Into battle from the sky: strategic mobility of the 21st century airborne forces

36 063 55
Into battle from the sky: strategic mobility of the 21st century airborne forces
This image, although it looks epic, has nothing to do with the Russian Air Force's military transport aircraft - it is a concept of a promising Chinese super-heavy transport aircraft, although, given the howitzers and operational-tactical missiles from North Korea…


In the previous article Into battle from the sky: airborne weapons of the 21st century We examined what weapons can be most effectively used by the Airborne Forces (VDV) in the first half of the 21st century to solve problems of operational reinforcement of Ground Forces units in a selected section of the combat contact line (LCL) to participate in an offensive on enemy positions or to eliminate enemy breakthroughs.



The main difference between the Airborne Forces (VDV) and the Ground Forces is their mobility – high speed of deployment.

The stages of deployment of the Airborne Forces can be divided into three levels - strategic, operational and tactical. Accordingly, strategic is when movements are carried out over thousands of kilometers, operational - over hundreds, and tactical - tens of kilometers.

Today we will talk about the means that should ensure the strategic mobility of the landing force - do not forget that we are not invading territory controlled by the enemy, but are deploying airborne forces on our side of the LBS.

Problems and Risks


The main problem with the transfer of airborne units is that movement using military transport aircraft aviation (VTA) in its current form in modern conditions is becoming a rather risky undertaking. In the previous material we already talked about the fact that parachute landing over enemy territory in modern conditions is practically impossible without monstrous losses of both transport aviation and the landing force itself.


During the landing process, the carrier aircraft, as well as its passengers and cargo, are extremely vulnerable. Image vistanews.ru

However, there is and will only increase over time the risk of the destruction of the landing force during its delivery by transport aircraft in an airmobile manner, in the event that the receiving airfields are located in the zone of destruction of the enemy’s reconnaissance and strike complexes (RSC).

The author has repeatedly raised the issue of the enemy deploying orbital infrastructure, including thousands, if not tens of thousands, of low-orbit reconnaissance, control and communications satellites, which will result in the ability to control our territory in real time, 24/365.

That is, almost immediately after the landing of a transport aircraft with troops, it can be detected by space reconnaissance means and destroyed by long-range high-precision high-speed weapons with a cluster warhead - this, by the way, concerns not only the Airborne Forces, and not only transport aircraft. We recently talked about this in the article Up to 500 kilometers from the LBS: death zone under the influence of promising reconnaissance and strike contours.


Launch of the ATACMS operational-tactical missile

Now let's talk about promising means of ensuring strategic mobility of the Airborne Forces in more detail.

Military Transport Aviation (VTA) transport aircraft


The main means of ensuring the strategic mobility of the Airborne Forces will remain transport aircraft, which will have two main tasks.

The first is the transfer of the paratroopers themselves in the "airfield-airfield" mode, that is, to a certain point located at a relative distance from the LBS. The main criterion here will be the speed of unloading the landing force, which should be measured in minutes, since otherwise both the transport aircraft and the landing force can be destroyed by the enemy's long-range reconnaissance and strike systems, which we discussed above.


Deployment of a cluster warhead

That is, no unloading with hoists - landing, opening of the cargo hatch, self-exit of the landing force or combat equipment along the ramp and immediate takeoff - literally in a matter of minutes, after which the landing force must immediately disperse and leave the affected area, moving in small groups.

The second task of transport aircraft is to supply forward units by parachute, using controlled gliding platforms dropped beyond the range of enemy air defense systems. Currently, there are gliding parachute controlled platforms capable of delivering several hundred kilograms of cargo over a distance of about 50 kilometers, dropped from a height of over 10 kilometers.

In some cases, such a range will not allow the cargo to be dropped directly to the landing site or deployment area. In this case, the drop will be carried out at a safe distance from the LBS, and further delivery of the cargo will be ensured by means of ensuring operational and tactical mobility.


Controlled gliding cargo parachute systems (CGCPS) of the DragonFly (left) and RazorFly (right) types

Should transport aircraft be used directly for airdropping personnel?

