Military Review

Military Industrial Commission draws attention to the Marines

49
At the end of October, in the Kaliningrad region, a regular retreat of the Government’s Military-Industrial Commission was held. The theme of the event was the renewal of the material part of the entire naval fleet Russia in general and the Baltic Fleet in particular. In addition, during the meeting, another important issue was raised regarding the combat effectiveness of the coastal forces of the Navy. Several officials expressed concern about the problems of the Marine Corps, which adversely affect its combat effectiveness.


Military Industrial Commission draws attention to the Marines


The main problem of the Russian marines - lack of funding. State Duma deputy and head of the defense committee V. Komoyedov, from 1998 to 2002, was the former commander of the Black Sea Fleet, he believes that to correct the situation with the state of the marines, you need to apply a new approach to financing. Money for this type of troops should be allocated in accordance with the needs and requirements, and not on the residual basis, as has been done in recent years. It is precisely because of the lack of money that the marines currently do not fully have modern weapons and equipment, as well as communications and control systems.

Touching on the topic of the state of the technology park, V. Komoedov cited floating as an example Tanks. Despite the specifics of the tasks performed, the Russian marines do not have equipment of this class. Old amphibious tanks (PT-76, created in the fifties) are long outdated, and the development of new vehicles for this purpose stopped several decades ago. A similar, but less deplorable situation develops with the technology of other classes. According to Komoyedov, the Marine Corps needs new floating armored personnel carriers and other equipment.

At present, the Russian Marines have equipment of the same types that are operated by ground forces. These are T-72 and T-80 tanks of several modifications. According to some reports, the Marines have a small number of T-90 tanks. For the transportation of personnel used armored personnel carriers BTR-70 and BTR-80, as well as infantry fighting vehicles BMP-2 and BMP-3F. There is information about a number of surviving BMP-1. The total number of armored vehicles does not exceed 350-400 units.

In accordance with the current state armaments program, up to 2020, the share of new weapons and military equipment in the Russian army should increase to 70%. At the same time, as is clear from open data, no major steps are planned over the next few years to rearm the coastal forces of the Navy, which include the marines.

Nevertheless, there is already some progress in this direction. At the end of June 2013, the Ministry of Defense published information about the tender, the result of which should be the creation of a new combat vehicle. The research and design work on the theme “Marine Combat Vehicle” (BMMP) was allocated to organizations participating in the project for several months. The first results of the project can be announced as soon as possible. From the available data it follows that by the end of this year, the organizations involved in the project should form the image of a promising combat vehicle. Thus, the construction and testing of the prototype will begin no earlier than next year. On the timing of the start of serial construction BMMP, for obvious reasons, too early to say.

The second project of direct relevance to the marines is the construction of two amphibious helicopter-carrying dock ships (MFDD) of the Mistral type. By joining the Russian Navy, the Vladivostok and Sevastopol DVKD will complement the existing amphibious ships, which will correspondingly affect the mobility and, consequently, the combat potential of the marines. New ships are planned to be part of the Pacific Fleet in 2014 and 2015. In the future it is possible to build two more landing ships of the same project.

As you can see, in the framework of the current State rearmament program, active work is under way that directly relates to the development of the marines. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the development of a special combat vehicle and the construction of two new ships will not have the desired effect on the state of the marines and coastal forces of the Navy as a whole. In addition to landing ships and combat vehicles, the Russian marines require new tanks, equipment and weapons, communications systems, etc.

The result of the meeting of the Military Industrial Commission was a report and a letter to the Minister of Defense. In the latter, commission members ask the head of the military department to pay attention to the condition of the fleet of coastal vehicles. Defense Minister S. Shoigu has not yet commented on the situation with the state of the marines.


