Military Review

Airborne Forces 2014 will receive 200 upgraded BMD-2

25
During 2014, the fleet of combat vehicles of the Airborne Forces of Russia will replenish 200 with the upgraded airborne assault landing vehicles - BMD-2. It is planned that the machines will receive a more advanced weapon stabilizer 2E36 of the new generation, as well as the radio station P-168. It is worth noting that in the Airborne Forces the process of updating the armaments and military equipment models in service is ongoing. For example, by the end of this year more than 30 modernized BMD-2 will be transferred to the military units of the Russian airborne troops.


In 2013, the supply of modernized BMD-2 vehicles is carried out within the framework of the current government contract for the overhaul of combat vehicles, which was concluded in the spring of this year. For this competition, the price of which amounted to 170 million rubles, it was necessary to overhaul the 34 BMD-2. In parallel with the modernization and repair of BMD-2, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation is engaged in the repair and modernization of BMD-1.

The BMD-2 combat vehicles have long since established themselves from the very positive side, Russian paratroopers consider the BMD-2 a very tenacious machine that is unpretentious in operation and very reliable. In addition, the machine has a fairly good fire capabilities. Its armament consists of 30-2 42-mm automatic guns and 2-x machine guns of 7,62-mm caliber, as well as a complex of antitank guided weapons. Currently, the airborne unit combat equipment comes under contracts concluded under the State Defense Order for 2011-2020 years. As of 2012, the year in the Russian Airborne Forces was about 600 BMD-2.

Airborne Forces 2014 will receive 200 upgraded BMD-2

BMD-2 is in service with the national army, starting with the 1985 year. Main weapon The machine is its automatic 30 millimeter rifled 2A42 gun and the PKT submachine gun 7,62-mm machine gun paired with it. The landed vehicle has a mass of 8,2 tons and is able to reach speeds of up to 60 km / h. The power reserve of the BMD-2 is about 450 km. The crew of the assault vehicle consists of 2 people, the number of assault forces is 5 people.

BMD-2

After measures taken to modernize the BMP-1 and the development of a new infantry fighting vehicle, which received the designation BMP-2, the USSR decided to strengthen the BMD-1 weapons. The KB of the Volgograd Tractor Plant was entrusted with solving this problem, the work was headed by A. Shabalin. The development of a new airborne assault vehicle began at the beginning of the 1980-ies, and already in 1985, the new vehicle was put into service with the airborne units. The serial production of the new assault vehicle was carried out at the facilities of the Volgograd Tractor Plant.

The main difference between the BMD-2 “Booth” and its predecessor was the new weapons complex, which in its composition was completely identical to the weapons complex that was installed on the BMP-2. Like the BMD-1, a new airborne assault vehicle could be transported by air, it was easily placed in the cargo cabins of military transport helicopters and airplanes. A special parachute platform, P-2 or P-7, equipped with a multi-domed parachute system, was used to land the BMD-16 from the air. Also for landing from the air can be used recently created parachute-reactive systems - PRSM-925. With the help of such a system, the BMD-2 can be parachuted from an Il-76 military transport aircraft, located at an altitude of 500-1500 meters.



Layout

The crew of the vehicle (with a landing force), as in the previous version, consists of 7 people: driver, commander, gunner-operator and 4 arrow. The BMD-2 has a classic layout for this class of machines, its scheme is similar to the BMD-1: in the front of the case is the control compartment with the driver’s seats (center), the commander (left) and the machine gunner (right), in the middle the combat vehicle installed a tower with weapons and a gunner-operator, the other members of the landing force are located behind the tower. The rear part of the BMD-2 hull is occupied by logistic equipment, in which a power block is fastened along the axis of the combat vehicle on 3's supports, which was entirely borrowed from the BMD-1. Due to the placement of the cooling system in the side compartments and the relatively small height of the engine, dismounting of paratroopers through the hatch located in the stern is possible.