Yes, for example, in cases where landing at an airfield is impossible due to its absence or a high risk of the enemy launching strikes using high-precision weapons. weapons long range, but this should clearly not be the primary method of deployment.

There is little doubt that the main transport aircraft of the Russian Air Force until 2050 will remain the Il-76 family of transport aircraft in various modifications, which will be supplemented by lighter military transport aircraft, such as the Il-112V with TV7-117ST02 engines or the Il-212 with PD-8 engines.


The first flying prototype of the Il-112V. Image ru.m.wikipedia.org / Marina Lystseva

As for the heavy transport aircraft of the An-124 Ruslan family, their fate is unknown. Information about the resumption of production of these aircraft has appeared periodically, but, apparently, the chances for this are now practically non-existent. It is possible that someday the An-124 will be replaced by a new generation transport aircraft – PAK VTA (prospective aviation complex of military transport aviation), perhaps...

Now it is necessary to give priority attention to the development of the Il-76 family of aircraft, which can go in several directions, of which The first is an increase in the serial production of Il-76 family aircraft.


Possible appearance of PAK VTA

We need a lot of them – in terms of the number of transport aircraft, we are very much inferior to the US Air Force, and the Il-76 family of aircraft are needed not only as transport aircraft, but also as a platform for refueling aircraft, airborne early warning and control aircraft (AEW&C) and much more.

It cannot be ruled out that sooner or later The Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) are aware of the feasibility of using Il-76 family aircraft as weapons carriers and as an inexpensive alternative to missile-carrying bombers, as is already happening in other countries of the world.

The second is the maximum increase in survivability and reduction in operating costs of the Il-76 family of aircraft., for example, by gradually replacing hydraulic drives with electric ones, using more modern structural materials for individual elements of the fuselage and wing, re-motorizing with new turbojet engines (TRD) and implementing other design and technical solutions.


Il-476, also known as Il-76MD-90A, is the latest modification of the Il-76 family of aircraft. Image from the Zen channel "Nothing and Airplanes"

Third, this is an increase in survivability, which can be achieved by reducing visibility and stopping advanced on-board self-defense systems.

We will return to the topic of on-board self-defense systems for combat and auxiliary aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Forces in a separate article, and as for reducing visibility, here, perhaps, radar blockers can be installed on turbojet engines, hiding turbine blades, “gilding” the glazing of pilot cabins, eliminating “hot spots” on the airframe using certain technical solutions, as well as applying radar-absorbing coatings.


The characteristic yellowish tint of the "gilding" of the windows of the F-117A, made in accordance with the requirements for reducing visibility

It can be assumed that it is quite realistic to reduce the visibility of promising aircraft of the Il-76 family from hundreds, or even hundreds, to a dozen or several dozen square meters, as a result of which enemy AWACS aircraft will detect our transport aircraft, for example, not from a distance of half a thousand kilometers, but at least from a distance of a couple of hundred kilometers - for the tasks solved by transport aircraft in the interests of the Airborne Forces, this is especially important.

Kings of the Sky


It is possible that in the future, airships will be added to the promising means of ensuring the strategic mobility of the Airborne Forces. Information about the creation of airships capable of transporting thousands of tons of cargo over tens of thousands of kilometers periodically appears, mainly abroad, although domestic sources sometimes talk about the possibility of creating promising airships in Russia, including for solving military tasks.

In fact, this topic is quite promising – we talked about this back in 2019 in the article Revival of airships. Airships as an important part of the armed forces of the XXI century, but this is clearly not a matter for the near future, at least in Russia.


One of the potential advantages of moving personnel, military equipment and other airborne cargo using airships is their ability to land almost anywhere on the planet, without using long airfield runways. The disadvantages include lower speed of movement compared to airplanes, as well as potential limitations imposed by weather conditions.

Conclusions


The strategic mobility of the Airborne Forces will continue to be provided by military transport aircraft, primarily the Il-76 family of transport aircraft. In the future, the Il-76 family of aircraft will be supplemented by light Il-112V transport aircraft with TV7-117ST02 engines or Il-212 with PD-8 engines.