On the materials of the sites:
http://izvestia.ru/
http://vz.ru/
http://i-mash.ru/
http://lenta.ru/
Author:
Photos used:
Vitaliy Ankov / RIA News
49 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. malikszh
    malikszh 5 November 2013 09: 14
    13
    Yes, I also think the Marines have forgotten, the attention seems to be paid to the paratroopers
  2. erased
    erased 5 November 2013 09: 16
    +2
    Perhaps I am mistaken, but this article was published on another site, and here it is shown trimmed. The full version put forward the idea of ​​combining the Marine Corps with the Airborne Forces and removing it from subordination of the coastal troops. Since now the Marines are practically not supplied with new equipment and are financed on a residual basis. The article seemed to be on the site http://warfiles.ru/.
    But in general, the idea is sound - the principles of preparation and the main tasks of the air and sea landing are largely the same. Marine Corps also passes the VDP. In addition, the marines also apply to mobile forces. I wonder if they will take such a step or not ?!
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 5 November 2013 09: 23
      27
      C'mon, the Marines are fundamentally different from the Airborne. And their union is stupid.
      1. Canep
        Canep 5 November 2013 09: 55
        -6
        The fundamental difference is the form. The task for both of them is the same: to seize the bridgehead in the rear of the enemy.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 5 November 2013 10: 26
          +9
          They don't have to pray for a fetish called "aircraft landing". Arming the Marines with airborne equipment will inevitably reduce their combat capabilities. And they will not be opposed by rear rats, like the Airborne Forces, but full-fledged heavily armed units
          1. old man54
            old man54 5 November 2013 14: 18
            +5
            Quote: Spade
            Arming the marines with airborne equipment will inevitably reduce their combat capabilities. And they will not be confronted with rear rats like the Airborne Forces, but full-fledged heavily armed units

            good hi
          2. Andrey Yuryevich
            Andrey Yuryevich 6 November 2013 06: 56
            +1
            sorry ... Airborne rear rats ??? the paper will endure, but in life dear, you would already be in a coma .... negative
        2. Baron Wrangell
          Baron Wrangell 5 November 2013 10: 34
          +5
          [quote = Canep] The fundamental difference is the form. The task for both of them is the same: to seize the bridgehead in the rear of the enemy. [/ Quot
          the main difference in the form of landing, the marines need fast-floating equipment, and delivery ships!
        3. erix-xnumx
          erix-xnumx 5 November 2013 15: 50
          +5
          With what fright exactly in the rear of the enemy? Do you know the term antiamphibious defense? It is organized on the coast, which cannot be called the rear ...
        4. morehod73
          morehod73 5 November 2013 19: 43
          +2
          The fundamental difference in the tasks. And in the first place in these tasks is the defense of the coast from the landing of enemy troops .....
          1. erix-xnumx
            erix-xnumx 6 November 2013 01: 22
            0
            In the first place among the tasks of the Marine Corps is the action in the amphibious assault. If you take a military primer, for example, "Guide to the amphibious assault landing," then it is clearly written that the amphibious assault is an offensive from the sea to the coast occupied by the enemy.
        5. Shur
          Shur 5 November 2013 21: 45
          +1
          The coastline is not so often in the rear.
          1. erix-xnumx
            erix-xnumx 6 November 2013 01: 24
            +1
            How do you see the coastline in the rear? Then where are the parts of the first echelon and cover units located, far into the sea?
    2. Shur
      Shur 5 November 2013 21: 52
      +4
      They have every prospect of becoming a truly "marine" corps and protecting Russia's interests anywhere in the world. Example Syria. Is it reasonable to send the Airborne Forces there to resolve issues of the same evacuation and humanitarian aid (cover, security)? And to protect the coastline, it's like border guards ... Duplication of functions. They are needed in all fleets, you never know where you need to support friends and show your fist to the enemy. In the future, they have a lot of work at sea) The interests of the country will grow and cover remote regions, and the ship, as you know, takes on board a lot more than the plane and you can stay longer, or even shift. These elite units have always been.
  3. waisson
    waisson 5 November 2013 09: 19
    +9
    marines force is people like paratroopers worthy of respect without them Airborne Forces in any way but forget about the marines ah ... ah ... ah
  4. Lopatov
    Lopatov 5 November 2013 09: 29
    +8
    The trouble with the marines is that we do not have weapons and military equipment tailored to their needs. Satisfied with what was created for the land and airborne. And this is not right.
    But rearmament is not enough.
    1. IRBIS
      IRBIS 5 November 2013 09: 52
      24
      Quote: Spade
      The trouble with the marines is that we do not have weapons and military equipment tailored to their needs.

