Military Review

Self-propelled antitank gun "Sprut-SD"

70
The final preparations for the upcoming Russian Arms Expo-2013 exhibition, which starts in Nizhny Tagil on September 25, are being completed. The list of participating companies is already known and information is received on what types of weapons and equipment will be displayed at the exhibition. According to Rosinformbyuro, the concern Tractor Plants will show a self-propelled 2013-XNNXX Sprut-SD on RAE-2. Last news About this project suggest that the exhibition may appear an upgraded version of self-propelled guns.




SAU "Octopus-SD" is not a novelty. Project development began shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Volgograd Tractor Plant and Plant No. 9 (Yekaterinburg) in the early nineties began to create a promising self-propelled anti-tank gun designed to arm units of the airborne troops. The new machine was supposed to help paratroopers fight tanks a potential adversary and other targets for the destruction of which requires a powerful 125 mm caliber gun.

As the basis for the new self-propelled gun, the BMD-3 infantry fighting vehicle chassis was selected. To install a gun turret and all the necessary systems, Volgograd designers modified it. The placement of a large number of relatively large units required an extension of the armored hull. In this regard, the chassis received two additional support rollers on board. In addition, the project used some of the developments created in the framework of the light tank project “Object 934” of the late seventies.

The armored body of the Sprut-SD self-propelled anti-tank gun is generally similar to the BMD-3. It is made of aluminum alloys. The hull provides all-round protection against small arms. weapons, and the frontal projection withstands hit of 23-mm projectile from the distance 500 meters. The tower of the Sprut-SD combat vehicle is also made of aluminum, but its frontal part is additionally reinforced with steel sheets.

In front of the SAU case there is a control compartment with a driver’s workplace. Next to the driver there are seats for the commander and the gunner, on which they are located during the march. When bringing the car into a fighting position, the commander and driver move to their jobs in the tower. The fighting compartment is located in the middle part of the body. Engine-transmission - in the feed.



The multi-fuel diesel 2В-06-2 with horsepower 510 installed in the engine-transmission compartment "Sprut-SD". It provides the 18 ton machine with a fairly high power density at the 28 HP level. per ton of weight. Hydromechanical transmission is coupled to the engine with a hydrovolume turning mechanism. The transmission includes an automatic gearbox with five forward and reverse gears. Torque is transmitted to the drive wheels, located in the aft side of the machine.

The running gear of the Sprut-SD self-propelled anti-tank gun is similar to the corresponding BMD-3 units, but at the same time it has a number of differences associated primarily with the lengthening of the vehicle body. Seven road wheels on each side of the machine have individual hydropneumatic suspension. Suspension mechanisms allow you to adjust the clearance of the machine in the range from 190 to 590 millimeters. The running gear is controlled by a driver. Used suspension units provide high throughput and smoothness, regardless of the type of surface.

The power plant and chassis allow the combat vehicle to accelerate on the highway to a speed of 70 km / h. When driving on rough terrain, the maximum speed decreases to 45-50 km / h. Cruising on the highway - 500 kilometers. To cross water obstacles, self-propelled anti-tank gun equipped with two water cannons in the rear of the hull. With the help of water cannons, the combat vehicle can swim at speeds up to 10 km / h. The parameters of the sealed armored hull allow the self-propelled gun to float at an excitement of up to three points and fire before reaching the coast. At the same time, however, shelling of targets is possible only in the front sector with a width of 70 °.

The “main caliber” of the “Sprut-SD” SAU is the 125-mm smooth-bore gun-launcher 2-75. This weapon is a further development of the tank gun 2А46, used on modern Russian tanks. As part of the adaptation of the tank guns for use in light self-propelled guns were used several interesting technical solutions. First of all, it is necessary to note the new recoil devices, which effectively suppress the recoil impulse and provide a rollback of no more than 700 mm. The high-ballistic cannon can use the entire range of available ammunition for 125-mm smooth-bore guns, including guided missiles. Since the Sprut-SD is a self-propelled anti-tank gun, a weapon stabilized in two planes can be induced in a vertical plane only in a limited range of angles: from -5 ° to + 17 °. Horizontal guidance - circular, produced by rotating the tower.



As with modern Russian tanks, the 2C25 “Sprut-SD” self-propelled self-propelled gun has an automatic loader. It consists of a rotating carousel conveyor on the 22 separate-cartridge shots, lifting and unloading mechanisms. At the command of the gunner or commander, the conveyor turns to the desired angle and leads the appropriate type of ammunition to the lifting mechanism. Next, the chain-lifting mechanism takes the ammunition to the loading line, where the disking mechanism sends it to the breech of the gun. First, a projectile is fed into the cannon, then a partially burning sleeve. After the shot and the opening of the bolt, a special mechanism picks up the fired cartridge case pan and throws it out of the fighting compartment through the flap in the rear sheet of the tower. Automatic loader mechanisms are designed so as not to interfere with the work of the crew. The transfer of the commander and the gunner from the management department to the combat department and vice versa is carried out without leaving the vehicle.

In the conveyor automatic loader is placed up to 22 shots of various types. Another 18 shots are stacked. After the ammunition is used up in the automatic loader, the crew can use projectiles from other layouts, loading the gun manually. At the same time, the rate of fire drops significantly.

As an additional weapon, the Sprut-SD self-propelled artillery mount carries a PKT machine gun, paired with a cannon 7,62-mm. In a cartridge case of a machine gun one tape with 2000 cartridges keeps within.

In the fighting compartment of SAU 2C25 "Sprut-SD" placed jobs commander and gunner. The fighting compartment systems are designed in such a way that both the commander and the gunner can independently and independently of each other direct a weapon and fire. The commander has a sight with a thermal imaging channel and a field of view stabilized in two planes. The commander sighting device also has a laser rangefinder, which can be used to guide guided anti-tank missiles launched with a launcher. The commander and the gunner can independently observe the terrain, search for targets and direct weapons at them. Both crew members can attack targets with 125-mm guns, machine guns paired with them or guided anti-tank missiles.




In the middle of the last decade, self-propelled anti-tank guns 2C25 "Sprut-SD" were adopted. Due to their size and weight, they can be transported and paratrooped by Il-76 military transport aircraft. At the same time, each aircraft can take on board two combat vehicles. Unfortunately, the total number of self-propelled guns Sprut-SD in the Russian armed forces does not exceed a few dozen. Moreover, in 2010, there were reports that this type of equipment is planned to be excluded from the list of purchased combat vehicles. As it turned out a little later, the Airborne Forces still plans to purchase and use self-propelled guns, and in the future it intends to receive its upgraded version.

In the middle of August, new photos were shared, showing the Sprut-SD combat vehicle with some large on-board screens. As it turned out, currently the concern "Tractor Plants" is modernizing a self-propelled anti-tank gun. The result of this work should be an increase in the level of protection of the combat vehicle, as well as the unification of a number of units with the newest combat vehicle BMD-4M. Information is also available on a significant upgrade of electronic equipment, including a fire control system.

It is quite possible that the prototype of the Sprut-SD automatic control system with enhanced armor protection will be shown at the upcoming Russian Arms Expo-2013 exhibition. However, in the original non-upgraded version, this combat vehicle is of great interest both for specialists and for the general public.