In the more distant future, the VTA may include a promising transport aircraft, developed within the framework of the program of the promising aviation complex of military transport aviation, although at the moment it is unclear whether the PAK VTA will replace the heavy transport An-124, the Il-76 family of aircraft, or both aircraft at once.

The emergence of such exotic transport vehicles as high-capacity airships cannot be completely ruled out, however, most likely, for the Russian Armed Forces this is an even more distant prospect than the PAK VTA.

Of course, in peacetime, the strategic mobility of the Airborne Forces can be ensured by both rail transport and surface ships.
55 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +7
    2 May 2025 05: 34
    All preparatory activities of our heavy aviation are clearly visible from satellites... request
    To begin with, at least hangars for it need to be built...so that the enemy cannot see the loading of troops, equipment and operational readiness for takeoff.
    1. IVZ
      0
      2 May 2025 07: 47
      Well, seeing is not enough. We also need to understand where the landing area will be, estimate the route of the transporters and have time to react.
  2. +2
    2 May 2025 06: 23
    Much has been written about how the airborne troops will operate in wartime and how they will be destroyed or attempted to be destroyed, and they even suggest abandoning it altogether. But why don't they suggest how to use it in peacetime or pre-war? For example, before an enemy attack, drop a landing force in a dangerous direction. As soon as the enemy begins a breakthrough, for example, to Kursk, the airborne division on duty is dropped in front and meets the enemy. And so on in any direction where there are no troops in the required number for defense. For this, not only parachute methods can be used, but helicopters. And then ground units and units with UAVs that have proven their effectiveness are pulled up. and replace the landing force at the front.
    1. +1
      2 May 2025 08: 41
      Quote: V.
      The airborne division on duty is deployed in front and meets the enemy

      It is better to repurpose for such a task those same affordable, simple and mass-produced attack aircraft and attack drones, which have lost their original functions in the modern world. In modern realities, they will initially be drones with the option of being piloted. There is no place for them on the front lines and there will be no more - but they can defend the rear from breakthroughs under the cover of their air defense like nothing else. And there is no other more efficient, maneuverable and independent of weather and roads technical means for this.
  3. +1
    2 May 2025 06: 46
    Quote: V.
    For example, before an enemy attack, drop a landing force in a dangerous direction. As soon as the enemy begins a breakthrough, for example, to Kursk at the nuclear power plant, the airborne division on duty is dropped in front and meets the enemy. And so on in any direction where there are no troops in the required quantity for defense. For this, you can use not only parachute methods but helicopters. And then ground units are pulled up, and units with UAVs that have proven their effectiveness. and replace the landing force at the front.

    The famous helicopter flight to Kyiv in 2022 showed that this is possible... provided that it is unexpected and sudden for the enemy.
    1. +6
      2 May 2025 07: 09
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      The famous helicopter flight to Kyiv in 2022 showed that this is possible... provided that it is unexpected and sudden for the enemy.

      That is, before the start of the real war.
    2. +1
      2 May 2025 07: 10
      To do this, we need to collect helicopters, fuel and lubricants, vehicles, air defense, air defense, prepare airfields, reconnoiter the landing site, etc., etc.
      The Dnieper landing force was supposed to be the force that would capture the bridgeheads on the right bank. But it took so long to assemble that the infantry and tank crews had already captured the bridgeheads, and the landing force had not yet taken off for several days.
      The landing is not an instant event, it takes a very long time.
      1. +1
        2 May 2025 13: 36
        To do this, we need to collect helicopters, fuel and lubricants, vehicles, air defense, air defense, prepare airfields, reconnoiter the landing site, etc., etc.
        In fact, all of this should already be prepared by the headquarters. Helicopter pilots and military transport aviation pilots are always on duty, and the headquarters work out possible courses of action in advance. Long before the start of combat operations. Everything you mention here should already be ready by the start of combat operations. Airplanes and helicopters are fueled, the nuts on the support rollers of the equipment are tightened, the tracks are tensioned...
        The landing is not an instant event, it takes a very long time.
        I don't know what sources of information you rely on, but, alas, you have been shamelessly lied to. This is not an instant event, yes. But it does not take very long if the headquarters works as it should.
    3. +4
      2 May 2025 08: 24
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      possible...provided it is unexpected and sudden