BMD-2 has a welded body, which is made of a special armored aluminum alloy. The armor of the vehicle protects the crew and landing force against large-caliber 12,7-mm armor-piercing ammunition in frontal projection and provides all-round protection of the vehicle against ammunition of the caliber 7,62-mm. In front of the hatch, installed above the driver's seat, is the 3 of the TNPO-170А surveillance device.

weaponry

For firing from 30-mm automatic cannon can be used ammunition with fragmentation tracer (OT), fragmentation futono-incendiary (OFZ) and armor-piercing tracer (BT) projectiles. BT-projectiles are designed to combat the lightly armored targets of the enemy (such as armored personnel carriers or infantry fighting vehicles), as well as its firing points at a distance of 2 kilometers. The cartridges with OT and OFZ-projectiles are designed to combat the enemy’s infantry and various unarmored ground targets at a distance of up to 4-km. Also, these projectiles can be used to combat low-flying air targets moving at subsonic speeds at altitudes up to 2 thousand meters and slant distances up to 2,5 thousand meters. The 2А42 gun is powered by 2 tapes. Tapes include individual links that are stacked in the power supply system stores. In the front compartment of such a shop there is a ribbon for 100 cartridges with BT shells, and in the rear compartment there is a ribbon for 200 cartridges with OFZ or OT shells. In addition, the BMD-2 has two PCT 7,62-mm machine guns, one of which is paired with the gun, and the second is mounted from the right side of the machine.


In addition, the BMD-2 is equipped with a 9K111 guided missile system, the main purpose of which is to combat tanks, as well as other mobile well-armored enemy targets that move at speeds up to 60 km / h. ATGMs can also be used to combat enemy pillboxes and bunkers, as well as helicopters hovering above the battlefield, provided they are in the optical visibility zone at a distance of up to 4 km. This complex consists of PU 9P135M and ATGM type 9M113 "Competition" and 9M1 IM (9M111-2) "Bassoon". The BMD-2 ammunition includes 3 guided anti-tank missiles (2 Bassoons and 1 Competition). All 3 ATGMs are located on the port side of the vehicle.

To guide anti-tank guided missiles over a wireline, ground control equipment is used, which includes the 9Sh119М1 pointing device and the 9-474 hardware unit. In the stowed position, the PU without a tripod is mounted on a special bracket located near the seat of the BMD commander. The tripod is mounted on the roof of the middle compartment of the car on the right side of the tower. In a combat position, the launcher without a tripod and with the limiter of the angles of vertical guidance is mounted on a special bracket located on the right side of the hatch of the gunner-operator. The working angles of guidance of the 9P135М PU in the horizontal plane are from 15 degrees to the left to 37 degrees to the right, in the vertical plane from -5 to + 10 degrees. In the case of the tower itself turning, the horizontal guidance angle of the PU is full 360 degrees. If necessary, the launcher can be installed separately from the airborne assault vehicle in a specially prepared firing position.

Information sources:
http://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/[email protected]
http://www.army-guide.com/rus/product1025.html
http://rosinform.ru/2013/11/11/vdv-rossii-do-kontsa-2014-goda-poluchat-bolee-200-modernizirovannykh-bmd-2
http://lenta.ru/news/2013/11/11/bmd2
http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/ALL_OUT/TiVOut0809/PzVDV/PzVDV031.htm
Author:
25 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. donavi49
    donavi49 14 November 2013 10: 01
    +2
    Yes, now they are very massively remaking kopecks into deuces.
    1. Serg 122
      Serg 122 14 November 2013 15: 32
      +9
      How much can you? Why can not equip parts of the airborne forces with fours or at least triples? How much candy can I make from ram?
  2. Dangerous
    Dangerous 14 November 2013 10: 07
    10
    So I look at these photos and think - how long will our soldiers ride in these coffin trucks ?? Now almost all the bandits, in small groups, have grenade launchers and RPGs that, from the first hit, will destroy the BMD and cripple or kill the paratroopers. The same applies to mine protection, which simply does not exist. In addition, can anyone recall when it was real, and not during exercises, that an airborne landing was carried out ??
    1. Kolovrat77
      Kolovrat77 14 November 2013 10: 45
      +9
      You Dangerous have an 7 RPG grenade launcher and a cover group (small winked ), the task is to attack the airborne squad on the 2 BMD (the number of grenades, personal weapons and all the equipment at your discretion):
      A) in defense
      B) on the march
      C) in the offensive, your actions. I want to understand and you understand correctly my interest, which did not please the 2 BMD. Please explain, maybe I will also change my mind. And another question, what did you mean by RPG:
      A) manual anti-tank grenade launcher
      B) a manual anti-tank grenade
      C) anti-tank rocket-propelled grenade.
      1. Dangerous
        Dangerous 14 November 2013 11: 19
        +1
        Am I a bearded man or a Wahhabi ?? And they have not only all of the above, but also abruptly. I do not care about BMD2, to be honest. I didn’t ride in it and I’m not going to ride, but I’m very sorry for the boys who are blown up in it in hot spots
        1. Kolovrat77
          Kolovrat77 14 November 2013 12: 28
          10
          Quote: Dangerous
          And they have not only all of the above, but also abruptly