      Good morning!
      There are equipment, weapons and equipment for the MP, but it is not in our units. All this stuff has been "successfully" supplied to other countries for many years. Tank battalions in brigades have been reduced, while jet and anti-tank battalions have been reduced. Reduced "heavy" battalions, the rest, including the battalion battalions, are extremely "lightweight". FDDs have been reduced in odshb and ptv in battalions. The subunits and units of the MP have been "modernized" to such an extent that they can no longer conduct full-fledged military operations on their own, everything is geared towards eliminating "terrorists".
      The transport aviation of the fleet, for the landing of the landing, was practically killed. The delivery vehicles to the shore are in a deplorable state. MDKVP, such as "Zubr", "Dzheyran" are practically absent, the "old" ones were sold abroad, and the new ones were "forgotten." BDK, for the most part, is still of Polish construction and has long been on its way.
      And this is not all the "rainbow" realities of the life and work of the Marine Corps.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 5 November 2013 10: 27
        +3
        I agree, partially there. However, not the entire line of necessary equipment.
      2. erix-xnumx
        erix-xnumx 5 November 2013 16: 00
        +3
        There is no special equipment for the Marine Corps. It is armed with equipment similar to that in the formations of motorized rifle troops, with a slight emphasis on the ability to move afloat. These are armored personnel carriers, "Carnations", "Wasps", "Nona", and of the BMP-2. And the scribe ... Nothing special.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 5 November 2013 19: 13
          +4
          There is a BMP-3F
          1. erix-xnumx
            erix-xnumx 6 November 2013 01: 33
            +1
            Yes, in single copies. And not a single one in the troops. Once in my regiment, the 9th company of the marines was armed with an BMP-3. Of the 12 vehicles, only 3 units were BMP-3F. The rest of the regiment was on the BMP-1. In 1994, they re-equipped the BMP-2. (The company remained on the troikas, but after the first Chechen campaign, this equipment was withdrawn from our regiment and transferred to the ground forces and the military school. At this, the military tests of the BMP-3 and dreams of rearmament were completed. If I didn't I am very mistaken, then today there is not a single unit or unit of the Marine Corps where the BMP-3F was present.
  5. svp67
    svp67 5 November 2013 09: 31
    +6
    First of all, it is necessary to resolve the issue of WHAT the "mariners" will "go" on. Mistrals alone are not enough, it is necessary to resume the production of KVP and BDK ...
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 5 November 2013 09: 40
      +6
      There are only 4 brigades. I do not think that the issue of transport is difficult to solve. You just don’t need to repeat the mistakes of the Airborne Forces and artificially lower the combat capabilities for the convenience of the transfer. As far as I know, the tanks were seized from the Marines for this reason
      1. IRBIS
        IRBIS 5 November 2013 10: 33
        +6
        Quote: Spade
        Their total 4 brigade.

        Northern Fleet - OBrMP;
        Baltic Fleet - OBrMP;
        Black Sea Fleet - OPMP (regiment);
        The Caspian Flotilla was an MBR, deployed to the Marine Marine Brigade of a full wartime staff and again "turned off." To what level, honestly, I don't know, but they were cut with high quality;
        Pacific Fleet - DMP (division).
        1. erix-xnumx
          erix-xnumx 5 November 2013 15: 53
          +5
          You are mistaken - in the Pacific Fleet, the Marine Corps division was long ago reorganized into a brigade (as many as two battalions). In addition, from the brigade in Kamchatka formed a separate regiment of the Marine Corps (also from two battalions).
        2. Fin
          Fin 5 November 2013 16: 48
          +1
          Quote: IRBIS
          Northern Fleet - OBrMP;
          Baltic Fleet - OBrMP;

          In the Northern Fleet - 61 brigade out of 2 battalions.
      2. svp67
        svp67 5 November 2013 10: 49
        +1
        Quote: Spade
        I do not think that the issue of transport is difficult to solve.