      Anything is possible, even landing on the Moon. But it won't be long, it'll be one-way, and the goals will never justify the money invested.
      So far, all landing operations in the SVO zone have proven the relatively high efficiency of tunnel or pipeline troops. Therefore, it is more logical to equip the landing force with mining equipment.
      Now even a simple airlift of troops to the front line closer than 100 km is associated with serious risks. The enemy has mobile air defense systems. Considering the total control of NATO space grouping over Russian territory, it is practically impossible to catch Banderovites by surprise, but it is easy to run into an ambush.
      If something can be airdropped now, it is some kind of light robotic platforms using UAVs or setting up ambushes with their help.
      1. +1
        2 May 2025 13: 42
        Therefore, it is more logical to equip the landing force with mining equipment.

        Yeah. And it's time to start producing underground tanks instead of T-90s... wassat A landing is a landing. It is a landing from aircraft carriers. From tanks, if you like: there is also a landing on armor. There is a landing on boats and ships. Yes, marines, but it is still a landing. A landing is the process of unloading a carrier, roughly speaking. And if a soldier simply fires from a trench, then he is NOT a paratrooper. He is already an infantryman, despite the fact that he has been training for landing for 10 years.
        1. +1
          2 May 2025 14: 04
          Quote: Grandfather is an amateur
          A landing is a landing. It is a landing from aircraft carriers.

          Who told you that? It all depends on the purpose of the combat use of the unit. If we are talking about capturing a bridgehead in the enemy's rear and holding it until the main forces arrive, then it is a landing force. If you need to destroy an important object in the rear and leave, then it is a saboteur. What does the delivery vehicle have to do with it?
          You yourself confirm this
          Quote: Grandfather is an amateur
          If a soldier simply fires from a trench, he is NOT a paratrooper. He is already an infantryman.
          You don't call him a trenchman or an armored rider. laughing
          1. 0
            2 May 2025 14: 16
            Everything depends on the purpose of the combat use of the unit. If we are talking about capturing a bridgehead in the enemy's rear and holding it until the main forces arrive, then this is a landing force.
            I didn't express myself quite correctly, I apologize. I drink, I don't always control myself. drinks
      2. 0
        2 May 2025 15: 50
        Now even a simple airlift of troops to the front line closer than 100 km is associated with serious risks. The enemy has mobile air defense systems.
        What are these? Numerous invulnerable patriots who can be deployed along the front line in half an hour?
        Considering the total control of NATO space grouping over Russian territory, it is practically impossible to catch Banderovites by surprise, but it is easy to run into an ambush.
        some experts believe that if camouflage is used, control will not be as effective. And if equipment is transported on open platforms, planes and helicopters are left in the open air, and the ministry has a lot of people sending their wives to give birth in the US, then of course, the devil can find out about any operation even before it is prepared. That is why no one carries out operations
  4. 0
    2 May 2025 07: 12
    Quote from tsvetahaki
    That is, before the start of the real war.

    Yes...now it would probably be impossible to do this without great losses.
    It is impossible to concentrate a mass of equipment in one place without the all-seeing eye of the enemy
  5. +7
    2 May 2025 07: 15
    It is not surprising that the course of events in Ukraine has added skepticism to views on the Airborne Forces...
    But such BDs are conducted with a frequency of ONCE IN A CENTURY, and military conflicts of varying intensity have been, are and will be ongoing - and the capabilities of the Airborne Forces in them have long been known...
    Indeed, given the current range of air defense weapons, ensuring their COMPLETE destruction in the flight zone seems difficult, but by no means impossible; our enemy will have different capabilities...
    The same applies to the parachute landing method...
    But the use of the Airborne Forces is IMPOSSIBLE without the use of the Military Transport Aviation! And here the Russian Army really has problems....
    Is there any area where the Russian Armed Forces don't have problems???
    In fact! And not according to reports...
    1. +1
      2 May 2025 10: 43
      But the use of airborne forces is IMPOSSIBLE without the use of military transport aircraft!

