Military Review

Creation of marines will soon begin

97
A few days ago, the Ministry of Defense published information about a new tender, the purpose of which is to prepare for the creation of a new platform for combat vehicles. This time it comes to conducting all the research needed to design a new universal platform, called the "Marine Corps War Vehicle" (BMMP). In the domestic armed forces such a class of technology will appear for the first time, which greatly enhances the interest in the initiated project. So far, only the most general information about the project has been published, since the terms of reference, etc. documents don't even exist yet. They are planned to work out in the course of research work.




In the course of scientific research work “Platform BMMP” it is planned to carry out a complex of works of various kinds, pursuing several goals. The Defense Ministry requires contractors to conduct research of a scientific, methodological, informational, and organizational nature, the purpose of which will be to determine the most convenient ways to develop a new family of combat vehicles. In addition, contractors are charged with the formation of a set of baseline data required for research and development, as well as an analysis of the state and prospects of domestic and foreign armored vehicles. Based on this information, it is supposed to form the appearance of a promising marine infantry fighting vehicle. Finally, the organizations involved in the project will have to develop a future mockup of the future platform, which will later take part in the testing and verification of the solutions applied. All these works must be completed by November of this year's 25.

Of great interest is the published document titled “Tactical and economic rationale for the implementation of research and development“ BMP platform ”,” namely, its section, which indicates the possible executors of the contract. Thus, KAMAZ OJSC is considered as a potential lead contractor. As stated in the document, this organization has been developing wheeled vehicles for a period of forty years, including vehicles for the army, and is currently the leading enterprise in its field. In addition to the car factory from Naberezhnye Chelny, several other companies and organizations may be involved in research works. Thus, Idema LLC (Bor, Nizhny Novgorod Region) is considered as a developer of the layout of the internal volumes and appearance of a promising machine; the creation of electronics can be entrusted to the Taganrog OAO NKB VS; and for carrying out research and testing work, the scientific research institute of the 3 Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense may be involved in the project.

From the other documents attached to the order information, it follows that the new BMMP platform will have a wheel propulsion. At the same time, other features of the appearance of a promising machine are currently unknown. Accepting applications for the tender will last until mid-July, and for this reason it is not yet possible to say with certainty who exactly will determine the appearance of a promising combat vehicle for the marines and who will develop the corresponding project. Nevertheless, already now you can try to analyze the technology available in our country and try to predict the general features of the appearance of a future BMMP.

First of all, it should be noted that the idea of ​​creating a special combat vehicle for the marines is not something new. Several years ago, there were reports of the beginning of some work in this area, but then everything remained at the research stage and general statements. As a result, until now the marines have to operate initially ground equipment, poorly adapted for full-fledged work on the water. Currently, the Russian Navy uses infantry carriers of the BTR-70 and BTR-80 families, as well as infantry fighting vehicles BMP-2 and BMP-3F. Despite the ability to cross the water obstacles by swimming, all these machines were designed for ground forces and have insufficient characteristics for full use in the marines.

Recently, there has been increasing talk of the need to equip the marines with equipment capable of the so-called over-landing landing. This method of disembarking means that the landing craft unloads the equipment at a relatively large (20-40 kilometers) distance from the coastline, after which the armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles independently reach land and enter into battle. Over-the-horizon landing reduces the likelihood of ships being destroyed, and also counteracts the landing of the landing force. However, for such disembarking, armored vehicles should have good seaworthiness indicators, as well as be able to move through water at high speed. Unfortunately, none of the available domestic types of light armored vehicles fully meet these requirements.

Creation of marines will soon begin
"Otter" looked rather strange


It is worth noting that the Russian defense industry already has some experience on the subject of specialized combat vehicles for the marines. So, a few years ago, KAMAZ enterprise created a prototype of the “Otter” armored car, designed to equip the marines. Unfortunately, detailed information about this project is not available and one has to be content with only a few images of a prototype machine. The photographs show the characteristic corners of the hull, directly talking about the purpose of this armored car, as well as the approximate layout of the internal units. According to some sources, a number of developments under the “Otter” project are now being used in works on the new topic “Amphibia”, conducted at the same plant in Naberezhnye Chelny.

From the time allotted for conducting the research work “Platform BMMP”, it follows that the contracting organizations will have to use the available developments on the relevant topics. Otherwise, they run the risk of not meeting the prescribed few months. For this reason, it is currently difficult to talk about the specific appearance of the future marines. All firms and organizations offered as contractors have certain achievements in various designs, which is why it remains only to guess which of them will be used in the project. Probably, at present, applicants for a contract are evaluating the opportunities and existing projects, due to which the first specific messages will appear in mid-July. A little later, in November-month, the Ministry of Defense and development organizations are likely to demonstrate a model or even a prototype of a promising machine. Thus, in the coming years, a new type of light armored vehicles will appear, which will fully comply with the requirements of the marines.


On the materials of the sites:
http://zakupki.gov.ru/
http://i-mash.ru/
http://lenta.ru/
http://business-gazeta.ru/
Author:
97 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Canep
    Canep 1 July 2013 07: 57
    0
    The beginning is already BTR-82A. It is only necessary to increase the speed afloat, and equip with marine navigation devices.
    1. Bronis
      Bronis 1 July 2013 08: 59
      +4
      Based on what was said earlier, we are talking more about the analogue (more or less) of the AAV-7 - a capacious tracked vehicle with a long range of travel on water. + with the ability to support the landing with heavy weapons. Quite contradictory requirements ... but voiced precisely them.
      1. Canep
        Canep 1 July 2013 09: 47
        +3
        If so, then again a bad parody of military equipment will turn out. If we start to copy something, it always turns out worse. At one time there was a draft of an air cushion tank, it can revive it.
        1. Bronis
          Bronis 1 July 2013 12: 25
          +1
          Blind copying, like screwdriver assembly, is bad. But now, if the concept is close - you can borrow the solutions. However, in the case of the AAV-7, copying is simply not possible. And our component base is different. Machines are more similar in concept, as technically implemented - is another matter. We need air-cushion landing boats, we also need caterpillar floating vehicles - they can also be used at a distance from the coast on rough terrain
          1. Denis
            Denis 1 July 2013 16: 24
            0
            Quote: Bronis
            We need air-cushion landing boats, we also need caterpillar floating vehicles - they can also be used at a distance from the coast on rough terrain
            And why not try on the PT-76 platform?
            Successful design and seaworthiness are good. Improve if necessary the engine and the gun, sighting equipment. Or does it all rest on the layout? With the engine at the back there will be a side or top exit from the troop compartment
    2. IRBIS
      IRBIS 1 July 2013 11: 48
      +6
      Quote: Canep
      The beginning is already BTR-82A. It is only necessary to increase the speed afloat, and equip with marine navigation devices.

      His seaworthiness is not very important. On trials in Baltiysk, he "managed" to sink in the bay with a practical calm.
      1. old man54
        old man54 1 July 2013 17: 06
        0
        Quote: IRBIS
        His seaworthiness is not very important. On trials in Baltiysk, he "managed" to sink in the bay with a practical calm.

        since there was calm, it is not a problem of seaworthiness, but structural or operational problems. those. somewhere, water began to flow, and his buoyancy margin was small.
        1. IRBIS
          IRBIS 2 July 2013 09: 25
          +1
          Quote: old man54
          it is not a seaworthiness problem, but structural or operational problems. those. somewhere, water began to flow, and his buoyancy margin was small.

          It has poor water stability. The tower was slapped so that, when cornering afloat, it creates a tipping moment.
          1. old man54
            old man54 2 July 2013 13: 26
            0
            Quote: IRBIS
            It has poor water stability. The tower was slapped so that, when cornering afloat, it creates a tipping moment.

            realized thanks for the info. I also thought about it, myself, purely for the sake of estimation, without calculations, but for some reason I decided that such a mass of the tower (although outwardly it does not look heavy) would even compensate for it in the water relative to its heavy armored personnel carrier, its low-lying MTO, which will balance the metocentric height. Wrong means ...
    3. old man54
      old man54 1 July 2013 19: 34
      +1
      Quote: Canep
      The beginning is already BTR-82A. It is only necessary to increase the speed afloat, and equip with marine navigation devices.