On the materials of the sites:
http://rosinform.ru/
http://arms-expo.ru/
http://btvt.narod.ru/
http://otvaga2004.ru/
Author:
70 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Civil
    Civil 24 September 2013 07: 59 New
    11
    BMD with a tank gun is an interesting concept, such as wheeled tanks
    1. self-propelled
      self-propelled 24 September 2013 10: 06 New
      +8
      Quote: Civil
      interesting concept

      the concept is not new - it is worth recalling the “906 Object” (aka PT-85), created as a more powerful armed replacement for the PT-76 (instead of the 76-mm gun D-56T, an 85-mm gun D-58 was installed (the installation option 90 was considered -mm gun D-62).
    2. Rustam
      Rustam 24 September 2013 10: 11 New
      13
      By the way, an interesting video appeared on the network, very informative especially for beginners
      1. Somad
        Somad 24 September 2013 13: 32 New
        +3
        Rustam, did you find other educational films of the film studio of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation on the network? I just didn’t find anything, even the film provided by you ...
  2. the47th
    the47th 24 September 2013 08: 08 New
    +6
    Can she cross the English Channel?
    1. CHIM SMOKE
      CHIM SMOKE 24 September 2013 09: 51 New
      11
      Volga perfectly crossed! And firing afloat. If there is such a problem, we will find its solution!
  3. King
    King 24 September 2013 08: 08 New
    +4
    good car.
  4. CHIM SMOKE
    CHIM SMOKE 24 September 2013 09: 49 New
    +3
    Mace for the landing! So we can crush a lot of enemy cans! wink Accordingly, using the rich experience of warfare, the onslaught and courage and design thought.
  5. Ivan_Ivanov
    Ivan_Ivanov 24 September 2013 09: 53 New
    +3
    Do not consider it a flood, but

    What is the fundamental difference between the weapons (guns) "Sprut-SD" and "Nona-S"?

    Without a doubt, both copies are beautiful, excellent, outstanding creations of our designers and engineers, which are very necessary for our army. But why 2 almost identical systems?
    1. avt
      avt 24 September 2013 10: 25 New
      +9
      Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
      What is the fundamental difference between the weapons (guns) "Sprut-SD" and "Nona-S"?

      Like there is no difference between a mortar and a tank gun? Just take a closer look than each armed. And the self-propelled gun is excellent good it’s good that at least it’s late, but the landing will go into service. A weighty argument.
      1. Ivan_Ivanov
        Ivan_Ivanov 24 September 2013 11: 14 New
        0
        Thank you.

        Well, if a mortar can destroy an enemy tank at the same distance as the Sprut, then why is it needed? Isn't it better to get by with one type of weapon?
        (despite the fact that the Octopus is a great car.)
        1. self-propelled
          self-propelled 24 September 2013 11: 37 New
          +5
          Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
          Well, if a mortar can destroy an enemy tank at the same distance as the "Sprut"

          and a mortar can destroy an enemy moving tank?
          1. nightingale
            nightingale 26 September 2013 17: 10 New
            0
            To the roof of the tower. this requires a special mine with homing and strike core.
        2. Avenger711
          Avenger711 24 September 2013 13: 51 New
          +3
          And how do you destroy a tank from a mortar? Cumulative? Kinetic ammunition can’t be used there, Nona-S is generally a light mortar howitzer.
          1. Ivan_Ivanov
            Ivan_Ivanov 24 September 2013 14: 03 New
            +1
            But she shoots along a flat trajectory.
            Nona does not have MORTARS, but a 2A51 artillery gun. Of course, you can hit the moving armored vehicles (tanks) of the enemy. Including communicative shells ("Approach-2") and guided shells (Kitolov).

            I just want to figure it out. Maybe there is a specialist who can easily explain the fundamental difference between Nona and Octopus. What is so fundamental that one can do and the other cannot do? Thank.
            1. Aleks tv
              Aleks tv 24 September 2013 15: 08 New
              +5
              Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
              what is the fundamental difference between Nona and Octopus.

              Not special in artillery.

              By Octopus:
              He is armed with a classic (lite) tank gun 2A46 family.
              And this is a weapon of direct combat in real contact with the enemy.
              The main difference is the possibility of firing an armor-piercing-projectile shell at an acceptable initial speed (plus classic cumulative shots).
              Those. This is an anti-tank weapon for firing in line of sight.
              And the presence of ammunition in the HE shells gives the Octopus the possibility of direct artillery support in the battle formations of the landing.
              But this is not a tank (although performs its functions in the airborne), but this kind of "self-propelled gun".

              About NONs is a completely different specificity, the barrel is more suitable for assault purposes and, moreover, has the possibility of mortar fire. Great weapon.
              The gunners will correct me if they didn’t speak correctly on NONE.
              1. Nayhas
                Nayhas 24 September 2013 15: 40 New
                +1
                Quote: Aleks tv

                Not special in artillery.

                If not special, I want to ask a question in artillery and in tanks. What are the chances of the Octopus to survive in the confrontation against modern MBT? If he can make the first shot, what is the probability that they will give the second?
                As far as I understand, even after the HE shell hits, this box will fall to pieces, while it does not have any weapon control systems similar to those installed in modern MBT.
                1. Aleks tv
                  Aleks tv 24 September 2013 16: 26 New
                  +6
                  Quote: Nayhas
                  What are the chances of the Octopus to survive in the confrontation against modern MBT?

                  Almost correct. Then Nana asked a different question:
                  And what are the chances of surviving from ... for example, a towed anti-tank gun against a tank?

                  Octopus is not a tank, but self-propelled gun with a tank barrel.
                  Better if there is such a weapon (a full-fledged tank barrel, but ... "on wheels") than the Airborne Forces will not have it.
                  wink
                  1. Nayhas
                    Nayhas 24 September 2013 16: 42 New
                    -1
                    Quote: Aleks tv
                    And what are the chances of surviving from ... for example, a towed anti-tank gun against a tank?

                    Well, the question of the effectiveness of the classic towed anti-tank artillery for me is also a big question, but the light does not converge on them like a wedge? There are anti-tank systems that are not inferior to 125 mm in range and armor penetration. sabot projectile, but have greater stealth. For example, the same "Javelin", which needs visibility of the target only at the moment the target is captured by the seeker, after which you can go to a closed position, launch a missile and quickly change position without leaving the enemy a chance to retaliate. The Javelin is certainly somewhat bulky, but much less noticeable than the self-propelled gun, isn't it? In addition, with the invention of an uncooled IR seeker, the issue of both cumbersomeness and high cost will be resolved ... A 125 mm. no matter how you upgrade the weapon, the dimensions will not change noticeably ...
                    1. Aleks tv
                      Aleks tv 24 September 2013 16: 58 New
                      +4
                      Quote: Nayhas
                      There are anti-tank systems

                      No need to try to replace the guns and guns with the only anti-tank systems (I am not against this weapon).
                      This is an idealized approach.
                      Guided road shots - this time.
                      You won’t drag a lot of missiles on yourself, you still need a self-propelled base - these are two.

                      Each weapon has its own niche.
                      1. Nayhas
                        Nayhas 24 September 2013 17: 22 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Aleks tv
                        No need to try to replace the guns and guns with the only anti-tank systems (I am not against this weapon).
                        This is an idealized approach.