      the key word is now
      1. +3
        2 May 2025 11: 38
        And in terms of time - this is NOW - how long does it last???)))
        But the volume of work can be easily imagined if, say, we find somewhere the number of sorties carried out by the Military Transport Aviation in the interests of the 103rd Airborne Division in 1979 to Kabul...
        At the rate at which the VTA is currently receiving aircraft, by the 22nd century we will be able to land a brigade...
        No! THAT'S NOT HOW things are done... You have to make EFFORT, which is absolutely not being done now...
        1. 0
          3 May 2025 07: 52
          The command must decide what is needed to carry out operations in a modern conflict, then the research institutes conduct research and find out whether it is realistic to implement this in life, then the design bureau receives an order and designs experimental and pre-production models, then state tests are carried out and the equipment is accepted into service
    2. +1
      2 May 2025 13: 49
      But the use of airborne forces is IMPOSSIBLE without the use of military transport aircraft!

      Why is that?! What makes you think that landing is only landing from military transport aircraft?!
      Marines are landing from ships. This is a landing force. Infantry can land from armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, tanks... This is also a landing force!
      The VDV is just elite infantry. Trained better than others. Well prepared. And they can parachute even from electric scooters.
      But the use of airborne forces is IMPOSSIBLE without the use of military transport aircraft!
      Once again, I will allow myself to quote you. You apparently are not aware that the Airborne Forces, like the Marines, are working along the entire line of the BS against the Nazis. And judging by your remark, this is impossible! Can you explain to me, an illiterate person, such a fart-monocle? belay
      1. +1
        2 May 2025 14: 02
        For the illiterate, I'll try to explain)))
        Mixing flies with cutlets is not tasty!
        We are talking about the Airborne Forces! What does the Marines or Mountain Infantry have to do with it - I don't understand...
        For people for whom landing from an infantry fighting vehicle is a landing, it will be difficult to do this, but there are no impossible tasks)))
        The whole question is IN THE PURPOSE OF THE TROOPS!
        If you need to break through a prepared defense, you don't need airborne troops, you NEED tank and motorized rifle units and formations, properly equipped, armed and trained...
        And the use of airborne forces as infantry in LBS - hammering nails with a microscope!
        Well, in my specialty))) where and what units of our troops conduct offensive and defensive actions I know better than many))) - simply because I myself take part, often directly in planning...)))
        1. -1
          2 May 2025 14: 32
          And the use of airborne forces as infantry in LBS - hammering nails with a microscope!

          Damn it, the next nail, if I have to hammer it, I'll hammer it with a microscope. Simply because the Airborne Forces work better than regular infantry on LBS.
          Landing is a process that is independent of the means of delivery. You see, if someone arrived on a bicycle, dismounted, and began to fight, then he also landed. From a bicycle.
          And the purpose of the troops is one and only. All of them, without exception. The defeat of the enemy. Specialization does not affect the final goal of any type of troops. And if a paratrooper guards the perimeter around the point of deployment of multiple launch rocket systems, then he is still a serviceman. And a paratrooper. But the paratrooper is just winged infantry.
          Once again. The Airborne Forces are simply much more seriously trained infantry. Like the Marines. Ideally, it would be possible to create the Airborne-Naval Landing Forces. Combining all methods of landing troops. These would be super-elite infantrymen. And there would be no sense in this. A soldier fights where he has to. Where necessary. Landing an airborne assault force now is not even an impossible operation, it is an operation to destroy one's own troops. Landing a marine assault force is possible. With a massive shelling of all anti-ship missile launch points. As an option, it would be acceptable for one of the five to remain. Escort ships must intercept one. Several escort ships are needed for each landing ship.
          Well, in my specialty))) where and what units of our troops conduct offensive and defensive actions I know better than many))) - simply because I myself take part, often directly in planning...)))
          Thanks, I haven’t laughed like that for a long time! laughing
          1. 0
            2 May 2025 14: 43
            And I'm not laughing...I forgot to say THERE))) I not only plan...but I organize interaction and manage MYSELF (a rather rare phenomenon in the Army of the new look)
            So, how many tanks does an airborne division have?
            And the second question, but the most important one - who is stopping you from training the infantry to the level of the Airborne Forces?
            What is the reason?)))
            But understanding will only come if we study the STANDARD structure of a motorized rifle/tank or airborne or airborne assault....
            And I've seen a lot of people hammering nails with a microscope during my time at SVO... before that was called ILLITERACY...
            1. 0
              2 May 2025 14: 50
              And I'm not laughing...I forgot to say THERE))) I not only plan...but I organize interaction and manage MYSELF (a rather rare phenomenon in the Army of the new look)
              Dmitry, would you calm down, please? We all remember how you danced with your new smartphone... Damn it, Dmitry Anatolyevich, create your own, official account! Why the hell did you start trying to catch us with a spoon again? It's not working for you, it's not working!.. Ask Patrushev how it should be done, or something... wassat
              He won't give bad advice, right?
              And you can be seen from a mile away... smile
  6. +1
    2 May 2025 07: 44
    In any case, you can't do without parachute-dropped vehicles. And that means you can't do without armored vehicles either, because it's better to have some armor.
    Expensive, but necessary.
    And attempts to reduce the cost by unifying it with the combined arms infantry fighting vehicle will not lead to anything good.
    It seems impossible to reduce the radar signature of heavy military transport aircraft without radically changing their shape. No amount of gilding or blockers will help here, and radar-absorbing coatings will eat up the payload.
    1. +1
      2 May 2025 11: 09
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      In any case, it is impossible to do without parachute-dropped vehicles.