      He is weak to support the landing on the shore during the landing! The armor is weak. Actually, the 88 was supposed to have adopted the BMP-3, and they also wanted to equip the MP fleet with it. That would be yes! She holds an 3 ball storm, and during the course to the shore during this storm she can still fire from a standard weapon! Her defense is not a couple of armored personnel carriers of any kind. Why reinvent the wheel, spend money when there is already what we are looking for, + great potential for modernization.
      1. m262
        m262 2 July 2013 00: 56
        +2
        I'm sorry - I'm new to the site, but I would like to add that the union already had experience in creating and operating heavy equipment with almost the same characteristics and tasks: t-64, t-72 and t-80, but with completely different spare parts, I have an opinion that in the modern army "there is no buzz" to complicate the already difficult question of material and technical supply with dubious novelties if on the basis of the BMP-3 it is possible to create a worthy option for the fleet!
  2. Strashila
    Strashila 1 July 2013 07: 57
    +3
    “Finally, the organizations involved in the project will have to develop a mock-up of the future platform, which will later take part in the testing and verification of the applied solutions. All these works should be completed by November 25 of this year. "... the timing is strange, it seems that the tender is being made for someone. It is not easy to make in hardware, even this is just a running layout. Considering that you will actually need to develop more than one option from scratch, and preliminary tests are required at different times years ... but the funny thing, according to the article, MO again does not present basic requirements for the project, for transportation to the landing site, armament and security, such as at the mercy of the developer, to the right in order to say later ...
  3. erased
    erased 1 July 2013 07: 58
    +1
    Wheel BMP, and even floating, with good armor protection, powerful enough weapons and an amphibious assault of 8-10 people - and all from scratch? Or are they using the previous developments? Or will they take Kurganets-25 as the base?
    In addition to voicing the idea of ​​creating no data. So that we can guess until we stop until we see.
  4. Strashila
    Strashila 1 July 2013 08: 17
    +4
    "Over-the-horizon landing reduces the likelihood of destroying ships, and also complicates countering the landing." ... Generally a controversial issue, !!! 20-40 km !!!. To begin with, 40 km for an anti-ship missile is just a flight time, but in this version, the landing party loses the fire support of the ships. Yes, and 20-40 km at a speed of about 10 km / h BMMP, hardly more, well, we will swing at all 30 km / h with a breeze, so to speak, it's about an hour, get to the shoreline, and the enemy all the time will be picking his nose ???
    1. AK-47
      AK-47 1 July 2013 08: 44
      +1
      Quote: Strashila
      an hour, get to the shoreline, and the enemy will be picking his nose all this time ???

      Yes, strategists are a little too clever, or think in terms of the Second World War.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 1 July 2013 11: 45
        +3
        Destroying one landing ship with artillery fire is easier than several dozen floating armored objects
        1. Bronis
          Bronis 1 July 2013 12: 29
          +3
          Moreover, such vehicles will come in handy as amphibious assault vehicles in the interior of the enemy’s territory. The AAV-7 KMP also traveled around Baghdad, albeit too big for the city.
          But on boats with an air cushion on land you will not come across ...
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 1 July 2013 12: 37
            +3
            You just do not have to follow the American path, increasing seaworthiness to the detriment of combat.

            In general, it’s purely easier for an artilleryman to shoot off with one fire raid on one large target such as a landing ship, and topple from a firing position until they have covered himself, than to set up movable and fixed fire zones in the path of small landing facilities, and wait for a return greeting. After all, the landing troops will surely be tightly covered, the firing battery will be slammed two minutes after the opening of the fire.
        2. Cat
          Cat 1 July 2013 12: 51
          +5
          Quote: Spade
          Destroying one landing ship with artillery fire is easier than several dozen floating armored objects

          The landing ship may snap back. In addition, if this is a normal BDK, and not a tin can like Mistral - to drown it with a couple of shots or at least deprive the move is not a fact of what happens.
          As for a few dozens of floating armored personnel carriers ... if I am not mistaken, from a height of 10 meters above sea level - visibility to the horizon is 11 or 12 km, that is, the same US EFV will take about 20 minutes to reach the coast (in calm and in a straight line) . How many shells can your battery release during this time? So w. Moreover, you will shoot in polygon conditions - floating armored personnel carriers or infantry fighting vehicles will not be able to answer with all great desire. Is maneuvering harder to hit, but there is more time left.
          And this is if it became known about the landing at the last moment, you flew in full steam, immediately turned around and entered the battle. And if you have some time left, you collect whatever comes to hand, rivet anti-tank hedgehogs and throw them into the surf. Mines can still be thrown, even stupidly on the ground. And tryndets - the marines at the most rotten moment, that is, when leaving the water to the shore - will be only with a light rifle. And without any support - for armored vehicles, shooting "from the water" is not much different from a salute, and the ships are stranded over the horizon.
          Personally, to me (taking into account what I learned during my time in the MP and heard from the officers), the DKVP seems to be the most comfortable. Not necessarily a huge Bison-type, you can also have small platforms for a couple of armored personnel carriers or infantry fighting vehicles. They are delivered by a lighter carrier to the desired area, and then gas to the floor - and to the shore. In terms of speed, the DCVP will make any BMMP lightweight, plus you can stick a firing one on it, plus the transported armored vehicles will be able to fire from standard weapons (the platform of the moving "pillow" is much more stable than sea waves). Plus - an increase in the places available for landing on the coast. Plus - the pillow does not care deeply about underwater obstacles, and anti-landing mines are less dangerous than for armored vehicles.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 1 July 2013 13: 08
            +4
            Quote: Cat
            The landing ship may snap back.

            Where will he snap? They will fly from nowhere through the ship within a minute of 144 152-mm shell, and amba. And let others snarl. In an empty place.

            Quote: Cat
            How many shells can your battery release during this time?

            16 shells per gun. Two minutes and the battery will be mixed with the ground

            Quote: Cat
            Moreover, you will shoot in polygon conditions - floating armored personnel carriers or infantry fighting vehicles will not be able to answer with all great desire.

            Even if they could answer. Do not forget, artillery is not being pulled out for direct fire now.

            Quote: Cat
            And if you have some time left - you collect what comes to hand, rivet the anti-tank hedgehogs and dump them into the surf. Mines can still be thrown, even stupidly on the ground.

            But the landed ones are so stupid that they don’t know this, and specialized units have no task of breaking through mine-explosive barriers at the landing sites?
            1. Cat
              Cat 1 July 2013 13: 44
              0
              Quote: Spade
              Where will he snap? They will fly from nowhere through the ship within a minute of 144 152-mm shell, and amba. And let others snarl. In an empty place.

              shooting from closed positions at a fast moving and maneuvering target is possible, but difficult.
              Quote: Spade
              16 shells per gun. Two minutes and the battery will be mixed with the ground

              what prevents to do this before the start of the landing?
              Quote: Spade
              Even if they could answer. Do not forget, artillery is not being pulled out for direct fire now.

              even better, getting from a closed position on a flying DKVP flying at all pairs is much more difficult than on a floating armored personnel carrier (which you don’t need to get into, even with a close explosion it will either flood or overturn it.
              In addition - besides artillery, there are also infantry, machine guns, ATGM systems - all this also needs to be suppressed, and it is highly desirable just before the assault climb out of the water to the shore (before that, the defenders can dodge in trenches, dugouts, etc.)
              Quote: Spade
              But the landed ones are so stupid that they don’t know this, and specialized units have no task of breaking through mine-explosive barriers at the landing sites?

              it is much more comfortable to do this under the guise of ship’s guns than face to face with enemy infantry dug in. In addition, to make a passage in the anti-landing barriers installed in the water is much more difficult than to do the same on the shore. And to do it under fire is either impossible at all, or at the cost of huge losses. Therefore, it is preferable to either bypass or jump over such sections - which in either case is easier to do on the DKVP than on an armored personnel carrier.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 1 July 2013 14: 16
                +2
                Quote: Cat
                shooting from closed positions at a fast moving and maneuvering target is possible, but difficult.

                Then tell us what are the methods of throwing personnel and equipment from a fast moving and maneuvering ship.

                Quote: Cat
                what prevents to do this before the start of the landing?

                She still needs to be found.

                Quote: Cat
                it’s even better to get from a closed position on flying all-round DKVP - much more difficult

                He will get his on the coast.

                Quote: Cat
                In addition - besides artillery, there are also infantry, machine guns, ATGM systems - all this also needs to be suppressed, and it is highly desirable just before the assault climb out of the water to the shore (before that, the defenders can dodge in trenches, dugouts, etc.)