                        Alexey, I did not ask for vague phrases. The question was specific. If it’s difficult to answer, I’ll try to rephrase it.
                        Example. The landing was parachuted, the task was to capture the enemy airfield, to ensure its protection for the possibility of transferring heavy equipment through the air in a landing way.
                        We are presenting the ideal option when an airborne unit with minimal losses in a short period of time gathered under the general leadership and a swift throw of 100 km. captured a strategically important airfield, fighters and equipment dug in, the Octopus prepared positions in the tank direction. Everyone is waiting for the arrival of the first transports with tanks, ammunition and replenishment.
                        The enemy, having received information about the landing and the capture of an important airfield, advanced his units reinforced by tanks for his release to prevent the buildup of enemy groups in their rear.
                        1. What in this case will the Octopus have advantages over paratroopers with anti-tank systems?
                        2. The enemy tanks will first destroy the anti-tank means of the landing, what they will find in the first place, entrenched Octopus or several paratroopers with anti-tank systems?
                        3. After the launch of the ATGM, the paratroopers easily change their position and switch to the reserve moving away from the retaliatory strike. The octopus after the first shot is forced to either wait for the projectile in response, or try to change the position, which will take him more time and it will be difficult to make it invisibly. Who in this case is more likely to make a second shot / launch?
                        4. The cost of Octopus-SD is unknown to me, but I’m sure that with these funds you can buy more than a dozen modern ATGMs whose operation does not require fuel and maintenance costs, right?
                      2. Aleks tv
                        Aleks tv 24 September 2013 17: 32 New
                        0
                        Quote: Nayhas
                        Alexey, I did not ask for vague phrases.

                        I'm sorry, Eugene.
                        I'm really a little busy and began to respond in fits and starts, there is such a letter ...
                        A little later I will try to paraphrase my answer.
                      3. Aleks tv
                        Aleks tv 24 September 2013 19: 59 New
                        +4
                        Quote: Aleks tv
                        A little later I will try to paraphrase my answer.

                        Sorry for the delay ...


                        If not blurry, then:
                        I repeat:
                        Each technology has its own niche of application on certain TVDs.
                        An octopus is a tank gun that travels and carries its own ammunition, floats, is air transportable, airborne, is closed from bullets and fragments.
                        - If the commander of the airborne forces (not airborne ballistic forces) of the airborne forces has a choice, what should he take to solve the task: NON or Octopus, is that bad?
                        - Since the 57mm gun was not crammed into the PT-76, is it really bad if it is replaced by Octopus in MP?
                        - For example, the quick-eyed Basurmans decided to “cross the border by the river” ... In Transbaikalia, there is no one else except the 5th brigade and the brigade in Yasnaya ...
                        Throw Octopus to the area of ​​the Yablonochnevy ridge in the hills on the "Cow", he will block and cut all the few roads, firing direct fire from the prevailing heights and constantly changing position. What is bad?
                        Yes - the WAGON of everything.
                        To say what is better as a mobile anti-tank weapon: Octopus or ATGM is impossible.
                        ATGM portable and imprisoned for a narrow solution of tasks, most often as an auxiliary means of fire support in the form of an expensive WTO.
                        An octopus is a solid ammunition load of standard low-cost ammunition, capable of direct fire to support fighters for a fairly long time.
                        How much personnel do you need to transfer the same number of missiles to the ATGM that the Octopus carries? Dofiga.
                        But if it’s impossible to drive, then ... you have to carry ATGMs on the hump.
                        Different tasks, different conditions.

                        According to your example:
                        Although I went through the Airborne Forces, I’m not an amphibious officer and I’m familiar with the Airborne Troops BUSV, so that our reasoning will be amateurish, which is already buzzing. Lana, let's try to “drive through” Tactics ...
                        1: Will there ever be an opportunity to drop a vehicle?
                        2. Will there be opposition during the landing and what forces and means are necessary to suppress resistance?
                        3. Will it be possible to bring the equipment to the goal - the airfield?
                        4. What forces and means are needed to capture an airfield?
                        5. What forces and means are needed to keep the airdrome waiting for the Main Forces?
                        6. How to ensure the security of the arrival of the main forces?
                        Everything can be different ...
                        It is possible that Octopus will be needed at some stages, NONA may be more effective, but ... maybe the guys will carry everything in their hands, including ATGMs
                        And you and I can justify both situations according to the situation. But there are no identical situations.
                        For example:
                        When capturing the airfield, the Octopus, direct fire, with bulletproof armor and constantly maneuvering, will be very effective, I don’t think that there will be tanks around every corner.
                        For a short-term retention of the airfield, the ATGM will probably be more effective, but with a longer defense, a more serious fire is needed, here they rule Nona or Octopus. If the attack is tanks, then Octopus.

                        In every possible way, I do not smear my answer, but speak about the possibilities of the Octopus, which can be very effectively used.
                        For justice, I note that I, as a tanker, are embarrassed by the way the red maiden:
                        The octopus carries powerful tank weapons designed for direct fire contact, and it has armor ... not intended for these purposes.
                        This is his weakness and effectiveness.
                        Octopus is no worse than the vaunted Centaur, and even better in terms of the totality of parameters.
                        He has his own niche in military use.

                        Something like this.
                    2. Setrac
                      Setrac 24 September 2013 18: 28 New
                      +2
                      Quote: Nayhas
                      Example. The landing was parachuted, the task was to capture the enemy airfield, to ensure its protection for the possibility of transferring heavy equipment through the air in a landing way.

                      It is in this situation that the chances are high. Buried in the ground (trench), rose hydraulically, fired, sank.
                    3. Nayhas
                      Nayhas 24 September 2013 18: 48 New
                      0
                      Quote: Setrac
                      Buried in the ground (trench), rose hydraulically, fired, sank.

                      This will not help, if he had tank armor, then maybe it would help, and so a projectile will pierce him through a meter of soil. And only a blind person will not be able to notice Octopus when fired.
                    4. Setrac
                      Setrac 24 September 2013 22: 20 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Nayhas
                      and so a caliber projectile will pierce it through a meter of soil.

                      So two meters will be poured, or three.
            2. poquello
              poquello 24 September 2013 23: 53 New
              +2
              Quote: Nayhas
              Quote: Aleks tv
              And what are the chances of surviving from ... for example, a towed anti-tank gun against a tank?

              There are anti-tank systems that are not inferior to 125 mm in range and armor penetration. sabot projectile, but have greater stealth. For example, the same "Javelin", which needs visibility of the target only at the moment the target is captured by the seeker, after which you can go to a closed position, launch a missile and quickly change position without leaving the enemy a chance to retaliate. The Javelin is certainly somewhat bulky, but much less noticeable than the self-propelled gun, isn't it?


              As the saying goes "the battle will show"
              That's what Rybas said about Zhevelin
              “In Iraq, it turned out that it is very difficult to use such complexes in urban environments, where there is no clear border between“ friends ”and“ aliens. ”There are also numerous cases of non-capture of the target. As a result, the US Marine Corps was forced to abandon the use of Javelin in combat conditions. . "
      2. IRBIS
        IRBIS 24 September 2013 15: 48 New
        +2
        Quote: Aleks tv
        He is armed with a classic (lightened) tank gun of the 2A46 family.