      Why?
      1. 0
        2 May 2025 15: 22
        Quote: Krasnodar
        Why?

        The answer is in the article.
  7. +6
    2 May 2025 08: 03
    Thank you, Andrey, for a series of articles about the fate of the Airborne Forces in modern wars.
    You always write about the use of airborne forces behind the established front line and in the enemy air defense zone.
    Meanwhile, the Airborne Forces' destiny is a lightning strike into the rear of an enemy not yet ready to repel, where there is no continuous air defense zone, and the counter-transfer of troops will be late and associated with large losses. For example, consider a situation in the style of "Whose Greenland?", both with the capture of this territory and its subsequent retention, or a mirror situation with regard to Kamchatka. In both cases, the debut by the Airborne Forces with the support of other branches of the armed forces is decisive for the fate of the entire operation.
    1. +2
      2 May 2025 11: 13
      Quote: Victor Leningradets
      Meanwhile, the destiny of the Airborne Forces is a lightning strike into the rear of an enemy not yet ready to repel, where there is no continuous air defense zone,

      If the enemy is not ready, then yes.
      The question is how many troops should be prepared for this?
      Quote: Victor Leningradets
      In both cases, the debut by the Airborne Forces with the support of other branches of the armed forces is decisive for the fate of the entire operation.

      A couple of hours before the main strike - it's possible
    2. +1
      2 May 2025 11: 31
      There is such a concept - "threat period", when potential participants are already rattling their weapons. The landing is a CROWD of transport planes entering the airspace of a potential enemy state, ready for war. Do you think there won't be a commander there who will give the order to "shoot them all down"?
      The risks are very high, and the price of the issue is the loss of the landing force, the most elite, motivated, equipped and trained troops. Again, plans for a military campaign will have to be made taking into account "plan B", when, on the order of an initiative commander, the landing force will be shot down in the air in the airspace of a potential enemy.
      1. +1
        2 May 2025 16: 12
        One more time:
        The author proposes this (to push through the front line into the location of the enemy who is ready to attack on airships and other aircraft) - oppose him.
        The landing force is intended for landing on an important remote object not covered by troops and air defense (which I wrote about). Flew - landed - deployed. Next - games of development with the connection of slower, but weighty ones. Plus, air defense and anti-ship missiles are deployed by us on the necessary bridgehead.
  8. +4
    2 May 2025 08: 07
    The emergence of such exotic transport vehicles as high-capacity airships cannot be completely ruled out, however, most likely, for the Russian Armed Forces this is an even more distant prospect than the PAK VTA.
    And flying carpets.
    It should be noted that the generated text is becoming increasingly coherent (although sometimes fragments of sentences emerge - "This image, although epic, has nothing to do with the Russian Air Force's military transport aircraft - it is a concept of a Chinese advanced super-heavy transport aircraft, although, considering the howitzers and operational-tactical missiles from North Korea..."), which does not cancel out its "delusionalness" as a whole.
    request
    But let's still support our dear VO and give at least 20 comments.
    feel
    1. +4
      2 May 2025 09: 18
      Oh, hold Mitrofanov, four of you! And make sure his hands are tied behind his back! Otherwise, we'll soon see articles on VO: 1. The future of the Airborne Forces in space landing ships! 2. What space landing ships do the Russian space forces need! 3. From space to battle! With calculations, figures and illustrations!
      1. +3
        2 May 2025 09: 45
        And in exoskeletons, otherwise it will be like on Kleidatu.
        1. +1
          2 May 2025 15: 56
          The space troops in the drop pods should be in power armor with a bolter at the ready, then all the Tyranids will get it
  9. +3
    2 May 2025 08: 58
    Commendable persistence. Well, yes, there is a landing force, we must definitely use it. fellow