          And we have charters and instructions (written in blood), competent officers and soldiers. You understand if, somewhere, the bomber was pulled. The officer, the intelligence, the sappers, the crew in the end, were overlooked, somewhere they didn’t take into account, they wafted it, it was laziness, it was mean and all that. This is a war-fighting people with all their flaws. We are talking about the landing, the landing can be fought on carts, but for some reason there is a BMD fire, maneuver, vehicle and some kind of armor but there is (better than a motorcycle with a sidecar). The boys are sorry for the pain, to tears. Your suggestions, what should be done? So I want to ask the power engineer, do you know how many children per year die (become disabled) in Russia? And in the CIS? And turn almost all pros and bullets do not fly. And there is money and everyone buys a super duper, one horseradish burned there, flew in there. I wrote my personal opinion, if you correct me I will be very grateful.
    2. itr
      itr 14 November 2013 11: 38
      +2
      Dangerous completely agree with you! but there is one thing but. to develop a completely new technique it will take a lot of time plus after carrying out these measures the weight of the machine will be more that after it leads to the replacement of delivery vehicles I'm talking about an airplane, a helicopter, but as far as I know
      So let them upgrade and at the same time develop new technology. Yes, for new technology, another tactic is also needed.
      In short, a lot of pitfalls
      1. Patton5
        Patton5 14 November 2013 23: 41
        0
        Install a KAZ like the Ukrainian "Zaslon", that would be the case ... I think to go on the march, they would be inside the car
    3. Alekseev
      Alekseev 14 November 2013 12: 38
      12
      Quote: Dangerous
      So I look at these photos and think - how long will our soldiers ride in these coffin trucks ?? Now almost all the bandits, in small groups there are grenade launchers and RPGs, which from the first

      It’s hard to be wooden to the waist! So much has already been chewed on this score!
      BMD is a light airmobile combat vehicle. In poor countries, instead of such vehicles, they use a pickup truck with a machine gun, ATGM, etc.
      And in order to withstand a grenade launcher or PT mine, and then not 100%. make special heavy armored personnel carriers weighing about fifty tons or MRAP weighing tons under 30. For your tasks.
      Because "our soldiers" do not ride in "coffin trucks", but move to complete tasks.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 14 November 2013 12: 45
        +2
        Quote: Alekseev
        It’s hard to be wooden to the waist! So much has already been chewed on this score!
        BMD is a light airmobile combat vehicle.

        This is not good about the opponent. Moreover, if you yourself are mistaken. BMDs are not "airborne", they are "airborne" with all the ensuing problems. It is possible to significantly increase their security by transferring them to the category of "airmobile" ones. And, probably, it is necessary.

        If you don't pray for "airborne landing"
        1. Kolovrat77
          Kolovrat77 14 November 2013 13: 06
          0
          And if you make the Beshka as protected as possible for the possibility of parachute landing (for the VDD), develop a set of mounted armor for it, for attack aircraft (air mobility).
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 14 November 2013 13: 09
            +3
            A set of mounted armor has long been developed. What is the problem, I don’t know.
        2. Dangerous
          Dangerous 14 November 2013 13: 34
          +5
          I support. Myths about the usefulness of airborne landing have gone back to Soviet times, so I asked earlier who would tell me when the BMD airborne assault was last used. And now there are completely different threats in the world, such as terrorism and local conflicts, where the dumping of equipment from the air is not needed nafik, but security and firepower are needed. But we are stubbornly supplied to the troops with outdated equipment, but under the brand name "modernized"
          1. Nagaibak
            Nagaibak 14 November 2013 14: 26
            +2
            Dangerous. "And now there are completely different threats in the world, such as terrorism and local conflicts."
            Come on!!
            And no other threats?
          2. Serg 122
            Serg 122 14 November 2013 21: 55
            +1
            But we are stubbornly supplied to the troops with outdated equipment, but under the brand name "modernized"
            Do you know what else infuriates? GLONASS was poking around! 12 lamas set! Why did he rest there? "Any mechanic can now contact the Minister of Defense personally." Oh well...
        3. Alekseev
          Alekseev 14 November 2013 14: 08
          +3
          Quote: Spade
          BMDs are not "airborne", they are "airborne"