        Alexei, I was puzzled by this phrase: "effectively damping the recoil impulse and providing a rollback of no more than 700 mm." Normal rollback of a tank gun: 320-340 mm., Or do I already have signs of sclerosis?
        1. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 24 September 2013 16: 22 New
          +2
          Quote: IRBIS
          Alexey, I was perplexed by this phrase: "effectively dampening the recoil impulse and providing a rollback of no more than 700 mm." Normal rollback for a tank gun: 320-340 mm, or do I already have signs of sclerosis?

          Greetings, Alexander.

          2A-46 is a whole family of guns ...
          By А2-46 and 2А-46м on T-72Б:
          Offhand I remember the rollback value 270-320mm with a small tolerance to the stop.

          On Octopus, I know that they "fiddled" with it for a long time, reducing its weight and the ability to fire on a light chassis.
          At the moment of the shot, the Octopus, it seems, is being rolled back by the harp.
          So either this is a small copy (about 700mm), or the designers really did something wise with a long rollback, softening it along the length of the rollbacks so as not to ruin the chassis.
          This is IMHO for Octopus, it is not special.
          1. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 24 September 2013 21: 41 New
            +3
            Quote: Aleks tv
            the designers were really wise with a long rollback, softening it along the length of the rollbacks so as not to ruin the chassis.

            Exactly, there is such a letter about 700mm ... to go nuts.

            quote:
            .When installing the 2A46M gun on a lighter chassis for the Sprut-SD, it had to be substantially modified. New recoil devices were developed with a rollback length increased to 700 mm, as well as some other design changes, as a result of which the gun received a new 2A75 index.
            A significant increase in the length of the recoil of the gun plus rollback during the firing of the carrier body (due to the hydropneumatic suspension) made it possible to reduce the impact of the shot on the carrier, however, despite this, there was a significant use of the machine, which could be significantly reduced by applying a muzzle brake. At one time, prototypes of a muzzle brake weighing less than 25 kg were manufactured and tested for this gun. However, its introduction into production was faced with the imperfection of the technological base and the need for a significant change in the design of the gun itself, as a result of which the use of the muzzle brake had to be abandoned.
            To ensure increased rollback, the loader has an extended cassette lift frame
            .
            1. Tommygun
              Tommygun 25 September 2013 17: 28 New
              0
              Perhaps it was necessary to install a gun under NATO ammunition. Still, the concept of the Airborne Forces implies actions behind enemy lines.
              PS I understand that this is associated with great difficulties.
              1. nightingale
                nightingale 26 September 2013 17: 30 New
                -1
                Nona can caliber 120mm but only with mines.
      3. bask
        bask 24 September 2013 17: 53 New
        -1
        Greetings, Alex.
        Quote: Aleks tv
        And this is a weapon of direct combat in real contact with the enemy.

        On ,, Octopus-SD ,,, this gun is installed only as an anti-tank gun (tank destroyer)
        Quote: Aleks tv
        Those. This is an anti-tank weapon for firing in line of sight.
        And the presence of ammunition in the HE shells gives the Octopus the possibility of direct artillery support in the battle formations of the landing.

        But with bulletproof armor, the Octopus cannot be used in combat formations of an amphibious assault. It will be struck by the first shot from any PRTK and RPG.
        And not a day of direct fire support (direct fire).
        From the training film presented by Rustam, it is clear from the words of Major General, former chief of artillery of the airborne forces. What ,, Octopus-SD ,, is a self-propelled anti-tank gun, and then from an ambush, a shot changed position, -And ALL !!!!!
        Why then in the BC Octopus OFS?
        Many questions on this self-propelled gun.
        And the main issue is weak bulletproof booking.
    2. Kadavercianin
      Kadavercianin 24 September 2013 15: 24 New
      +5
      I'm not special, but when I was interested. First you Ivan_Ivanov need to understand the difference between a tank gun and a universal mortar. The difference is in the shells, the method of firing, aiming and tactics of use.
      A tank cannon is a powerful weapon for firing, roughly speaking, direct fire, that is, the target must be "seen" (unless, of course, you can shoot missiles) in order to hit it successfully (the gun elevation angles are small), they have their own range of shells (high-explosive, armor-piercing sub-caliber) ...
      The universal nona weapon originally comes from mortars, no matter how it is called now, and it performs the functions of mortars and howitzers, and yes it has a slightly different tactic of application. It fires mainly along a hinged path from closed positions (preferably), that is, it does not need direct contact to fire, it is given coordinates and it fires on them (the elevation angles of the gun are large).
      If I was wrong somewhere - correct it. But my advice is, to understand how the "Octopus" differs from the "Nona", you need to figure out how the gun differs from a howitzer or mortar, look for more detailed information on the Internet, and the questions themselves will disappear.
      1. Ivan_Ivanov
        Ivan_Ivanov 24 September 2013 16: 19 New
        -1
        I know all this, and all that is so.

        It turns out that Nona can do what the Octopus does - direct fire, shooting on the move ... But the Octopus can not do what Nona does - the hinged trajectory.

        Then why do we need Octopus?
        1. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 24 September 2013 16: 51 New
          +3
          Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
          Then why do we need Octopus?

          I will try again:
          The octopus is equipped with a TANK WEAPON, with all the ensuing features of the use of this type of weapon in a theater of operations.
          The principle of using weapons is different.


          I’ll add a little (not personally to you):

          For opponents of Octopus, I would like to clarify the following:
          Have already finished off the statements "the Airborne Forces does not need it"
          Try to imagine that Octopus is not an Airborne Forces vehicle, but ...

          Almost full TANK GUN with all the ensuing capabilities, which:
          - self-propelled
          - she swims,
          - air transportable (even in the "Cow"),
          - airborne.
          - armored from stray bullets and fragments.

          Will there be its application?
          Airborne Forces, MP, Special Parts ... Yes, anything, up to a thrown in a threatened direction to strengthen anti-tank forces.
          Here are the specifics of its applicationDo not try to push the Octopus in a frontal attack with a classic tank.
          This is an ambush car.
          This is a self-propelled tank gun.

          Each combat vehicle has its own niche of application.
          Do not think narrowly.
          1. Ivan_Ivanov
            Ivan_Ivanov 24 September 2013 17: 40 New
            -1
            You explain everything perfectly. Thank you so much.

            But still...
            Of course with the Octopus tank can not be compared. They have really different application niches.
            But it seems to me that Octopus and Nona occupy one niche. At the same time, Nona is more universal.
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 24 September 2013 18: 50 New
              +3
              Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
              But it seems to me that Octopus and Nona occupy one niche. At the same time, Nona is more universal.

              They have different initial projectile speeds, for Nona - from one hundred to three hundred meters per second, for the Octopus - up to 1700 meters per second.
            2. Aleks tv
              Aleks tv 24 September 2013 20: 42 New
              +1
              Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
              with the Octopus tank can not be compared.

              This of course, Ivan ...
              I'm telling you as a tankman.
              laughing
              Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
              But it seems to me that Octopus and Nona occupy one niche. At the same time, Nona is more universal.