                And flying in full steam DKVP able to cope with this task? Freshly giving ...
                1. Cat
                  Cat 1 July 2013 14: 36
                  0
                  Quote: Spade
                  Then tell us what are the methods of throwing personnel and equipment from a fast moving and maneuvering ship.

                  threw the ramp and moved ashore =)
                  Quote: Spade
                  She still needs to be found.

                  found, then what? How to grind you in 2 minutes? You work 10 km or closer, cover ships are 30-40 km away, except for the Kyrgyz Republic, which still needs target designation and which can really be brought down by means of near air defense. Plus - you do not stand still, you are dispersed and after a couple of volleys you change your position. Aviation is a forest, for anti-aircraft gunners are watching. And the only chance is to get the ships closer and crush you with artillery fire.
                  Quote: Spade
                  He will get his on the coast.

                  receive something, but before that he will have time to unload the armored vehicles, even if not all. And in order to have time to unload more - I suggest using a bunch of small "pillows" instead of one Bison
                  Quote: Spade
                  And flying in full steam DKVP able to cope with this task? Freshly giving ..

                  Why not? For modern SLAs, this is no more complicated than firing from a tank moving along an intersection. Again, to strike the DKVP with infantry reinforcement is not so simple, and your artillery is either dueling with ships, or destroyed xs than 2 minutes after the first salvo =))
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 1 July 2013 15: 44
                    +1
                    Quote: Cat
                    threw the ramp and moved ashore =)

                    On the run? And then the flight time of 144 shells is painfully small

                    Quote: Cat
                    found, then what? How to grind you in 2 minutes?

                    Yes, anything that is at hand. The first shell left, and the enemy knows the coordinates of the battery. X, Y, h. And here the fun begins. If we shoot at a separate large target, then a minute firing raid, covered, left.
                    And if it will be dozens of small-sized targets, then only barrage fire, and without guarantee of the destruction of targets. And at the same time it will be necessary to remain on fire, while substituting.

                    Quote: Cat
                    get something, but before that he will be able to unload the armored vehicles

                    Not in time. It will burn all together with the DKVP. Part in the water, part on the coast.

                    Quote: Cat
                    For modern SLAs, this is no more complicated than firing from a tank moving along an intersection.

                    If not field artillery, but coastal artillery, with appropriate means of detecting and controlling fire, works on the DKVP, then it will not have time to apply its modern FCS. Remember, in addition, guided artillery ammunition, ATGMs like the Kornet-D with a firing range of 10 km, whose thermobaric "head" is analogous to a 152-mm projectile. So not an option.

                    That's why the Americans switched to overseas, plus a third of the personnel, by air.
                    1. Cat
                      Cat 1 July 2013 16: 43
                      +1
                      Quote: Spade
                      On the run?

                      ashore =)
                      in any case, for a salvo you can destroy a limited number of targets (no one will land one DKVP on the defended coast). And you may not live up to the second salvo - on the same Bison, especially for people like you, who have MLRS, who have a much better chance of destroying your battery than ships located 40 km or even cruise missiles. Plus, with my version, the ships are not somewhere there over the horizon, but relatively nearby - and they also beat you hard from all the trunks. Ideally, the tactic is this: being within the reach of your guns - the cover ships begin to exchange pleasantries with your battery, and the DKVP with the landing party is fully torn to the shore. In the end, you will either have to pull out the fire, or beat someone first and someone later. As far as I know, the transfer of fire along the front is much easier than in depth, that is, you will first get cover and only then will you land for the landing. Which by that time may be on the coast =)) Although I may be wrong, I’m not an artilleryman because ... but in any case, you will have certain problems.
                      Quote: Spade
                      Yes, anything that is at hand ..... If we shoot at a separate large target, then a minute fire attack, we covered, left.
                      And if it will be dozens of small-sized targets, then only barrage fire, and without guarantee of the destruction of targets. And at the same time it will be necessary to remain on fire, while substituting.

                      There is nothing at hand - ships with guns over the horizon, the Kyrgyz Republic is not a fact that they will fly and not a fact that they will hit, but the landing itself cannot shoot at you because there is nothing.
                      As for the crowd of small-sized targets, this is also not so clear. The fact is that the armored personnel carriers will not be able to stretch the formation indefinitely, if only for the reason that they should go ashore, ideally, simultaneously, or at least in several waves - but in no case one by one, otherwise they will click in turn. My Xena was in the states but joint exercises, he said: they pay great attention to well-coordinated maneuvering. That is, armored personnel carriers or infantry fighting vehicles taxi into the water, and begin "dancing" - in a column, in a line, in a box, in a wedge, rebuilding from one order to another, etc. Drilling like =))) we didn't bother with such garbage, although according to the charter it was supposed to build waves and only then move on to the offensive. Usually - I rolled out from the large landing craft, turned on water cannons - and went ashore until drowning =) Gasoline, again, is saved (we had 70s =))
                      Well, yes it’s lyrics, but the point is that armored personnel carriers are sailing in formation, and it’s not so difficult to cover them. Even if you do not melt it, just disperse it - it will be much easier for the entrenched soldiers on the shore to deal with those who will swim.
                      1. Cat
                        Cat 1 July 2013 16: 45
                        +1
                        Quote: Spade
                        If not field artillery, but coastal artillery, with appropriate means of detecting and controlling fire, works on the DKVP, then it will not have time to apply its modern FCS. Remember, in addition, guided artillery ammunition, ATGMs like the Kornet-D with a firing range of 10 km, whose thermobaric "head" is analogous to a 152-mm projectile. So not an option.

                        Landing on the coast, where there is efficient coastal artillery with all the bells and whistles - this is unambiguous delirium. Here I have nothing to say, with any tactics the MP will lose. At least on armored personnel carriers, at least on the BDK, at least on the DKVP, at least on horseback on the Great Kraken.
                        As for Kornet and other ATGMs, they will drown a single-armed APC without problems, even if it is rowing 40 km / h. But DKVP, sales is not the biggest, one might not be enough of a cornet, it depends on the point of impact.
                        Quote: Spade
                        That's why the Americans switched to overseas, plus a third of the personnel, by air.

                        a third of the airborne assault is a slightly different tactic outlined in the adjacent post. Moreover, since the landing is a landing method - except for the Papuans, you don’t really attack anyone. MANPADS or krupnyak - and the entire airborne landing, according to the tickets purchased, goes either to heaven or to hell.
                  2. cdrt
                    cdrt 2 July 2013 11: 14
                    0
                    Hmm ... some fantasies about the landing on Saipan ...
                    It was already, through a long evolution (and !!! practical experience), we first came to vertical coverage (first tested in Suez by practice), and then, as an answer, the growth of coastal defense capabilities for over-horizon landing (actually analyzing landing methods in our Kamchatka and Kola )
                    Denying this in favor of WWII methods is strange.
                    Besides ... a sharply maneuvering landing ship ... hmm ... a mixture of a torpedo boat with LST?
                    1. Cat
                      Cat 2 July 2013 18: 06
                      0
                      Quote: cdrt
                      Besides ... a sharply maneuvering landing ship ... hmm ... a mixture of a torpedo boat with LST?

                      DKVP. Although, newfangled Russian landing boats are also given out for 30 knots, and a couple of MBTs are being transported.
                      And it is precisely these that are supposed to be extinguished by howitzers from closed positions. Actually, in principle, at the moment when they crawl ashore and start unloading. But at the same time, it is necessary to ditch not so much the ship itself as the transported tank - otherwise it will enter the operational space and arrange for the gunners a big zvezdets =)
                      But the American EFV, even reaching the shore, will suck its foot - it weighs 35 tons, with relatively narrow tracks - what is the specific pressure on the ground? Acacias (or whatever Lopatov drives there) stupidly run away from him along the intersection. Or they won’t run away - they’ll just drive away, lower the barrels to the horizon and work as a fire fighting facility =) And there’s nothing to stop them from doing — for besides these BMPs there is NO other landing equipment.
          2. old man54
            old man54 1 July 2013 22: 26
            0
            Quote: Cat
            if not mistaken, from an altitude of 10 meters above sea level - visibility to the horizon 11 or 12 km

            You are mistaken! horizon line at sea 34 / 37 km, depending on the curvature of the earth's surface at a given point. Those. in the presence of ordinary optical instruments (fine marine binoculars), you can distinguish the silhouette of a ship on the horizon.
            At 10 / 12 km. not that the ship can be seen through the eyes, but even a landing boat. During the 1-th MV, this distance was optimal for artillery linear battle, and then the TsU and correction were done with the eyes, officers in a special mast rangefinder post.
        3. old man54
          old man54 1 July 2013 20: 30
          0
          Quote: Spade
          Destroying one landing ship with artillery fire is easier than several dozen floating armored objects

          but why did you get that, with the normal organization of the seizure of the bridgehead on the coast of the MP, according to Soviet tactics, the BDK or KFOR is stupidly alone and should immediately go ashore? Fools should be few today. And who will give you, from your batteries, a good one, calmly go out to the position and hammer it? This is strange to me. :)
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 1 July 2013 22: 50
            0
            Quote: old man54
            And who will give you, from your batteries, a good one, calmly go out to the position and hammer it?