    Turn on your common sense already! soldier

    1. What Il-76 and airships, airplanes from the Soviet era aircraft modeling are shot down by the hundreds!

    2. You can also plant a cow using the planting method, you don’t need a separate troop! hi
  10. +1
    2 May 2025 09: 02
    and where is the information about modular unmanned helicopters for transporting weapons and equipment to support landing operations behind enemy lines?
  11. +1
    2 May 2025 09: 05
    To hell with this VDV. No time for it now. Tactical landings are much more relevant now. But alas, the DShBRs have been destroyed as a class, and the AA is just pitiful remnants.
    1. +2
      2 May 2025 09: 45
      It is doubtful that in the era of a controlled battlefield (from AWACS to aircraft and multicopter UAVs) it is possible to transport people and equipment by helicopter and parachute them.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. 0
        2 May 2025 20: 29
        It is doubtful that in the era of a controlled battlefield (from AWACS to aircraft and multicopter UAVs) it is possible to transport people and equipment by helicopter and parachute them.


        It is possible if you work by all means.
  12. +7
    2 May 2025 09: 14
    Quote: Lech from Android.
    It is impossible to concentrate a mass of equipment in one place without the all-seeing eye of the enemy

    That's how it worked out for the Ukrainian Armed Forces, they entered our Kursk region in armored vehicles.
  13. +3
    2 May 2025 09: 47
    It seems that the Airborne Forces will "smoothly" flow into airmobile troops! The pioneers in this concept are the United States... The airmobile division formed during the Vietnam War showed itself quite well in Vietnam and convinced the Americans of the need to continue to pay special attention to the airmobility of troops! "Unmanned robotic transport platforms" will be suitable for the transfer of equipment... perhaps manned ones like the VVP-6! Let's give the Airborne Forces helicopters, and the Marines ekranoplans! fellow
    1. IVZ
      +1
      2 May 2025 10: 15
      The airmobile division performed quite well in Vietnam and convinced the Americans of the need to continue to pay special attention to airmobility of troops
      Nevertheless, the Americans have not abandoned the classic Airborne Forces. Moreover, the means and methods, including parachute, of landing people and equipment are being improved, and the corresponding exercises are regularly held. Apparently, the depth of action of helicopter landings and their capabilities for delivering equipment do not satisfy the local military.
    2. 0
      2 May 2025 12: 41
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      It seems that the Airborne Forces will "smoothly" flow into airmobile troops! The pioneers in this concept are the USA...:

      France - War in Algeria.
      1. +1
        2 May 2025 19: 50
        Quote: Maxim G
        France - War in Algeria.