              About the features of NONA it is necessary to ask the artillerymen ...
              There are specialists on the site.

              I personally respect her a lot, I saw how she works.
              And as an assault gun (the barrel itself) is generally wonderful.
              good
              Only the landing guys joked that ... ahem ... "deb.lam" is better not to communicate with her, she (NONA) does not like them ...
              I don’t remember exactly why it was long ago.
              wink
          2. bask
            bask 24 September 2013 18: 34 New
            +2
            Quote: Aleks tv
            Each combat vehicle has its own niche of application.

            Sorry Lesh, did not read this koment.
            You answered many questions.
            In fact, Sprup-SD, a self-propelled anti-tank gun operating from ambush.
            Very narrow specialization of this product.
            Now in a similar plan of armored vehicles comes modular design and modular installation of weapons.
            SEP tactical modular platform, on wheeled and tracked chassis.
            TTH:
            Crew - 2 people.
            Maximum weight is 14 tons
            Carrying capacity-6 tons, etc.
            1. Aleks tv
              Aleks tv 24 September 2013 20: 10 New
              +2
              Quote: bask
              You answered many questions.

              Greetings, Andrew!
              Glad to see you.

              No, I didn’t answer all the questions, qualification doesn’t allow ... repeat (by the way I typed another opus just ... lol ) Today is a hectic day, so I can’t stay with my computer all the time.
              On modularity - absolutely agree with you.

              А Octopus is the concept of a light tank with weapons ... the main tank.
              No one argues about the fact that light armored vehicles are needed, namely, their Octopus can very effectively support in battle formations or in other conditions when the transfer of heavy equipment is difficult and time is expensive ...

              I defend Octopus from the principle of science itself as TACTICS. It is really useful in various conditions of military operations, THE MAIN THING - TO USE IT FOR THE PURPOSE !!! And not like ... ahem ... in our Army they love.

              I myself, you know, are an ardent supporter of the tanks, normal BMPT and HEAVY BMP.
              laughing
          3. gallville
            gallville 25 September 2013 14: 09 New
            -2
            With all due respect.
            Quote: Aleks tv
            Almost full TANK GUN with all the ensuing capabilities, which:
            - self-propelled
            - she swims,
            - air transportable (even in the "Cow"),
            - airborne.
            - armored from stray bullets and fragments.

            Self-propelled tank gun which:
            a) does not have armor
            b) cannot shoot from closed positions (and this is not only trenches, but also terrain folds up to the craters from explosions)
            c) has a range of just a tank gun. Well, no one will argue that the guns are sau beating on?
            g) the angle of the trunk 17 degrees (taken from the article).
            Quote: Aleks tv
            Will there be its application?

            Of course. It looks very beautiful in the parade =)) As a humor.

            Ps Nona is our everything.
            In general, when will the Airborne Forces get an analogue of the American M-777? This is a real increase in firepower and range, with good mobility.
        2. Kadavercianin
          Kadavercianin 24 September 2013 16: 58 New
          +3
          The power of the guns and the range of shells (purpose) and, accordingly, the power of shells. Nona is not equipped with powerful high-explosive bombs and anti-tank subcaliber, besides, I am not aware of whether it is equipped with cumulative.
          In addition, the power of the tank gun is greater due to the greater mass of the projectile and the greater barrel energy (it could have been incorrectly formulated), that is, the greater starting acceleration of the projectile. The octopus will come in handy where there is an urgent need for a "crowbar" and it is "clear" where to hit, in addition, the power of Nona's gun may not be enough for everything, Nona - where there is something xs or, it seems that there is something and just in case we bang, or if someone sat down on a rather high hill.
          If we compare Nona with Octopus, then the first is the howitzer, the second is the cannon, the scope and features of the application are different. The howitzer can fire direct fire, but there’s not much point in it, for this it is better to use guns (accuracy is higher), and in the case of an octopus, it’s also power.
          1. Ivan_Ivanov
            Ivan_Ivanov 24 September 2013 17: 46 New
            -1
            Work on the creation of 120-mm rounds, First Deputy Director of the State Enterprise "Basalt" and the chief designer. The leading designers for 120-mm rounds were: for a shot with a high-explosive / fragmentation projectile (code "Transmitter") - M. M. Konovaev, with a high-explosive / fragmentation-active projectile ("Binder") - Yu. G. Snopok, with a cumulative shell ("Approach-2") - V.A. Priorov.

            The ammunition includes all types of Russian and foreign 120-mm mines, specially designed ammunition with a high-explosive fragmentation projectile and an active rocket-propelled artillery projectile with ready-to-use rifles in the lead belt, guided missiles of the Kitolov guided weapons system.


            And for a muzzle projectile, muzzle energy is not important. It turns out that the Octopus lacks only a caliber projectile. But it is completely replaced by the communicative one.
            1. Kadavercianin
              Kadavercianin 24 September 2013 18: 52 New
              0
              Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
              It turns out that the Octopus lacks only a caliber projectile. But it is completely replaced by the communicative one.


              You mean with Nona.
              Once again I say, clarify for yourself the difference between a gun and a howitzer (or a mortar). They do not replace each other, but complement. Just as everything cannot be replaced with rockets, so a mortar (even universal and just awesome) is not a panacea.
            2. Aleks tv
              Aleks tv 24 September 2013 21: 45 New
              +1
              Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
              It turns out that the Octopus lacks only a caliber projectile. But it is completely replaced by the communicative one.

              Ivan, the Octopus has an ALL line of tank ammunition, a tank gun, albeit a light one: PF, Cumulative, Armor-piercing-subcaliber and KUV.
  • Eugeniy_369
    Eugeniy_369 24 September 2013 21: 00 New
    0
    Quote: avt
    but the landing will go into service. A weighty argument.

    The technique is good, good nobody argues.
    Only here is such a question, I do not at all plead with the importance of the Airborne Forces, but only without air supremacy, how do I land? I read somewhere that plans are being worked out or worked out for creating airborne troops based on the Airborne Forces. It’s nice to see a massive landing on exercises, but ... how will the transport workers get to the landing area above the enemy’s territory without a clear sky? Now the entire radar radar is visible. I repeat once again the Airborne Elite, but then it seems worthwhile to deal very closely with the issue of gaining dominance in the air, tobish the Air Force.
  • Praetorian
    Praetorian 24 September 2013 09: 56 New
    0
    And how many of these in our army are already in stock and are purchases planned? Does anyone know?
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 24 September 2013 13: 52 New
      +1
      24 was. Further it is not clear how it will be.
  • CHIM SMOKE
    CHIM SMOKE 24 September 2013 09: 58 New
    +4
    Have you read the article? Read it again! Gun pointing angles, caliber, types of ammunition. AND THE BASIC APPOINTMENT - FIGHT AGAINST TANKS !!! NONA-S is the god of war! Artillery defeating the enemy.
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 24 September 2013 13: 52 New
      +1
      Not with tanks, but with any direct fire targets.
  • smiths xnumx
    smiths xnumx 24 September 2013 11: 57 New
    +2
    In fact, the car is raw, and over the past years nothing has been done in this direction. The AKP's weakest point, and the suspension, is clearly not for an instrument of such power, well, and AZs that are lightweight and very vulnerable in a car with such protection. Plus, you will not see shooting in any video when the gun is deployed at right angles to the longitudinal axis, apparently the machine really does not like such shooting.
    Let's compare "Sprut" from VGTZ with the closest analogues.
    An approximate analogue of the Sprut is the American light tank M-8, developed in the 80-90s to replace the aging M-551 Sheridan tanks. The M-8 also has the ability to drop from the air. Equally interesting was the approach to the protection of this tank, characterized by foresight and flexibility. In addition, the development of light tanks is being actively pursued in the PRC, there are a number of interesting proposals from German developers.
    chinese light tank type 99