            Take more, not a battery, but divisions (in the plural). And no one can stop them. Do not slip into the same mistake. No one is rolling out artillery for direct fire.

            Quote: old man54
            but why did you get that, with the normal organization of the seizure of the bridgehead on the coast of the MP, according to Soviet tactics, the BDK or KFOR is stupidly alone and should immediately go ashore?

            This is not me, this is my counterpart. Claiming invulnerable landing ships. I affirm that our MP needs equipment with high seaworthiness. And not only the BMPs themselves, but also the self-propelled guns, anti-aircraft missile systems, anti-aircraft and anti-aircraft missile systems, and KShM. And then, after seizing the bridgehead, it will be possible to customize the landing ships and unload at least tanks from them.
            1. Cat
              Cat 1 July 2013 23: 31
              +1
              Quote: Spade
              This is not me, this is my counterpart. Claiming invulnerable landing ships.

              And I don’t say anything like that. I believe that it is not worthwhile to land on PDO, supplemented by coastal and field artillery, air defense systems, radar, thermal imaging, and other equipment, in principle. Neither with the BDK, nor with the DKVP, nor with the planing BMP, nor swim with the mermaid in an embrace. Unless, before landing, thoughtfully plow all this defense with bombs and missiles a couple of kilometers inland.
              We are talking about a sudden, or relatively sudden, amphibious assault (under which BMMPs are imprisoned). Yes, some defense is present - motorized rifles in the trenches, machine-gun nests, ATGM and MANPADS positions, even some armored vehicles in caponiers. But with artillery - nevermind, it simply will not be enough to densely cover a more or less significant section of the coast. And the field of receiving the signal about the attack - how many guns can you transfer to an arbitrary point within half an hour? Battery, well, good division. Not more.
              And on the basis of this, we consider - to whom, when and with what will arrive on the head in the first place, and to whom in the last.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 1 July 2013 23: 46
                +1
                Quote: Cat
                Unless, before landing, thoughtfully plow all this defense with bombs and missiles a couple of kilometers inland.

                Tactical nuclear charges? It won’t work out differently.

                Quote: Cat
                We are talking about a sudden, or relatively sudden, amphibious assault (under which BMMPs are imprisoned). Yes, some defense is present - motorized rifles in the trenches, machine-gun nests, ATGM and MANPADS positions, even some armored vehicles in caponiers. But with artillery - nevermind, it simply will not be enough to densely cover a more or less significant section of the coast.

                You may not know, but the modern motorized rifle battalion must cover the ass with an artillery division. Plus its own mortar battery. There is no infantry without artillery.
                1. Cat
                  Cat 2 July 2013 00: 53
                  0
                  Quote: Spade
                  Tactical nuclear charges? It won’t work out differently.

                  if it doesn’t work out, then we don’t attack. Or we hire 500 thousand Chinese and drive them in the first wave. Or we drive a bunch of boats with guns - then it turns out, as far as I know, field guns against ships do not work so hot.
                  Quote: Spade
                  You may not know, but the modern motorized rifle battalion must cover the ass with an artillery division. Plus its own mortar battery. There is no infantry without artillery.

                  to be honest, no idea ... we had all the artillery - mortars yes AGS =)

                  Well, let's say you have 9 guns and a battalion on the defensive - if I'm not mistaken, it's 5 km along the front. To attack all this, intellectually, 2 brigades of MP will be required, that is, 6-8 BDK, a couple of DKVP, and some kind of cover ships (BDK do not go unaccompanied). It is clear that you will be able to drown a couple of ships before they reach the shore or the line of unloading armored personnel carriers afloat. And then - a lottery ...
                  If BMMPs attack you without ship cover, the same 100 pieces - it will be much harder to sink them, but on the other hand - you can fire at them, and with a full division, it’s important until they get close to your motorized rifle . And after all, nobody forces them to sit in the surf? And it’s much easier to launch ATGMs in a calm environment than when naval MLRS are hit by positions.
                  In general, the result of over-horizon landing using BMMP is far from obvious.
                  1. Slavs69
                    Slavs69 2 July 2013 19: 14
                    0
                    "Cat", "Lopatov" - it is interesting and exciting to read you! A plus!
    2. kris
      kris 1 July 2013 09: 43
      +2
      Quote: Strashila
      it is about an hour, get to the shoreline, and the enemy will be picking his nose all this time ???

      continuation of the series about flying BMD !!! laughing
    3. Realist1989
      Realist1989 April 19 2014 14: 41
      0
      And in your opinion, someone can start an over-the-horizon landing without first clearing the landing site from enemy firing points? And the landing is not accompanied by air support, a kind of "spherical landing in a vacuum"?
  5. Zlyden.Zlo
    Zlyden.Zlo 1 July 2013 08: 41
    0
    I wonder what happens. Good seaworthiness + acceptable booking and armament + patency + capacity Intresno what kind of hybrid will work
    1. family tree
      family tree 1 July 2013 09: 42
      +2
      Since the over-horizon landing, you need one more requirement. This means either a frantic speed and maneuverability, or the possibility of covertly and quietly, underwater. In general, science fiction, not even popular science.
    2. AK-47
      AK-47 1 July 2013 11: 52
      +3
      Quote: Zlyden.Zlo
      Good seaworthiness + acceptable booking and armament + patency + capacity

      If you install tracks or wheels on an armored boat, you get a marine corps fighting vehicle that meets the stated requirements, and if on a cruiser or ...?
      laughing
  6. PDM80
    PDM80 1 July 2013 08: 57
    +1
    I wonder why it is wheeled? Lobi Kamaz played a role, or what? When landing on an un-equipped shore, a caterpillar is preferable, and even afloat it is easier, water cannons fail, so due to the caterpillars you can at least somehow move somewhere, and it is easier to provide positive buoyancy. In general, you have to wait and come up with
    1. Airman
      Airman 1 July 2013 15: 11
      0
      Quote: PDM80
      I wonder why it is wheeled? Lobi Kamaz played a role, or what? When landing on an un-equipped shore, a caterpillar is preferable, and even afloat it is easier, water cannons fail, so due to the caterpillars you can at least somehow move somewhere, and it is easier to provide positive buoyancy. In general, you have to wait and come up with

      You just have to read the article very carefully. The contractor chooses the concept himself, the CAM determines the initial data and the CAM conducts research. The tender is done strictly for one necessary company, and again the Taburetkin principle.
      1. AlNikolaich
        AlNikolaich 1 July 2013 23: 56
        0
        Quote: Povshnik
        The contractor chooses the concept himself, the CAM determines the initial data and the CAM conducts research. The tender is done strictly for one necessary company, and again the Taburetkin principle.

        -I want to supplement, and it will turn out as always completely sucks!
        Kamaz engineers have brains that work topsy-turvy, while workers' hands grow out of "F"! Over the past twenty years, KAMAZ has not blinded a single worthy civilian car, but climbs into the suppliers of military equipment!
        I understand that the Marine Corps is certainly needed, but not from Kamaz!
        1. Denis
          Denis 2 July 2013 00: 19
          0
          Quote: AlNikolaich
          Kamaz did not blind a single worthy civilian machine
          I do not agree, tractors, airborne and dump trucks for the time is the most!
          Army off-road 4310 unsuccessful, do not make the all-terrain vehicle by adding bridges, handouts ... and wheels with a Christmas tree protector
          About the 2-and 4-axis exotic I will not say, I do not know
  7. Cat
    Cat 1 July 2013 09: 08
    +9
    The concept of "over-the-horizon landing" was invented by the Yankes, if I am not mistaken, back in the late 70s. And since then they have been trying to create a fast-floating armored car for this case. The latest version - EFV - has been strenuously refining for 10 years with a file, they have exhausted a bunch of lard dollars for this business, but there is still no end in sight. Last year, there was a scandal in their congress about such a blatant spending of the budget without any sane results.

    And Russia - a couple of months for sketching mock-ups, a couple of weeks for discussion, three days for a tender - and launch into a series. Nanotechnology, blasphemy =)))
    1. Rider
      Rider 1 July 2013 10: 49
      +1
      Quote: Cat
      And Russia - a couple of months for sketching mock-ups, a couple of weeks for discussion, three days for a tender - and launch into a series. Nanotechnology ...