        Difficult, difficult ... In the Soviet and "post-Soviet" times, there were ships of special construction, otherwise it is very difficult to seize the necessary section of the coast quickly ... People and equipment must be landed on an UNEQUIPPED coast, and this cannot be done from ordinary transports or perhaps, but for such a long time that the meaning of the landing will be lost ...
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 5 November 2013 13: 24
          +5
          Nothing complicated there, they just need to be built
    2. Shur
      Shur 5 November 2013 21: 58
      +2
      There you have great prospects for covering the Northern Sea Route and the waters and EEZs of Russia in the North. And there, too, on something you need to swim and swim, which is even more important. Even if it gets warmer and less ice, but there are more problems with it, all sorts of the wrong ones begin to climb ..
  6. aszzz888
    aszzz888 5 November 2013 09: 37
    +5
    To arm such a guard with the newest, and most importantly, necessary weapons and means.
    And first of all!
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 5 November 2013 10: 12
      +4
      Well, here in the Caspian already BTR-82A, in Baltiysk BTR-82A, Vladik is next in line this year.

      We have nothing newer than their APCs. Tanks - so we have the main type of unloading on its own on the water. BMP-3F could be purchased from the existing and all. We must wait for new platforms, which will soon be here.

      Also questions on media types. Mistrals, as some do not scold them, can remove the restriction on MP equipment. That is, at least arm with Armata and give Mstu-S. However, two are only two. Gren - is dead. Current BDK year to 20 will be massively withdrawn. New landing ship in deep development.
      1. old man54
        old man54 5 November 2013 14: 45
        +4
        Quote: donavi49
        Well, here in the Caspian already BTR-82A, in Baltiysk BTR-82A, Vladik is next in line this year

        Sorry, but the BTR-82A for the MP is gaumno! Here recently there was talk about this on the site, as the Marines themselves said that this armored personnel carrier has too high vertical stability (due to the combat module), as a result has very low seaworthiness, and when firing from a cannon afloat not along the DP line (not right on the coup) generally a tendency to capsize, even in calm water! So why the hell is he in MP then?
        Quote: donavi49
        We have nothing newer than their APCs.

        and very bad !!! And where is "Rostok", I hesitate to ask?
        Quote: donavi49
        Tanks - so we have the main type of unloading on its own on the water.

        Well, that's how to say it and it depends on the place of disembarkation !! "Zubr" and "Dzheyran" are allowed to land equipment without even wetting the goose, and practically all Soviet MDK and BDK could and can come directly to the shore and unload even Kamaz trucks through the bow ramp.
        Quote: donavi49
        BMP-3F could be purchased from the existing and all

        This is what the MP is needed, better yet, and there is nothing to come up with about the BTR-82A. Even the nickname "IRBIS" will confirm it, I know. wink but the Marines don’t have them!
        Quote: donavi49
        Mistrals, as some do not scold them, can remove the restriction on MP equipment. That is, at least arm with Armata and give Mstu-S.