    German light tank based on BMP "Marder"

    Level 1 is optimized for landing operations and includes the ubiquitous 7,62 mm protection against armor-piercing bullets, fragments of 155 mm shells, protection from above and frontal protection against 14,5 mm caliber bullets (weight 17.5t);
    Level 2 increases universal protection to 14,5 mm and protects the frontal part from 30 mm cannon shells (20t);
    Level 3 provides protection against wearable anti-tank weapons (22.5t).
    The airborne landing layout includes a level 1 armor kit.
    The development of the M-8 “Buford” was the “Thunderbolt” machine equipped with a new 120 mm XM291 gun and a hybrid electric drive. An option with an electrothermochemical gun was also tested.
    American tank XM-8
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 24 September 2013 13: 57 New
      +2
      If the Buford is really a light tank, which, by the way, is a cut above the infamous MGS based on the "striker", then the Sprut-SD is probably more a self-propelled gun. The point is to extinguish the recoil of such a powerful weapon, the adversaries have only 105 mm guns, but the Sprut-SD has a special mechanism that allows it to "roll back" when fired, an article on the site about it was not so long ago. Is it possible to shoot on the go, the question. The rollback of 700 is actually huge, this is a necessary measure, for tanks it is less.
    2. Kadavercianin
      Kadavercianin 24 September 2013 15: 51 New
      -1
      Question by airborne landing do you mean dropping with parachutes?
      As a matter of fact, the striker and other light vehicles could not and cannot shoot from the 120mm (or other large-caliber guns) cannon by turning it 90 degrees (overturning), so the octopus is not a light tank, but a self-propelled gun and initially cannot shoot by deploying the turret 90 degrees. In addition, it is only thanks to the suspension that it is able to shoot from a 125mm tank gun, how else can the recoil be extinguished by a vehicle with such a low weight and such a powerful weapon, without a hydropneumatic suspension (if I am not mistaken, it was calculated as part of the shock absorption system during landing), capable of withstanding such overloads , "Octopus" would not have taken place at all.
      1. Aristocrat
        Aristocrat 4 October 2013 19: 42 New
        0
        Octopus can conduct a circular attack. The limitation is only when shooting afloat, which is actually indicated in the article (70 degrees). Ie + -35 in azimuth from the course. In any case, you can always "steer" to the side to aim the weapon. How was your WWII self-propelled gun fired at? Their traverse angles were limited to + -5 degrees ...
  • the47th
    the47th 24 September 2013 12: 00 New
    +1
    We can say that the PT-76 has a worthy descendant.
    1. duke
      duke 24 September 2013 13: 30 New
      0
      the question is for specialists - why not use the chassis of the PT-76, created specifically as a light, floating (which is important) marine tank and reconnaissance platoons of motorized rifle units, by the way the tank is completely underestimated, which then (in the late 70s and early 80s ) replaced by BMP, in my opinion it is more adapted for these purposes, put this tower on it, the engine from BMP-3, naturally all the modern stuffing - a good thing would have happened, especially in the warehouses of their buildings a lot, of course, refinement, balancing and etc., but I do not think that the revision would be too expensive. Why, for a chassis not adapted for this chassis, to pile up such a gun, for the chassis from BMD-3 - a lighter module AU-220m 57mm (automatic) would be well suited.
      1. smiths xnumx
        smiths xnumx 24 September 2013 14: 00 New
        +2
        Well, why the PT-76 lasted in service with the BB until the early 2000s and was even used in Chechnya.

        And with the 57-mm gun, the PT-76B variant was created — in which the standard armament was replaced with a 57-mm automatic gun BM-57, developed by the Burevestnik TsKB based on the S-60 anti-aircraft gun), and the PKT machine gun coaxial with it; and the fire control system was modernized. The machine also has a thermal television target tracking machine, which greatly simplifies the work of the commander and gunner-operator, for example, automatic guidance of an anti-tank missile. The accuracy of tracking the target increases to 4-6 times.

        However, the Indonesians who are armed with about 100 PT-76s armed them with a 90-mm Belgian cannon "Kokkerill" and also installed a new FCS, calling the vehicle PT-2000
      2. Eugeniy_369
        Eugeniy_369 24 September 2013 22: 08 New
        0
        PT-76 is an amphibious tank, it is very large in size, it was called "float". The designers are great, they were told to swim, they did (they would have disobeyed Stalin laughing ). And in intelligence it was identified because "floating" was in the name and the stereotype worked. In Indonesia and India, he was like (sorry for the pun) a fish in water - the terrain for him is ideal as a platform for a tool on water. The Hindus with their rivers immediately fell in love with him. But a miracle does not happen, its dimensions are very large, Baryatinsky wrote that the caponier was needed for him more than for the T-54.
        Quote: duke
        created specifically as a light, floating (important) marine tank and reconnaissance platoons of motorized rifle units

        It was never created specifically for reconnaissance and for the marines, but was created "for crossing water obstacles on the move, capturing and holding a bridgehead until the main forces approach," all with an eye to "march to the English Channel." And you mean the reconnaissance platoon of motorized riflemen .... What motorized riflemen in 1951? They only officially appeared in 57, and the PT-76 in 51 was adopted.
        PS Baryatinsky MB, "1945-2008. Soviet tanks in battle" you will not regret reading.
        1. duke
          duke 25 September 2013 11: 07 New
          0
          Eugene, thank you for the link
      3. gallville
        gallville 25 September 2013 13: 55 New
        0
        Quote: duke
        a survey for specialists - why not use the chassis of the PT-76, created specifically as a light, floating (which is important) marine tank and reconnaissance platoons of motorized rifle units, by the way the tank is completely underestimated, which then (in the late 70s and early 80s ) replaced by BMP, in my opinion it is more adapted for these purposes, put this tower on it, the engine from BMP-3

        I'm not special =)
        But in general, BMP-76 was born from PT-3 =))
        At the same time, if you understand the BMP-3, it’s better to be a more versatile and from a fire point of view powerful weapon than the progenitor.
  • ivshubarin
    ivshubarin 24 September 2013 12: 08 New
    +1
    Light tank, also floating
  • Vorkot cat
    Vorkot cat 24 September 2013 13: 45 New
    -1
    The car is of course poorly armored, but for the Airborne Forces
    But the cannon of course is a dream, not every tank has one laughing
    1. Aristocrat
      Aristocrat 4 October 2013 19: 45 New
      0
      In what sense is not everyone? All MBTs are equipped with similar tools.
  • SAG
    SAG 24 September 2013 14: 45 New
    +2
    Let's compare "Sprut" from VGTZ with the closest analogues.
    An approximate analogue of the Sprut is the American light tank M-8, developed in the 80-90s to replace the aging M-551 Sheridan tanks. The M-8 also has the ability to drop from the air.