      I am tormented by a vague question And WHY !!!

      which coasts should our marines capture?

      I think, until there is an answer to this question, then there is nothing to fence the garden.
      1. Bronis
        Bronis 1 July 2013 12: 34
        +3
        Quote: Rider
        And WHY !!!
        which coasts should our marines capture?

        It’s worth focusing not on the current political situation, but on the concept of using the Marine Corps. And they need such funds by definition.
        Well, about where to land, who in the year 2007 could reasonably assume that we will fight with Georgia?
        1. Rider
          Rider 1 July 2013 13: 03
          0
          Quote: Bronis
          Well, about where to land, who in the year 2007 could reasonably assume that we will fight with Georgia?



          iiiiii?
          guide landing on enemy territory?
          1. Bronis
            Bronis 1 July 2013 13: 20
            0
            because it wasn’t there because the BDK had to come ashore, which is fraught. If we didn’t have tanks then, they shouldn’t follow that they are needed.
            And that’s not the point, we just can’t guess in advance where, who and where will land. The question here is somewhat different: the price of development. Our Marine Corps is not the Navy of the United States Navy. 9000 people against 200000. Accordingly, the number of such machines will not be large. The Marine Corps needs such a machine, but on the scale of the sun there may be problems. Specialized weapons are also promised for the Arctic brigades (also no more than 9000 drugs). There is not much money; you need to spend it efficiently. In terms of combat effectiveness, it is better to have specialized tools. From the economic - the modification of mass models of equipment. Where is the balance of interests? Determines the leadership of the armed forces. While they consider what is needed. Moreover, it is not known what is in t.z. and how much it will cost. If you use components and assemblies from an existing / prospective, but mass-produced equipment, it will be cheaper, because the main body will remain.
            PS And if the project was given to Kamaz, then in general the goal may be a floating modification of the Typhoon or a vehicle based on (which is more correct). And all the previous statements are just options.
            1. Cat
              Cat 1 July 2013 17: 26
              +2
              Quote: Bronis
              The question here is somewhat different: the price of development. Our Marine Corps is not the Navy of the United States Navy. 9000 people against 200000. Accordingly, the number of such machines will not be large. The Marine Corps needs such a machine, but on the scale of the sun there may be problems.

              it's all about the names.
              In the USSR, and now in Russia, the marines are something like special forces, for performing purely naval operations - seizing bridgeheads during the landing of amphibious assault forces, guarding ships, defending the naval base, and the like. And since these tasks are very specific, and the landing in the first echelon of the amphibious assault - generally one of the most difficult types of combat operations - the marines were trained at the highest level. Even the "official" elite, the Airborne Forces, that is, the Marines looked down on, and had every right to do so =)))
              But the American USMC is the common name for all troops operating outside the United States. That is, in different Iraq, Afghanistan, and others there Honduras. Many of them saw the sea only in the window of a transport aircraft (if they saw it)) But how many of them can perform the same tasks as the Russian Ministry of Defense - FIG knows. In any case - clearly less than 200000. Naaaamnee less.
              So, comparing the RF MP and the Navy of the United States Navy by the number of personnel is approximately the same as comparing the wet to the green =)))
      2. max702
        max702 1 July 2013 12: 52
        0
        I agree WHY !!! What the hell? in small quantities it is ineffective and in large ones there is simply nothing to do (the whole concept of military affairs needs to be changed) is similar to cutting money from a tender ..
    2. Aleksys2
      Aleksys2 1 July 2013 14: 49
      +3
      Quote: Cat
      The concept of "over-the-horizon landing" was invented by the Yankes

      Conducting a naval landing operation

      Preparing the landing area

      Preparation of the landing area is divided into preliminary training and direct support for the landing.
      Preliminary preparation of the landing area may begin 10-15 days before the start of the landing by activating aerial reconnaissance. The main events begin 3-4 days before the landing, with the arrival of an advanced detachment in the landing area, which may include: AUG, KUG, a mine-sweeping group, a reconnaissance and underwater demolition group, a special forces group, a Navy, a demonstration group and a group of landing ships with marine units on board.
      Direct support for the landing is carried out on the day of landing and begins a few hours before the landing of the landings. The main activities are:
      the breakthrough of mine-explosive barriers in the landing areas of the assault units and the setting of mine-barriers on the flanks of the landing area;
      fire support for landing, including nuclear aviation and naval artillery training and direct support.
      Direct naval artillery support for the landing can begin one hour before the landing. It is carried out by detachments of fire support ships (OKOP), which may include battleships, cruisers, destroyers and small artillery ships. The structure of fire support ships during the landing of the division can include up to 15 warships at the rate of: one destroyer and one small artillery ship to directly support the battalion landing group (BDGr), one cruiser or destroyer for general support of the regiment landing group and up to three cruisers ( destroyers) for the general support of the division.
      The OKOP firing positions are selected so as to minimize interference with the landing. The positions of the ships of direct fire support are located close to the initial lines of movement of the landing and landing equipment, the positions of the ships of general support are located at a distance from the coast to 10 miles. Each ship is assigned a shelling zone on the shore and the most important targets for destruction.
      The US command provides for a combined landing, on the assumption that two-thirds of the assault echelon forces land from the sea, and one-third by helicopters in the depths of the PDO.
      With the suppression of PDO objects, landing ships and vessels move from external to internal areas of parking and maneuvering, located as close to the coast as possible (from 2 to 5 miles), where airborne landing craft are launched, which move to waiting areas, from where on command approach landing ships and vehicles for landing personnel and loading equipment on them.
      At the end of loading, landing craft proceed to the areas of wave formation of the landing craft located in 500-1000 m from the parking and maneuvering area towards the coast. Launching of amphibious armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles with first-tier assault personnel is carried out from amphibious assault ships and other amphibious assault ships for the time required to reach their baseline (Fig. 4.6).
      As waves are completed, they are sequentially directed from the formation area to the initial line located 1500-3000 m from the coastline, and, on command from the control ship (boat), the landing and landing equipment of each wave in the front line are sent to the designated landing points. The movement of the waves of the landing and landing means is carried out simultaneously to all battalion landing areas, and the last 1000 m they pass at maximum speed. The intervals between the landing equipment in one zone are 50-100 m.
      That’s briefly, so to speak ...
      1. Cat
        Cat 1 July 2013 15: 37
        +2
        Quote: Aleksys2

        this, let’s say, is the standard version, well known to me.
        But in this case we are talking about "over-the-horizon landing" - the main difference of which is that the ships approach 35-40 km from the coast, unload the floating armored vehicles, and dump the hell out of harm's way. And armored vehicles, having a speed afloat of about 40 km / h, independently reach the coast - well, then as luck would have it.
        The point of the venture is to hide the fact of the landing as much as possible - it is much more difficult to detect floating armored personnel carriers than ships maneuvering due to the coast. Plus, to secure the ships themselves, plus complicate the task of defense - getting into a separately floating armored personnel carrier is much more difficult than into a ship. The disadvantage of such tactics is that the support of the landing is provided only by aviation, that is, absolute air superiority is necessary. It will work quite well against some middle-eastern country, but against a sane coastal defense with active air defense - alas and ah ... Under normal control of the adjacent water area, the landing will be detected 15-20 km from the coast, by means of optical, thermal, or even acoustic means (floating armored personnel carrier makes noise like all nuclear submarines in the world put together))). And after detection, there will be quite enough time to either overwhelm the landing, or make it as difficult for him to get ashore. Moreover, until reaching the ground, the landing force will be able to fire only "somewhere in the direction of the enemy", it is not serious to talk about aimed shooting from a wave.
        Such tactics were not used in the Union and didn’t even seem to be developed - it was supposed to land operational landings either from the DKVP or from ekranoplanes.
        The Americans have been working on the topic since at least the 80s, but for them this is just a theory, since an armored personnel carrier capable of delivering 20 knots or more afloat has never been adopted. The existing sample, due to numerous design flaws, is still being finalized, and its prospects are unclear. I don’t remember the nuances, but the main jamb - the lack of tightness of the hull - the Yankees didn’t seem to have eliminated. At least in the last infa, which caught my eye, it was said that even with the BTR fully turned on, the BTR was unable to cover the declared distance. And this is with minimal excitement and without landing on board =)))
        Such garbage, in short.
        1. old man54
          old man54 1 July 2013 20: 05
          +2
          Quote: Cat
          The Americans, on the other hand, have been working on the topic since at least the 80's, but for them this is just a theory, since an armored personnel carrier capable of delivering 20 nodes and more afloat has never been adopted.