          There is no need to play artificially with terms. The main battle tank is "airmobile" with your approach. yes
          But he has other tasks, there are no tank units in the Airborne Forces. (And the VTA has sufficient resources)
          Although Grachev, at one time, wanted to include one battalion in their composition. (what for?)
          And than to conjugate the non-conjugate, then it’s better to put soldiers in heavy protected vehicleswhen in front of the infantry, albeit "winged", there are corresponding tasks. How not to weigh BMD, MRAP cannot be made from it.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 14 November 2013 14: 27
            +1
            Quote: Alekseev
            No artificial game of terms.

            Is this an "artificial game"? T-90 is aircraft mobile.
            1. Alekseev
              Alekseev 14 November 2013 16: 40
              +2
              Quote: Spade
              Is this an "artificial game"? T-90 is aircraft mobile.

              Mobile, mobile. yes But, to put it more correctly, aircraft mobility for the t-90 and any MBT is not Home mobility.
              Unlike BMD. So, in terms of weight and dimensions, it was made for air mobility and airborne landing of the "noble". yes
              But ... at the same time, it is not possible to achieve good security, like a heavy BTT.
          2. Kolovrat77
            Kolovrat77 14 November 2013 14: 46
            0
            MRAP I do not understand why it is needed in the army, in particular in the Airborne Forces, it can carry bread to the front or in the occupation units, but this is not our method. partisans cannot be an occupier.
          3. Xroft
            Xroft 14 November 2013 22: 59
            0
            on another question we will ask which is better BMD-2 or BMD-4? The answer is obvious ... the question is why do not buy? and there’s * Octopus * (aisers can afford, and we don’t?) ... but a lot of things, if we are talking about equipping troops with new types of weapons (as all mass media are ringing) and in the end we get a t-72 with a curve optics and without armor, BMD-2 obsolete, etc. And how much money is written off for these upgrades? This is just wrecking, if the whole state. Until 2020 will be in this spirit, why did he give up? I would like to see brigades armed with t-90s, Octopus, Terminators and all the new products that our defense complex can offer ... and not look at painted junk at the price of novya (already passed).
        4. Patton5
          Patton5 15 November 2013 00: 05
          0
          To create a chassis that with a margin will have a carrying capacity and the maximum possible protection against mines, operate normally with additional (main) armor + KAZ. At the same time, leave the possibility of airborne landing and sailing, the "add." of course, make them modular (a tribute to fashion) ... And so yes, the reorganization of airborne> airmobile
      2. Dangerous
        Dangerous 14 November 2013 13: 38
        0
        For what are these tasks? All the same tasks, moving manpower to a particular area. only abroad have long realized that it is better to make the transport normal and protected and protect the soldiers thereby, than to invent a property that is not used anywhere, such as "airborne landing" and already proceeding from this, on the residual principle, to engage in armor
  3. rrrd
    rrrd 14 November 2013 11: 08
    +1
    Quote: Kolovrat77
    You Dangerous have an 7 RPG grenade launcher and a cover group (small winked ), the task is to attack the airborne squad on the 2 BMD (the number of grenades, personal weapons and all the equipment at your discretion):
    A) in defense
    B) on the march
    C) in the offensive, your actions. I want to understand and you understand correctly my interest, which did not please the 2 BMD. Please explain, maybe I will also change my mind. And another question, what did you mean by RPG:
    A) manual anti-tank grenade launcher
    B) a manual anti-tank grenade
    C) anti-tank rocket-propelled grenade.


    He wanted to say where the new BMD 4 !!! ???
    1. Kolovrat77
      Kolovrat77 14 November 2013 11: 41
      +1
      There are few ordered BMDs 4M.
      1. itr
        itr 14 November 2013 11: 58
        0
        Kolovrat
        I just watched BMD 4, to be honest, I was not really surprised
        and as far as I remember in these machines there wasn’t even navigation ((((
        1. Kolovrat77
          Kolovrat77 14 November 2013 12: 44
          +3
          Quote: itr
          and as far as I remember in these cars there wasn’t even navigation

          navigation at the landing compass and moss in the forest, and the barometer wounded leg of the commander smile
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 14 November 2013 13: 12
            0
            The "Rheostat" has navigation
        2. Lopatov
          Lopatov 14 November 2013 13: 11
          0
          Isn't there a TNA there?
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov 14 November 2013 12: 46
        0
        Dear, infections ...
  4. Terrible ensign
    Terrible ensign 14 November 2013 11: 22
    0
    As for the course machine gun, it is still on the left side on the "two". Colleagues who served on the "two", please specify ....
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. RUSBAT
      RUSBAT 17 November 2013 08: 45
      0
      Quote: Scary Warrant Officer
      As for the course machine gun, it is still on the left side on the "two". Colleagues who served on the "two", please specify ....