    Well, comrade, show us a video (photo) where this car or others, as you say, "analogs" landed with the crew inside ...
    It seems to me that such a video does not exist in nature! And to call these light tanks ANALOGUE of the Octopus is like calling a moped an analogue of a cross-country motorcycle!
    М551А1 (TTS) was decommissioned a long time ago in 1997 ... The only battalion that was armed with them was deactivated. Sheridan has never been in service with the 101st Airborne Assault Division.
    The program for the creation of the M8 assault ACS, intended to replace the M551 (TTS), has been discontinued. The M8 was supposed to be parachuted (low-altitude landing), provided that the first (basic) level of armor protection and partial disassembly were used (the Sheridan was thrown partially disassembled).
    At the moment, in the United States, only the LMP-25 possesses a vehicle suitable for parachute landing.
    The same M-8 (which by the way was never taken into service), which you mention, did not possess the ability to swim ... the limit of its ability to overcome water barriers is ford no more than 1 meter deep !!!
    1. smiths xnumx
      smiths xnumx 24 September 2013 15: 51 New
      0
      As far as I know, the 2S25 never landing with the crew,

      Secondly, there is no landing system for a combat vehicle with a crew in any country in the world, except of course ours.
      Thirdly, the M-8 also landed with airplanes, please video:
      1. avt
        avt 24 September 2013 16: 24 New
        +2
        Quote: Kuznetsov 1977
        As far as I know, the 2S25 never landing with the crew,

        There is a well-developed parachute system, thanks to Uncle Vasya, who allows to do this and Octopus fits himself into it completely. Well, why should the guys take risks every time?
  • Dimon-chik-79
    Dimon-chik-79 24 September 2013 15: 00 New
    +2
    I think a universal self-propelled gun like Nona n on the BMD-4 platform would be the very thing. And to compete with the main tanks on the Octopus is a desperate business. Although BMD4 is already armed with a 100mm gun and ATGMs. That is the question, why then is it needed at all. Well, of course, the Airborne Forces are best to know what they need. It would only be more likely (if we had already made such a decision) on the BMD-4 rearmament, and not sprayed on the BTR-MDM or Octopus. After all, our landing assault position is awful, the base is now made by the prohibitively outdated BMD-1, -2!
    1. SAG
      SAG 24 September 2013 15: 15 New
      0
      ... about the situation with the armor is that you are right sad
      only after all, nobody is going to compete with tanks on an octopus, on the video laid out at the beginning, Major General Grekhnev clearly says that this technique should be used to destroy tanks secretly and suddenly !!! Only in this case it will be effective!
      Although the idea of ​​competition with tanks is also a good idea, I mean tank biathlon, I think that the octopus has the right to participate there - it’s necessary to somehow light up the good
      1. Ivan_Ivanov
        Ivan_Ivanov 24 September 2013 16: 25 New
        -1
        1. Tanks can be hidden and suddenly destroyed by both Nona and ATGMs.

        2. Match with tanks is not correct. After all, there is no return fire. In a real battle, the Tank can withstand, say, several hits, and the Octopus will be destroyed by the first hit.
        1. Kadavercianin
          Kadavercianin 24 September 2013 17: 09 New
          +2
          From what distance do you expect to fire at tanks from ATGM and Nona. If the distance is less than 1 km, both of these complexes are practically useless or very conditionally effective. Look at the effective range of destruction for ATGM and for Nona’s anti-tank shells (I don’t know any of these), of course you can hit tanks and mines, but what’s the point? Grenade launchers can really be used only from a distance of less than 100m, it turns out that at a distance of 1km to 100m we do not have a sufficiently effective means of fighting tanks, well, I do not believe in the destruction of a tank by land mines or mines or in the good probability of hitting a moving target from an ATGM from a short distance ( less than 1km)
          1. gallville
            gallville 25 September 2013 13: 53 New
            -1
            Well, here we are.
            Quote: Kadavercianin
            ATGM and Nona. If the distance is less than 1 km, both of these complexes are practically useless or very conditionally effective.

            a) the effective firing range of modern ATGMs is up to 5 km. 5km> 1km. =))
            b) Nona is able to shoot direct fire, if not mistaken.
            Quote: Kadavercianin
            apply only from a distance of less than 100m,

            The effective range of RPG-7 fire starts at 500 meters. The next question is in the hands of the shooter himself. That's why the Airborne Forces and the elite. I would agree to hear a story about 100 meters from a sergeant of motorized riflemen with conscripts who arrived from the Karyak Autonomous Okrug (for the first couple of months they even weigh a little more than RPGs and hardly understand the commands in Russian). But not as about airborne troops from selected youth and traditions in the training of the airborne forces themselves.
            And now we recall that the RPG-7, in principle, is a weapon 40-50 years old and it is high time to change it.
            1. Aristocrat
              Aristocrat 4 October 2013 20: 00 New
              0
              It's not about the maximum firing range of ATGMs. It's about minimal ... This is far from the same thing.
              Nona can shoot direct-fire cumulative shells at MBT. BUT! But the range of a direct shot from a low-ballistic gun is much less (and hence the accuracy of shooting). In addition, the effectiveness of the cumulative projectile comes to naught when meeting with a screen or DZ ... While a BOPS shot from a high-octane ballistic cannon is not only insensitive to DZ and screens, but also has a long direct-shot range, which is huge for those who know a plus. Moreover, in tank duels, perhaps the most important success factor (at least one of the main ones).
              About RPG ... Where do you get this forgive nonsense? Actually, the seven has a 500m limit ... And then for stationary targets ... The most effective fire at a distance of no more than 250 meters ...
              As long as it’s time or time to change ... There is of course the RPG-29 Vampire ... Its only advantage is the sighting range. But its dimensions ... did you try to hoist the SPG-9 Spear on your shoulder without a machine? How do you like weight, length?
              All the conflicts of the world say that the RPG-7 will have a long life ahead, especially since a whole range of modern ammunition for various purposes has been created for it. What can I say if even p.i.s.d.so.sy produce RPG-7? !!! Even improving it. More precisely, reducing its mass due to materials. Google RPG-7.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Metlik
    Metlik 24 September 2013 15: 50 New
    +1
    A paratrooper needs a light air defense assault vehicle. And then the very first helicopter arriving will crush both the octopus and BMD.
    1. Metlik
      Metlik 24 September 2013 16: 23 New
      +2
      Interested in "Shell" and the Airborne Troops. But like their "ground" counterparts, paratroopers insist on a tracked chassis. The main requirement of the Airborne Forces - "Shell" must be landing. On a wheeled chassis, the ZRPK on a landing platform does not fit in the fuselage of the military transport Il-76 and promising Il-476 in size.

      “As the exercises in the Far East have shown, the“ Shell ”with the folded sighting system and missile launchers easily enters the airborne compartment of the IL-76. But to drop it from a parachute, you need a special platform. No matter how squeeze the "Shell", but on the platform it does not pass in height. Here we need a radical reduction, which gives the caterpillar chassis, ”said an officer of the air defense unit of one of the divisions of the Airborne Forces.