          the Americans began to "work out" the topic of the over-the-horizon amphibious assault soon after the end of the 2nd MV, having had plenty of "gulp" with the classic landings of those who were then. funds both in Europe and on the TTVD. After the creation of her theory, they began to test practical steps during their participation in the Vietnam War. The USSR, through the GRU, learned about the development of such tactics even during the Korean War (approximately) and began to create radar systems for the Central Command of coastal batteries to suppress amphibious assault weapons, as a result, their accuracy increased by an order of magnitude! But with the emergence and development of anti-ship missiles of various bases after 60, the tactics of over-the-horizon landing became ineffective in general! But NATO has it all by inertia
          it was sharpened and created precisely for it, because so far they have not created anything else.
          And armored vehicles, having a speed afloat of the order of 40 km / h, independently get to the shore

          speed of 40 km / h, this is the cruising speed of a passenger hydrofoil vessel of the "Rocket" type! This is for comparison for those who find it difficult to imagine other ships with a similar speed. For such a small amphibian an object like an armored personnel carrier / BMPP with such a weight to achieve such a speed afloat is unrealistic !! And for a long time it will be unreal!
          1. Cat
            Cat 1 July 2013 20: 41
            +1
            Quote: old man54
            speed of 40 km / h, this is the cruising speed of a passenger hydrofoil vessel of the "Rocket" type! This is for comparison for those who find it difficult to imagine other ships with a similar speed. For such a small amphibious object as an armored personnel carrier / BMPP with such a weight, reaching such a speed afloat is unrealistic !! And it will be unreal for a long time!

            Well, EFV like 45 km / h gives out, if they do not lie. True, not far and short =)))
            And about when exactly they began to contemplate such a topic ... I do not have access to the archives of the US Navy, so I cannot say anything with a 100% guarantee =) But based on the information that I came across, the technical and technological capability to implement the "over-the-horizon landing" in this form (high-speed armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles, capable of operating without the use of auxiliary or attachments) - appeared precisely in the late 70s - early 80s.
            But, the presence of an opportunity does not at all guarantee a result. What the amers learned from their own bitter experience, having spent a lot of money on a project with an unclear result. Strictly as in the proverb: "Theoretically - a horse. But practically - x ... th lucky" =)
            1. old man54
              old man54 1 July 2013 21: 57
              +2
              Quote: Cat
              But based on the information that came across to me, the technical and technological ability to implement the "over-the-horizon landing" in this form (high-speed armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles, capable of operating without the use of auxiliary or attachments) - appeared precisely in the late 70s - early 80s. x.

              Perhaps you are right, about "it appeared precisely in the late 70s - early 80s." But the essence of the over-the-horizon landing is not in the high-speed delivery of the landing forces to the shore, especially when creating this tactic, but in the fact that the landing ships do not approach the shore directly, + the effect of surprise, since in those years, sea surveillance radars were a rarity. You probably don’t know how the amphibious assault took place during WW2? In short, if, then the ships approached almost close to the shore, survived either in motorboats or in infantry boats, other ships with their cranes launched low-tonnage special-purpose ships from the deck, with a front reclining ramp (such as an MDK boat). Then, after 20/30 minutes, how was such an MDK on the water, the MP landed on the ramps from the boat and he went to the shore. Having landed them on the shore, the craft went back to the ships for a new portion of the landing. Those. all this time, the landing craft (and it could be up to 10 o'clock) were at anchor near the landing site and were very vulnerable both to artillery fire from the shore, and to submarines and to ground attack aircraft. For disembarking heavy non-floating equipment, in the absence of a classical port at disposal, an artificial pier was built from special pantons, a landing cargo ship approached it, anchored it, and with its cranes unloaded tanks, armored personnel carriers, guns and trucks onto it. How lightning fast? safely?:))
              In order to get away from such a scheme, an overseas landing theme was developed. It provided maneuverability to landing craft for the entire time in the landing unloading area, the inability to crush these ships with coastal artillery (far from aiming), + the possible effect of surprise (if at night). But dominance in the air, or at least a temporary advantage, it is necessary for any landing, not only for the sea, and for any tactics of its application. Otherwise there will be big problems and losses.
              Well, an EFV like 45 km / h gives out if they don’t lie. True, not far and short =))

              I didn’t give you an example of the Rocket. Have you seen the underwater part of her body? Her almost perfect contours? And Tere remember BTR, in general, any! Him the wheels stick out !!! And as with such hydrodynamic characteristics, its resistance to the oncoming flow, it is possible to achieve speeds in 20 knots, I don’t understand. :( Wheels to be removed into the body, like an airplane or something? :) But then it will not be the dimensions of an armored personnel carrier, completely different masses and fight on the shore, he will be very shitty !!! I hope the idea was clear. :) But it was the USSR that first solved this problem, the speed of delivery of equipment, by creating low-tonnage MDK SVPs like Murena and others. Here they have a speed of more than 30 knots. already:)))
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 1 July 2013 22: 57
                0
                Quote: old man54
                Wheels to put in the case, like an airplane or something? :)

                Nearly. Lift up.

                Here's another Soviet planing "Triton"



                Here is his more recent reincarnation.






                Everything is solvable. And this is easier than covering the goose with shields, as the Americans do on a new machine for MP
                1. Cat
                  Cat 1 July 2013 23: 15
                  +1
                  Quote: Spade
                  And this is easier than covering the goose with shields, as the Americans do on a new machine for MP

                  incorrect example. Compare the ratio of the size of the wheels and the body of a passenger car - and that of an armored personnel carrier. So either your armored personnel carrier with a wheeled mover will be the size of a freight car, or it will sit on a belly in the very first puddle (if it crawls ashore at all).
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 1 July 2013 23: 20
                    0
                    Do you need a bigger machine? LVW-XI

                    1. Cat
                      Cat 1 July 2013 23: 38
                      +1
                      Quote: Spade
                      Do you need a bigger machine? LVW-XI

                      to whom and what is the use of this device in battle? The funeral team did - the corpses of the marines would lie in a compact pile, and not roll around the coast.

                      PS: if I went too far with cynicism, I apologize.
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 1 July 2013 23: 51
                        0
                        Can you imagine a photo of the first British tank? Who is demanding "benefit in battle" from the prototype?
                      2. Cat
                        Cat 2 July 2013 00: 50
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        Can you imagine a photo of the first British tank? Who is demanding "benefit in battle" from the prototype?

                        prototype floating armored personnel carrier and prototype pleasure boat - these are two big differences
              2. lapis lazuli
                lapis lazuli 1 July 2013 23: 47
                +1
                this is not new
                like this stupidity:
                At the Geneva Motor Show in March 2004, a small Swiss firm, Rinspeed, unveiled the world's first amphibious hydrofoil vehicle. Double car "Splash"
                Have you been before
                REFERENCE: In 1961, the NAMI-055V light car was created in the USSR
            2. Cat
              Cat 1 July 2013 23: 07
              +1
              Quote: old man54
              But the essence of the over-the-horizon landing is not in the speedy delivery of landing forces to the shore, especially when creating this tactic, but in not approaching the landing ships directly to the shore, + the effect is sudden

              with some stretch, the Zaporozhye Cossacks can be considered the pioneers of the over-the-horizon landing =)) True, they used the "two in one" system, combining sea transport with a delivery vehicle. Namely: they approached under sails at a safe distance, flooded the masts - the silhouette of the "Seagull" -type MDK significantly decreased and the likelihood of its detection was also significantly reduced - after which we rowed to the shore, where they inserted the wick to the Turks caught by surprise =))) Although we can do this tactics were used even before the Cossacks, by the ancient Greek Romans, for example, or by some other Egyptians.
              In this case, I repeat, the term "over-the-horizon landing" means landing without the use of auxiliary means such as landing barges (the speed of which is 8-9 knots, seaworthiness, maneuverability and survivability to hell, the only real advantage over floating armored vehicles is the power reserve) ... So they are trying to solve the problem at the expense of fast-floating armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles. Well, or BMMP, if strictly on the topic of the article. By the use of which a certain secrecy and surprise is achieved - the Papuans who have entered the PDO do not have time to load the catapult and lift the captured hang glider into the air =)
              Quote: old man54
              You probably don’t taste how the sea landing occurred during the 2nd MV?

