bradley showed itself well, good protection, I liked the demonstration battle, where two Bradleys against our T-72, what is this, that we need a normal IFV with a 57 gun, like the edge of a 37 mm gun on the T-62, 72

      ...There was a T-90...

      Bradley did a great job.
      Our FPV players consider it the most difficult target to attack. A lot of drones are needed to destroy it. From 5 pcs.
      If they don't hit the V-M hatch. And on the move it's very difficult.
  4. +2
    3 February 2025 12: 39
    Quote: bayard
    delays in launching the BMP-3M into production are most likely due to the same engine. The fact is that due to increased protection, their mass has increased, without losing buoyancy, so to improve their mobility, it was decided to install an engine from the "Kurganets" on them.


    As far as I understand, increasing mine resistance and armor to the level of all-round protection from modern 30 mm guns requires the installation of screens of about 20 mm, and not the current 10-12. And this is no longer possible due to the suspension. Otherwise, it would be possible to simply screen the BMP-3. Therefore, the "Dragoon" will not be able to give anything fundamentally new compared to the BMP-3, in the form in which it was shown. A new vehicle is needed, already the 4th generation of BMP, and this is something like our "Kurganets"
    The stigma of "expensive" is attached to everything that doesn't work out. The eye sees, but the tooth can't.
  5. 0
    4 February 2025 08: 16
    Bradley, even in its modern version, is quite good, and if they make it better, and they will, there will be something to learn from.