      From the starboard side.
  5. Alexey
    Alexey 14 November 2013 11: 33
    +3
    It would be better if more BMD-4m were given to the troops
    1. Russ69
      Russ69 14 November 2013 14: 08
      +1
      Quote: Alex
      It would be better if more BMD-4m were given to the troops

      The first experienced ones should be this year, as well as "Shell".
      Starting next year, most likely) BMDs, they will still put ACS, they promise to deliver more than a hundred.
      During the planned deliveries of weapons and equipment in 2014, more than 100 units of airborne landing, amphibious assault vehicles (BMD) with automated control system (ACS) will be delivered to the Airborne Troops formations, Interfax-AVN reported citing an official representative Airborne Forces Lieutenant Colonel Evgeny Meshkov
      Read more: http://vpk-news.ru/news/18199
  6. Dimon-chik-79
    Dimon-chik-79 14 November 2013 11: 39
    +1
    Oh, for whom, but for the airborne forces and marines it was possible to create new equipment, there is nothing to save here! Scientific and technological progress does not stand still wassat And after 25 years, you can find something and accomplishment. This is especially true for armor, especially since small arms and ammunition develop very dynamically.
    Yes, and it’s not clear why all the same they abandoned the BMD-4 ...
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 14 November 2013 12: 53
      +3
      Quote: Dimon-chik-79
      Oh, for whom, but for the airborne forces and marines it was possible to create new equipment, there is nothing to save here!

      There is nothing to save on the main infantry strike force. Everyone else can wait.
      1. Kolovrat77
        Kolovrat77 14 November 2013 13: 17
        0
        I AGREE ++++, so far BMD 2.
  7. the47th
    the47th 14 November 2013 12: 38
    0
    It is not clear: will they buy new BMD-2s or will they modernize machines already in service? If you buy new ones, then this is the height of idiocy.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 14 November 2013 12: 52
      0
      Apparently this is a modernization. Although I have a word, I do not understand what it is. I hope someone from "nobody but us" will enlighten.
  8. tchoni
    tchoni 14 November 2013 12: 57
    0
    Modernization is certainly good. Still to understand how good she is. I would like to see an article similar to the articles on the modernized T-72B3.

    And as for BMD-eshoks, I generally have one misunderstanding: why can’t I make this technique (didn’t do it initially) wheeled?
    And yet, as a remark, in my opinion, lightweight equipment like the BMD needs a tougher separation of the functions of fire support and transportation of personnel.
    In this case, the same grenade launcher will choose.
    1. builder
      builder 14 November 2013 19: 17
      +3
      1. 'The airborne will increase the proportion of armored vehicles on wheels,the equipment that we are offered today after modernization, and even new, I mean the BMD-4, does not fully meet the mobility requirements, which manifested itself in the South Ossetian direction, when after the blasting on a landmine the tracked vehicle lost its ability to move, at that time how a wheeled armored personnel carrier, after detonating two landmines on both sides, retained, albeit limited, the ability to move and could reach the specified milestone to complete the task ”. Shamans.
      http://www.vz.ru/society/2009/7/29/312515.html
      2.- How do you feel about the statement of the Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces on the advisability of transferring most of the general-purpose armored vehicles to the wheelbase?
      - With caution. I believe that such conceptual decisions should be approached carefully, on a scientific basis, taking into account combat experience and without campaigning. The Concept for the Development of Airborne Forces until 2025, approved by the Chief of the General Staff, assumes that airborne battalions and support units in airborne formations will be equipped with airborne and amphibious tracked vehicles.
      Of course, we do not exclude the appearance in the Airborne Forces and wheeled armored vehicles, identical to the equipment of the Ground Forces. Reconnaissance units and special forces, for example, may be armed with armored vehicles "Lynx", but first we will definitely test this vehicle in the course of experimental military operation. The question of conducting such tests is now being worked out. If "Lynx" shows good results and really suits us, I do not exclude that we can also arm electronic warfare units and regimental anti-tank batteries with it.
      At the same time, airborne combat units should only be on tracks, because both the Afghan experience and the experience of the three Caucasian campaigns have clearly shown that wheeled vehicles behave capriciously even on medium-rugged terrain. Of course, if you fight on highways, wheeled armored vehicles will give a serious head start to the tracks: they are faster and have a much greater resource. Only all the wars in which the paratroopers had a chance to participate in the last 30 years have clearly shown that when the "wheels" move off the highway into rough terrain, they immediately start having problems.
      Shamans.
      (РИА Новости http://ria.ru/interview/20120801/713822390.html#ixzz2kdJ0iW8D)
      1. tchoni
        tchoni 15 November 2013 09: 56
        0
        Shamanov, of course, is a reputable comrade and has the ability to compare, one from my own experience I will say that the BTR-80 is not much inferior to the BMP in cross-country ability. Only if on tubeless and in the "mud sea"
  9. andru_007
    andru_007 14 November 2013 13: 12
    +3
    Instead of purchasing a BMD-4, they are sawing money for upgrading an obsolete machine ...
    This is sad angry
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 14 November 2013 13: 18
      +2
      Quote: andru_007
      Instead of purchasing a BMD-4, they are sawing money for upgrading an obsolete machine ...