              In the course =) And about Overlord, and about the Japanese-American brawls on the Pacific TVT I read a lot and everything, sometimes even with pictures =)
              Quote: old man54
              I didn’t give you an example of the Rocket. Have you seen the underwater part of her body? Her almost perfect contours? And Tere remember BTR, in general, any! His wheels stick out !!! And as with such hydrodynamic characteristics, its resistance to the incoming flow, it is possible to reach speeds of 20 knots, I don’t understand. :( Put the wheels into the body, like an airplane or something? :)

              If there is an engine of sufficient power, a galoshe with "chest" -type contours can also be accelerated to 20 knots. What is the chest of the state EFV and is, by and large. Is that the slopes in front and behind are attached. And he presses the caterpillars (like a BMD), and closes them with special shields (once I saw a diagram of all this mechanics, if I find it, I'll show it).
              Judging by the video laid out below, this chest can even portray something like gliding, although it is completely incomprehensible how it is heading in this mode, and what will happen to it on a more or less noticeable wave (in theory, it should tip over) Although knowing that their eggheads were invented there.
      2. Aleksys2
        Aleksys2 1 July 2013 20: 29
        +1
        Quote: Cat
        this, let’s say, is the standard version, well known to me.

        Well, I posted not for you, but for those who believe that "Quote: Jurkovs
        Americans have abandoned this method for 30 years already. "
        1. Cat
          Cat 1 July 2013 20: 59
          +2
          Well, so it was necessary to make a quote on his comment =))

          Although, by and large ... Whoever wanted - he read, who is interested - they clarified and asked again. And for whom "the US army is the most army in the world" - at least where write and at least quote someone, one fig is useless =)
  • Prapor Afonya
    Prapor Afonya 1 July 2013 10: 07
    +1
    Quote: Canep
    The beginning is already BTR-82A. It is only necessary to increase the speed afloat, and equip with marine navigation devices.

    Yeah, the old BTR with new holes, they didn’t want to bother with the BTR-90 and spend money, stupidly replaced the tower on the eighties, the only plus, firepower increased!
  • Prapor Afonya
    Prapor Afonya 1 July 2013 10: 10
    +1
    You give the new BMP to the marines, this is another elite unit of the RF Armed Forces on par with the Airborne Forces, but they don’t have their own specialized equipment related to the water element, but it's a pity!
  • Kostya77
    Kostya77 1 July 2013 10: 44
    0
    ... KAMAZ OJSC is considered as a potential lead contractor ... Every weekend, driving along the M5 federal highway, you run into a traffic jam, trail around, wait for an opportunity to overtake, overtake and see - it is headed by whoever you think ... KAMAZ
    1. Denis
      Denis 1 July 2013 17: 25
      0
      Quote: Kostya77
      and you see - it is headed by whoever you think ... KAMAZ
      Do not generalize, it is headed not only by traffic jams, sometimes it takes prizes in the rally. It is important in which hands
      Experience is another matter; will the design bureau have enough? Prior to that, they were not engaged in combat vehicles, except for booking
  • Starover_Z
    Starover_Z 1 July 2013 11: 06
    +2
    Combination of the incompatible — over-the-water landing from ships should assume high-speed seaworthiness, which no one needs on the shore — ballast; high-quality booking of the sides and bottom will negatively affect the same seaworthiness and speed. These are two aspects. What about weapons? With a long sea trip, you need a minimum of a large-caliber anti-aircraft machine gun in the tower with an angle of elevation of at least 70 degrees, and on the shore you need a high-quality gun to destroy armored vehicles and fortified coastal structures.
    This is the minimum in my opinion of the necessary and contradictory things.
    Probably need to return to a quality armored personnel carrier
    with delivery and disembarkation from hovercraft -
    here you have both speed and protection!
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 1 July 2013 17: 56
      0
      Quote: Starover_Z
      Combination of the incompatible - over-horizon landing from ships should imply high-speed seaworthiness

      In addition, over-the-horizon landing implies the absence of anti-ship missiles in the enemy.
  • Algor73
    Algor73 1 July 2013 11: 39
    +1
    From a speedboat BMP will not work. Except that nanotechnology in booking is both light and not sinking. But an interesting concept is coming - BMMP is a naval warfare vehicle, it should cover the infantrymen on the coast with fire. It is difficult to conduct targeted fire from the sea. So, combat efficiency should be high, in the first place. KAMAZ has no practice in developing such a technique. He can, but at what cost! It is necessary to go all the way from scratch at the cost of calculations, miscalculations, errors. In addition, such a BMMR concept requires high seaworthiness from him, and he should not swim on the lake. And how to fit all this into one, relatively small facility? This entire project would not have been another injection of money into the unknown in whose pocket and for what it is unknown.
  • Starover_Z
    Starover_Z 1 July 2013 12: 02
    0
    Quote: PDM80
    I wonder why it is wheeled? Lobi Kamaz played a role, or what? When landing on an un-equipped shore, a caterpillar is preferable, and even afloat it is easier, water cannons fail, so due to the caterpillars you can at least somehow move somewhere, and it is easier to provide positive buoyancy. In general, you have to wait and come up with

    I apologize, but how will this track and track rollers create positive buoyancy?
    1. PDM80
      PDM80 1 July 2013 12: 11
      0
      There is more internal space, due to the fact that there is no need to place bridges under the bottom, plus a flat bottom, without protrusions, less resistance to water, and wheeled hundred percent will most likely do with a triangular bottom, to protect against mines, and there all the bridges, steering etc. out
  • Russ69
    Russ69 1 July 2013 12: 17
    +3
    Recently, when Shoigu went to KAMAZ, the papelats lit up. with an angled face, maybe they want to push him under the needs of the marines. And in terms of time it turns out to be done.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 1 July 2013 12: 39
      +1
      Most likely they will do and will be based on it.
    2. Rider
      Rider 1 July 2013 13: 08
      0
      x, mmm, an interesting freak.

      Well, boom oversee what comes out of it.

      smile
    3. ISpy
      ISpy 1 July 2013 15: 24
      0
      This is like the MRAP Kamaz 63969, a wheeled armored vehicle, it will weigh dofiga, so it won’t go away. Sloping bottom for improved mine resistance. Therefore pepelats is not the topic request
  • IRBIS
    IRBIS 1 July 2013 12: 21
    +5
    There is BMP-3F. A very good car for the Marine Corps. Shoots well afloat. When it was sold to Indonesia, a demonstration of its combat capabilities was held at the Marine Brigade. The Indonesians were delighted and immediately confirmed their order. In the Marine Corps, we can only dream of these machines. Here they "vparili" this "miracle" -technique, development of the 89th year and will now continue to modify it.
    And further. Lord strategists! If someone does not know the tactics of using the Marine Corps, the basic principles of planning and conducting a "over-the-horizon" landing (and simply - landing), then refrain from commenting. Honestly - it's funny to read "reflections" and other "fictions" at the level of sergeants of the ground forces.
    1. kris
      kris 1 July 2013 12: 27
      +1
      Quote: IRBIS
      There is a BMD - 3DF.

      and what kind of model is this?
      1. IRBIS
        IRBIS 1 July 2013 12: 40
        0
        Especially for the fleet.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 1 July 2013 12: 51
          0
          And why the question arose with the new "BMMP"? To replace the BTR-90?
        2. Rider
          Rider 1 July 2013 13: 10
          0
          Quote: IRBIS
          Especially for the fleet.


          but can be more detailed.

          otherwise Google is silent.

          pliiiz.
          1. IRBIS
            IRBIS 1 July 2013 15: 10
            +1
            Sorry for the typo. BMP-3F. Sorry, I didn’t want to mislead anyone.
          2. AK-47
            AK-47 1 July 2013 17: 09
            +2
            Quote: Rider
            ... but can be more detailed.

            BMP-3F infantry fighting vehicle is designed for units of the marine corps, border and coastal forces, combat operations in the coastal zone, on the coast and during landing. BMP-3F - one of the modifications of the BMP-Z. Design features compared to the base product give the machine the ability to move afloat with a wave of 3 points, conduct aimed fire with a wave of 2 points, and confident landfall at a level of a breaking wave of 3 points. Powerful water-jet propulsors provide maneuvering and loading onto landing ships on their own from the water during rough seas, and high-performance water-draining means ensure a safe stay in water for a long time. The design of the BMP-3F makes it possible to tow the same type of product while operating on water, to move in tow behind marine raid boats.
            Crew + landing 3 + 7
            Ammunition, pcs .:
            shots to a 100 mm gun - 40 launcher
            rounds for a 30 mm cannon 500
            ATGM 8
            machine gun cartridges 6000
            Cruising range on fuel on water, h at least 7
            Water drainage performance
            (total), l / min. 1500
    2. old man54
      old man54 1 July 2013 20: 20
      +1
      Quote: IRBIS
      There is a BMP-3F. A very good car for the marine corps.