        Sure? If you look at the base Mistral, then it has very significant restrictions on the placement of heavy armored vehicles on the landing decks, and on the specific pressure on the deck and on the number of tanks on board!
  7. Russ69
    Russ69 5 November 2013 10: 10
    +6
    Marines belong to the Navy and all funding goes through the fleet. The fleet of its leading ones is more up to a fig, that’s financing comes from the residual. It is necessary to carry out all this separately and allocate resources specifically for mopeds, then they will be able to rearm normally ...
    While there is no new equipment, purchase a certain amount of BTR-82A and BMP-3F
    Ships of the Zubr and Dzheyran type announced that they would start purchasing at the last sea show in St. Petersburg, but the timing and quantity is not clear yet.
  8. Alikovo
    Alikovo 5 November 2013 10: 15
    +2
    it's time to upgrade now a lot of new equipment appears for the marines only one third is suitable.
  9. The comment was deleted.
  10. Dimon-chik-79
    Dimon-chik-79 5 November 2013 10: 34
    +7
    Why the hell do we need these Mistralki? Where are we going to land on them? And with what?
    Such money was thrown into the wind, could use these funds to engage in the technical equipment of the marines. As always, it’s a disgrace to sit on oil and gas pipes, toss them with grandmothers to the right and to the left, and they are still not able to rearm even the Airborne Forces and the MP. 21 CENTURY PT-76, BMP-2, BTR-70 the government has a conscience? What a mess will happen again, our boys will again be sent to fight on this trash. Such an attitude towards the army is the real betrayal of the country and its citizens.
  11. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 5 November 2013 10: 47
    +6
    On the eve of the elections, the deputy came to the military unit, told the military how everything is bad with them and that he personally begins to fight it. Understandably, the military giggled behind him, but to his face they wished him success in this difficult but necessary business. Then everyone is surprised to learn that the state car has started working and something is being done there. Then, without surprise, everyone learns that the deputy had his own interest in the matter, and the MP must be urgently reformed for the released equipment, of course, with a change in staff, layoffs and rearrangements of "their people" higher. It is clear then everything that has been destroyed needs to be restored, but the people are delighted, such a powerful movement, so many opportunities to speak out to "network experts", the head is already spinning.
  12. ZU-23
    ZU-23 5 November 2013 12: 17
    -1
    Ha, I remember we were taken out of the Caucasus to Vladikavkaz, everyone has such a form, and here the marines walk around in a brand new berets, they take all things, in general we went smartly dressed as marines, and our uniform went on to serve the Russian Federation)))
    1. ZU-23
      ZU-23 5 November 2013 13: 41
      +2
      minusers directly as if in the army did not serve in youth)))
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 5 November 2013 13: 58
      0
      Marines in Vladikavkaz? You confuse something
      1. ZU-23
        ZU-23 5 November 2013 14: 17
        -1
        Yes, they either went to school or from school from somewhere, there was a problem at the station, we were demobilized for a current, we had joyful drinks. By the way, some are in the same black uniform, and some sort of company in the old breeches and in red berets are some kind of skinny ones, we laughed at them, they say the rattle go)))
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 5 November 2013 14: 27
          -1
          There are no marines in Vladikavkaz, and never have been. In addition, there is no change from train to train, the station is a dead end, as in Moscow. Surely confusing something.
          1. ZU-23
            ZU-23 5 November 2013 14: 57
            +2
            But what did they serve there or whatever, Chechnya was there, in those years there who weren’t there, no matter what troops they are in, type marines in Chechnya in the Yandex search engine and you will see a lot of different information.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 5 November 2013 19: 15
              -1
              Chechnya is nearby, but the Marines on the other side of it were
              1. ZU-23
                ZU-23 5 November 2013 19: 59
                0
                Well, I would say that there was a whole regiment of marines there, for example, let’s say in the same Vladikavkaz there are marines of the Marines, the memory of the 84th Separate Marines Rifle Brigade, the Marines remained in the monuments and obelisks, in the street names of cities such as Vladikavkaz and Ardon (North Ossetia-Alania), Ryazhsk (Ryazan Oblast), Gudermes (Chechen Republic). So if you decide to really catch a smart guy, then try to own the information completely. Perhaps the Marines from training went obelisks to see or lay wreaths, there are plenty of reasons for this. Even in the end, a company of marines could go to any admiral’s summer house to build in Vladikavkaz, because it’s no secret that Putin could be seen in a submarine. So I see no reason to talk, in general I joked initially and knew that there would be minuses, but I didn’t think there would be any conversations, but because of you I even had to read a story to prove that there could be Marines)))