      The interlocutor also said that now the anti-aircraft air defense systems covering the paratroopers do not meet modern threats and cannot effectively deal with enemy aircraft and aviation weapons.

      “We have cannon ZSU-23-2, missile Strela-10, and Igla portable anti-aircraft missile systems. But now, when attack planes drop bombs and missiles over tens of kilometers and at an altitude of over five thousand meters, we are unable to oppose anything. Well, only maybe military helicopters to drive away the enemy. The US military has a modernized Hellfire ATGM, which will easily knock out all of our air defense from 10-15 kilometers. We won’t even get it, ”the paratrooper complained.

      According to the command of the Airborne Forces, the "Shell" will not only destroy enemy helicopters, but also cover paratroopers from precision weapons.

      Now the Instrument Design Bureau, having agreed with the command of the Airborne Troops tactical and technical requirements and the appearance of the future machine, is conducting planned work. As with the option for the Ground Forces, the Tula Design Bureau is ready to present the landing "Shell" in two to three years
      Read more: http://vpk-news.ru/articles/17457
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 24 September 2013 15: 57 New
    -1
    Well, at least kill, but it is not clear why the "Octopus" is generally needed by the landing party. What is his function in the airborne units? Anti-tank? Well, as if in the enemy's rear, tanks are certainly possible, but the ATGM will cope with them no worse, especially of the Javelin type, with the ability to launch ATGM from closed positions. The octopus, after the first shot (which is not a fact that it can knock out an enemy tank), will receive a return projectile, which its cardboard armor cannot withstand in any projection. At the same time, there is no OMS on the Octopus. Not to mention thermal imagers, panoramic sights, radiation sensors, etc. If the Octopus is with its 125 mm. a gun is needed to suppress firing points, it is doubtful that a weapon of such power, 120mm, will be required to destroy a checkpoint at an airfield or bridge. Nona is quite enough for this, I would even say that 57-90 mm. the tool will be enough for this ...
    Anyway, where is our MO going to drop equipment? How does this fit into defense doctrine?
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 24 September 2013 21: 48 New
      +2
      Quote: Nayhas
      Anyway, where is our MO going to drop equipment? How does this fit into defense doctrine?

      Russia:
      occupies about 1/3 of the territory of Eurasia and 1 \ 9 of the earth’s land,
      the length of the territory of Russia from north to south exceeds 4 km,
      from west to east - approaching 10 km.
      The total length of the borders is 60 km.

      Question: in what place in Russia should the Army be located, so that the country would be sufficiently protected from all directions and in the event of an attack, a troop transfer would not be required?
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 24 September 2013 21: 54 New
        +3
        Quote: Bad_gr
        Question: in what place in Russia should the Army be located, so that the country would be sufficiently protected from all directions and in the event of an attack, a troop transfer would not be required?

        good

        Greetings, Vladimir.
        hi

        Yeah, there’s where to dump ...
        And on foreign territory, and on its own ...
        Enough space everywhere.
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 24 September 2013 22: 34 New
          +4
          Alexey, good evening.
          I wanted to participate in a dispute over the guns of Nona and Sprut-sd, but all the arguments were listed without me, and the opponent still did not understand why a high ballistic gun was needed. I think my arguments would not change anything.

          I can add to PT-76.
          If you look at it in section, the floor of the tank occupies the engine compartment. This is not a very rational arrangement, especially in comparison with the BMP-3, where the engine compartment occupies about 1/6 of the volume + in terms of armament it covers the PT-76 like a sheep’s bull, in addition, it is better protected. I think a worthy replacement for this tank, although it was created for other tasks
  • malikszh
    malikszh 24 September 2013 19: 32 New
    +1
    formidable weapon but peaceful name NONA
  • slacker
    slacker 24 September 2013 22: 53 New
    +1
    On the one hand, looking at the Russian Airborne Forces you think these are paratroopers, and on the other hand, they are not paratroopers in the Western sense of the term.
    In the West, a paratrooper is either a reconnaissance saboteur or a soldier imprisoned to capture the airport, airfield, port and hold it until the main forces land. And the main forces are heavily armed motorized infantry and tank units.
    Compared to motorized riflemen, paratroopers in Russia are lightly armed fighters, theoretically preparing for operations behind the front line as a combined arms unit or unit with weakly protected armored vehicles, one fueling station and a limited amount of ammunition. There are practically no opportunities to save their wounded from Russian airborne forces thrown behind enemy lines. The chances of long actions in complete encirclement of such an army are generally small. We will be objective and give without pathos and insults. After all, it is no coincidence that the Russian Airborne Forces were almost never used in their original purpose. During the war, parachute landing was extremely unsuccessful and fatal for the Soviet troops. And after the Second World War, the Airborne Forces were used, as a rule, in a landing way and acted like an infantry using infantry armored vehicles, for example, as in Afghanistan.
    Does it make sense to create equipment and maintain troops whose combat effectiveness in a full-fledged war tends to zero?
    Can it be more profitable, at the expense of funds going to the airborne forces, to raise the level of Russian motorized riflemen, who are the protagonist even in a local, even in a global military conflict?
    1. poquello
      poquello 25 September 2013 01: 07 New
      +1
      Quote: Loafer
      On the one hand, looking at the Russian Airborne Forces you think these are paratroopers, and on the other hand, they are not paratroopers in the Western sense of the term.
      .......
      Does it make sense to create equipment and maintain troops whose combat effectiveness in a full-fledged war tends to zero?


      It is so nice that they gave Serdyukov a kick in the ass. Catch your sleeper.
      Meaning of the word landing
      "Troops specially trained for landing on enemy territory or landing on it to conduct combat operations."
    2. Metlik
      Metlik 25 September 2013 01: 39 New
      +2
      Airborne troops are not only special forces. By combat training and fighting spirit, these are elite units of the ground forces. Skydiving is a great preparation tool. They require thoroughness and discipline.
      Landing is the fastest way to transfer troops. Despite the weaker defense capabilities, the airborne units are able to quickly eliminate the breakthrough, or prevent them from escaping from the environment. I think we need to better work out the combat use of the Airborne Forces in defense, and consider them as a potential reserve of command.
  • Brave
    Brave 24 September 2013 23: 04 New
    +1
    Quote: Aleks tv
    And on foreign territory, and on its own ...

    Better on someone else’s yes hi
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 24 September 2013 23: 12 New
      0
      Quote: Bold
      Better on someone else’s

      Of course, Artem.
      Just about "my" territory I meant an accelerated transfer.
      Let it not be necessary ...
      hi
  • Arkan
    Arkan 25 September 2013 17: 35 New
    0
    Prior to the adoption of the "Nona-S", in the artillery divisions of the Airborne Forces was in service with the ASU-85. The self-propelled gun was flawed, it could not land itself and overcome water obstacles. The self-propelled gun, the 85 mm D-70 (2A15) cannon, had decent penetration rates for its time and could fight tanks. In 1981, they adopted "Nona-S", which is a unique universal art system, but it is difficult for it to resist enemy tanks. "Octopus", as I understand it, is intended specifically to combat tanks. Time will tell if the paratroopers' hopes will come true.