      Here is a sensible and sensible comment, finally! And then they fantasize about armored personnel carriers with the speed of the sea in 20 knots. :) Sorry, I didn’t see your comment, wrote about it upstream.
      I read that they conducted tests several years ago, when on the 2 these machines installed some modern navigation instruments for orientation in the open sea and they went under their own power for more than an hour and a half (it seems on Azov). Then from the sea, afloat and on the go, they fired at the target tank with standard guns, the T-62 seems (new). You dare all external sighting devices with the 30 graph paper in the rapid-fire mode, the barrel went cracked (not suitable for use).
  • Evgeny_Lev
    Evgeny_Lev 1 July 2013 14: 10
    +1
    It may make sense to consider a variant of such a machine in the concept of a pristoplyaevoy body. Cars can go at periscope depth.
    I think the advantages of this design will allow to increase the speed and stealth and security (due to water above the body).
    It may not be possible to come up with weapons that allow firing from this position, although miniaturizing the underwater launch, for example, to NURSs, may work.
    Do not judge strictly this sentence.
  • rudolff
    rudolff 1 July 2013 14: 15
    +4
    BMP-3F is a very worthy and interesting car. Irbis is right. It is exported like hotcakes. But most of our Marines did not even see her. They put a few units and safely forgot. But it was not necessary so much, in a couple of years they could have changed all the brigades, and then they would have fantasized on the topic of either boats with wheels, or tanks of waterfowl.
    1. IRBIS
      IRBIS 2 July 2013 09: 22
      +2
      Quote: rudolff
      BMP-3F is a very worthy and interesting car. Irbis is right.

      Thanks. I myself took part in the demonstration of this car to the Indonesians. More, after that, I did not see her. Loved the car. We showed landings, floating on the shore and firing at surface targets from the water. They shot from all full-time weapons. All targets are in chips. So the question is - where is it with us, in our units?
  • rudolff
    rudolff 1 July 2013 14: 34
    +4
    Even in the first year at the naval school at the department of tactics of the Marine Corps, we were told that the use of streamlined platforms (in the manner of airborne forces) of the pontoon type, raising the vehicle body by 50-70 cm, could significantly improve the indicators of unsinkability, seaworthiness and speed ... They even showed sketches. Since then I have not heard anything about it. And it is really scary to "jump" on a battery from a ship into the sea.
  • deputy ___ watered
    deputy ___ watered 1 July 2013 15: 18
    +1
    Probably the next tender for the development will be at the BMZP (star infantry fighting vehicle) for the VKS. Just defeat corruption and reform the Academy of Sciences.
    But seriously, the laws of physics have not been canceled, there will be either acceptable seaworthiness or patency! Armor protection will most likely be according to the BMD options.
    Unless in the light of reforms there will be a breakthrough and anti-gravs will be developed. lol
  • rudolff
    rudolff 1 July 2013 15: 46
    +2
    So BMP-3F armor and now like BMD-4M. Rolled aluminum. Only in behi in some places is reinforced with steel sheets.
    1. deputy ___ watered
      deputy ___ watered 1 July 2013 16: 54
      +1
      with bmp-3 is familiar only with the version of the beginning of 90's. there seems to be everywhere a magnet linden! True, the holes from 12,7 in the board were not typical for steel alloys. smile
  • rudolff
    rudolff 1 July 2013 18: 01
    +3
    BMP-3 car is generally interesting. Probably the first serious attempt to make a single vehicle for infantry, marines and airborne forces. Under it, even a multi-dome parachute-reactive system (Fable) was developed. Not without flaws, of course, but on the whole the car was very solid. Especially in version 3M and naval 3F. But ... As they say, they wanted the best, but it turned out as always!
    1. old man54
      old man54 2 July 2013 14: 05
      0
      Quote: rudolff
      BMP-3 car is generally interesting. Probably the first serious attempt to make a single vehicle for infantry, marines and airborne forces.

      but it seems to me that if it is to get away from the possibility of airborne landing precisely for the MP, in this connection to abandon the aluminum case in favor of normal rolled armor, with a slight increase in total weight, while putting a more modern and powerful engine, we get with the same performance characteristics more protected manin for marines! What is not the topic? :)
  • NickitaDembelnulsa
    NickitaDembelnulsa 1 July 2013 18: 21
    +1
    And what about the PT-76? The feeling that everyone forgot about him. But the car is a beast. They wanted to carry out modernization, and what was bent or something?
    1. Russ69
      Russ69 1 July 2013 18: 32
      +2
      Quote: NickitaDembelnulsa
      And what about the PT-76?

      Nevertheless, the development of the early 50s, the old one, despite the not a bad platform, MTLB is still running around.
      1. NickitaDembelnulsa
        NickitaDembelnulsa 2 July 2013 05: 51
        +1
        But so far no one has such buoyancy and stability.
    2. old man54
      old man54 2 July 2013 14: 12
      0
      Quote: NickitaDembelnulsa
      And what about the PT-76? The feeling that everyone forgot about him. But the car is a beast. They wanted to carry out modernization, and what was bent or something?

      Why upgrade it if the same BMP-3 has a standard 100-mm cannon ??? And the PT-76 has an old 76-millimeter rifle, and even without an automatic loader. But there is a "Octopus" with a 125-mm gun, and with a much greater protection.
  • rudolff
    rudolff 1 July 2013 18: 57
    +2
    I haven’t heard about the resuscitation of the floating tank project, but I know for sure that the option of adopting the Sprut-SD floating self-propelled guns for the Marine Corps was considered. Seaworthiness is about the same as that of the BMP-3F, two water-jet propellers. Tank gun 125 mm smooth-bore. But the matter did not go further than conversations. However, the same as with the BMP-3F.
    1. old man54
      old man54 1 July 2013 22: 13
      +1
      Quote: rudolff
      the option of adopting the floating self-propelled gun "Sprut-SD" was considered. Seaworthiness is about the same as that of the BMP-3F, two water-jet propellers. Tank gun 125 mm smooth-bore.

      I believe that today there is nothing close, even for a real and real replacement in the PT-76 MP, than "Sprut". Why don't they supply? Pure sabotage and slovenliness! And now they will also want to steal and cut the money for the creation of a new model, so the topic of creating an infantry fighting vehicle for the MP was raised, despite the fact that the BMP-3F has been around for a long time. The wiring is clean!
  • Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 1 July 2013 19: 15
    0
    Despite its apparent simplicity, the task is complex. In practice, you need to create a car that would have the properties of an armored boat and an armored personnel carrier. This conveyor should have the properties of an air cushion boat (for landing on shore) and the properties of BMD in combined arms combat. The basis for the development of such a machine is - this is a combat vehicle landing (air). The task is to teach airborne float. The task is quite feasible for our craftsmen from the military-industrial complex.
  • cobalt
    cobalt 1 July 2013 20: 38
    +2
    That's what the Americans have on this subject.
    1. Cat
      Cat 1 July 2013 21: 06
      0
      they already had it 15 years ago. In the form of a polygon sample - in what quality it remains to this day. Well, he also poses in promotional videos, where are America and without advertising ... =)
    2. 77bor1973
      77bor1973 1 July 2013 23: 29
      +2
      As far as we know, this project was wrapped up, even for them it is expensive.
    3. old man54
      old man54 2 July 2013 14: 01
      0
      and her booking ?? The BMP-3 should, in theory, hold a large-caliber machine gun, but this carriage? :) Its height is 3 meters, no less, the sides are vertical, on which ricachet is not even expected. And her anti-mine protection, what is Mr. Lopatov so worried about (in another thread, about "Lynx")? :)) What surprised her, and of course it was a plus, it was 17 troops inside her! This is of course an indicator! But its price? How is the Shuttle? :))
    4. AK-47
      AK-47 2 July 2013 15: 45
      0
      Quote: cobalt
      That's what the Americans have on this subject.

      And here is what the Chinayozes already have.
      ZBD2000 - Chinese infantry fighting vehicle, designed for landing operations on the coast.
      Provides transportation and fire support to the marine corps. Unloading from a landing ship can take place outside the direct line of sight of the coast (“over-land landing”).
      A distinctive feature of the armored car is the exceptional speed of movement on water (up to 45 km / h).
      Since 2006, it has been in service with the Chinese Marine Corps.
  • sergey261180
    sergey261180 1 July 2013 21: 25
    +2
    Well, if you chose Kamaz as a manufacturer, then the prototype will be like this:
  • 77bob1973
    77bob1973 2 July 2013 05: 37
    +2
    You can put weapons on the TCP and book.