  13. Stasi
    Stasi 5 November 2013 14: 52
    +4
    The Marines are in great need of a complete renewal of the fleet of military equipment and weapons, it is good that they are not silent about this problem. The main thing is that things do not stop beyond words. As for the idea of ​​merging the Airborne Forces and the Marine Corps into one type of troops, this is nonsense. Despite the similarity of training, these troops have different tasks. The Airborne Forces must capture the bridgehead from the air, and the Marine Corps from the sea, disembarking from the ship. Each landing has its own specifics, which means that military equipment and training suitable for it are necessary. I agree that both paratroopers and marines equally deserve respect, since these are the most combat-ready branches of the army.
  14. luka095
    luka095 5 November 2013 23: 02
    +1
    Article "plus". It is good that the problem is at least identified and not hushed up. Another would be to solve it, if possible, without delaying.
  15. Ols76
    Ols76 6 November 2013 06: 07
    0
    The Marine Corps needs to update the fleet of military equipment and weapons, plus article.
  16. sergius60
    sergius60 6 November 2013 10: 50
    0
    The process of creating the MEDITERRANEAN FLEET has actually started. There is Tartus, negotiations were under way with Egypt on the creation of a naval base, Cyprus was also "muddying" with understanding the problems of the Russian Navy. And the most interesting thing is that the "Saudis" got their sight ... Or they discovered the information themselves or ours helped - in 2002, the SNB of the "mattress workers" discussed the possibility of "chopping" Saudia into FIVE "slices" ... It's a shame, you understand ... In general, it's time to change " roof "... So, to re-equip the Marines, as it were, on the Saudi" grandmother "and would become. Prince Bandar has already threatened to withdraw Saudi money from America. Without a guaranteed change of "roof", such "presentations" are suicide in a perverted form. So they remembered the Fleet and that until the soldier's boot stepped onto the enemy's (or ally's) territory, it was not controlled. As an option - a Marine ankle ...
  17. Savva30
    Savva30 6 November 2013 18: 03
    0
    V. Komoyedov cited amphibious tanks as an example. Despite the specifics of the tasks performed, the Russian marines do not have equipment of this class. Old amphibious tanks (PT-76, created in the fifties) are long outdated, and the development of new vehicles for this purpose stopped several decades ago ...
    scary to read this ... although I'm not a Marine
  18. rudolff
    rudolff 6 November 2013 19: 11
    +2
    If we call things by their proper names, there is no problem to re-equip the Marine Corps units with new equipment, there is disregard and indifference. The replacement of cardboard armored personnel carriers with BMP-3Fs alone could increase the firepower of the landing force by an order of magnitude, significantly improve its combat stability and survivability. And the SPRUT-SD self-propelled guns (or "chilled" Vienna) could well take the place of the PT-76. Given the size of the Marine Corps, the problem could have been solved in two to three years. There would be a desire ...
    1. old man54
      old man54 6 November 2013 23: 05
      +1
      Quote: rudolff
      there is no problem to re-equip the Marine Corps with new equipment, there is a spit and a nonsense. The mere replacement of cardboard armored personnel carriers with BMP-3F could increase the firepower of an assault by an order of magnitude and significantly improve its combat stability and survival. A self-propelled guns Sprut-SD

      good hi wink
  19. captain
    captain 7 November 2013 17: 58
    -1
    Marine Corps should be withdrawn from the Navy into a separate branch of the armed forces, and in the future, combined with the Airborne Forces in mobile forces.
  20. captain
    captain 7 November 2013 17: 59
    0
    Marine Corps should be withdrawn from the Navy into a separate branch of the armed forces, and in the future, combined with the Airborne Forces in mobile forces.
  21. dentitov
    dentitov 10 November 2013 17: 14
    +1
    Quote: Andrew Y.
    sorry ... Airborne rear rats ??? the paper will endure, but in life dear, you would already be in a coma .... negative


    He wanted to say something else. That the resistance of the Airborne Forces will be provided by less combat-ready troops (that is, "rear rats"), in contrast to the Marines, who will have to fight with more combat-ready units.
  22. REDBLUE
    REDBLUE 13 November 2013 15: 04
    0
    It’s time, and then everywhere they’re talking about the two elites of the Airborne Forces and the Marines, but in fact all the landing