        No way! The United States developed a single organizational structure that included both helicopters and "infantry"! France used helicopters to transport troops in Algeria, but they were not organizationally united! Since you've already touched on the "topic", it's worth noting that the Americans used helicopters to transport troops in the Korean War, which was a little earlier than Algeria!
        1. 0
          2 May 2025 22: 15
          It is they who are responsible for rapid deployment and redeployment, not the Americans.
  14. 0
    2 May 2025 13: 54
    IMHO, there are a lot of fantasies.
    It's clear as day that we have a problem with all our aviation.
    Others are building.
    IMHO, the Chinese will push us out, enter the market and sell their own.
    It seems that firefighters are either already pushing back seaplanes, or they can. Passenger ones. Transport ones.
  15. 0
    2 May 2025 17: 43
    The VDV is a fiction. It is impossible to land troops in the 21st century, unless of course the enemy is savages who have never heard of air defense. The maximum is just infantry, which can be added to the 30 kilometers to the front. But with their weapons, normal infantry will simply sweep away.
  16. 0
    2 May 2025 22: 01
    full gg sorry... what technologies???
  17. +1
    3 May 2025 08: 11
    Why deploy airborne troops?
    In ancient times, the Airborne Forces carried out sabotage missions.
    Now these tasks must be solved with the help of reconnaissance systems, drones and missiles.
    Transport planes are not fighters and cannot perform anti-missile maneuvers!
    And no one will allow the landing force to land behind enemy lines, and those who remain will certainly not be allowed to leave.
    The tasks of the Airborne Forces must be revised in accordance with today's realities of military operations.
  18. -1
    3 May 2025 10: 40
    The Great Patriotic War was won without the Airborne Forces and Military Transport Aviation.
    The tactics of using airborne forces is a game of roulette, hoping that the enemy will not be ready.
    I recall the attempt to capture Kharkov in February 2022 by special forces. There is one reason for this: our army has forgotten the experience of the Second World War. There were a lot of such operations in 41-42. And they all ended in one thing - disaster. By the end of 43, a different tactic was developed, which bore fruit.
    There is no need to "reinvent the wheel", we need to remember the lessons of World War II, for which our country paid a very high price.
    1. +1
      3 May 2025 11: 02
      The Great Patriotic War was won without the Airborne Forces and Military Transport Aviation.

      Well, with a larger VTA we could have acted more effectively. For example, the Luftwaffe could have used the VTA to quickly redeploy frontline aviation to the necessary directions, i.e. service personnel and equipment, combat aircraft themselves flew over. The Germans quickly concentrated aviation to defeat the Western and Reserve, Crimean and Southwestern Fronts. The VTA provided the Germans with defense near Rzhev and Demyansk. We were forced to spread our frontline aviation almost evenly. The VTA is only the Airborne Forces.
      1. 0
        3 May 2025 14: 25
        Quote: Konnick
        Well, with a larger VTA we could act more effectively.

        At the height of the Battle of Stalingrad, trains were derailed so that empty trains would not interfere with unloading the pastures.
        What is the effectiveness of transport aviation during a total war? None.
        Near Rzhev our aviation dropped cargo in exactly the same way. What was the result of these drops?
        What was the result of the landing operations near Vyazma? A maximum of a third of the paratroopers reached the assembly point. 80% of the cargo was lost.
        Let us not forget these victims and not repeat the mistakes of the past.
        1. -1
          8 May 2025 09: 45
          The Airborne Forces have a future, but for this it is necessary to use a different method of landing, today there are 3 main options known
          1 classic parachute
          2 using helicopters
          3 landing glider in tow
          However, if we recall the inventor Grokhovsky, we can improve one of his methods by placing paratroopers in a narrow and long container and dropping it from an airplane like a gliding bomb, which should be capable of making a soft landing on an unprepared site. A container 8-9 m long with a trapezoidal cross-section will fit 10-16 paratroopers sitting in a line one behind the other with their backs forward (it's safer this way), obviously the container will need its own engine and the ability to fly at low altitude like a cruise missile.
          1. -1
            8 May 2025 10: 51
            Quote: agond
            place the paratroopers in a narrow and long container

            Ready to be the first tester?
            Let's return to the experience of the Great Patriotic War, and in general the Second World War, the experience of the allies will also work.
            A maximum of 30% of the paratroopers made it to the assembly point... 80% of the cargo was lost.
            All these landing operations are a waste of men and equipment. In war you can't rely on luck.
            1. 0
              8 May 2025 12: 33
              Quote: ism_ek
              Ready to be the first tester?

              The first tester has already been there, it was Grokhovsky himself,