      BMD-4 is not released now, only BMD-4M. But that’s not the point. These are heavy cars. And very expensive, at a cost at the level of T-90 of the first releases.

      The airborne forces are now at a crossroads, so it’s not so straightforward.
  10. Conepatus
    Conepatus 14 November 2013 13: 17
    +2
    About the BMD-4, the military said that it did not provide adequate protection for the crew, then the price did not suit. As a result, they came up with the modernization of the BMD-2. At the BMD-2, what is the protection of the crew at the level? They pour from empty to empty, but things are still there .By 2020, new models of equipment will be "a cat cried", but "modernized" junk, on which "grandfathers fought", will be immeasurable.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 14 November 2013 13: 23
      -2
      Quote: Conepatus
      About the BMD-4, the military said it did not provide adequate protection for the crew, then the price did not suit. As a result, they came up with the modernization of the BMD-2

      Sorry, but this is not the case. The thing is completely different. The point is weight and cost.
      1. Conepatus
        Conepatus 14 November 2013 13: 29
        +3
        Do you think modernization will be cheaper for the budget? So it was arranged in order to cut money. But I do not believe the officials from the army. Neither ours nor yours.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 14 November 2013 13: 33
          +1
          Quote: Conepatus
          So it was arranged in order to cut money.

          To support the domestic manufacturer.
  11. kafa
    kafa 14 November 2013 15: 12
    +3
    I can’t argue with those who are ready in their shorts using only a vest to capture the archipelago of the Azores, but I will not give them money.
    and for an adult, this technique burns for 10 seconds thanks to ao huyna armor. on the ground there remains an aluminum puddle interspersed with weapons-grade scrap metal and unburned biomaterial - CREW.

    YES YOU CAN MINUSE ME ON KITCHEN FUN. I have not been there killed for me .......
  12. gallville
    gallville 14 November 2013 15: 52
    +7
    And what do people not like?
    In 2014, we get 200 cars.
    212 BMD-1 to the level of BMD-2 2013-2014 As I understand it, in addition to the 135 already cited.
    http://vpk.name/news/88576_minoboronyi_obyavilo_tender_na_modernizaciyu_bmd1.htm

    l

    The result?
    34+212+135+200=581 ед. БМД-2 after kapitalki still better than those machines that are now in service.
    As a result of the alteration of the BMD-1 in the BMD-2, the level of weapon unification is increasing, which is good.
    On the other hand, we have the same situation as the T-72B3 - frankly redneck modernization.

    As for the shouts that again "coffins" are so because they are airborne and it is not possible to protect them from RPGs as a result of this at the moment.
    As for the comparison with the BMD-4m. On armor - both will burn from RPGs. That's just BMD-2 run-in and learned far and wide - the operation is completely completed.
    But the greediness of the "modernization" of the BMD-2 is simply a shock. Was it a pity to hook up the AGS and new ATGMs?
    How to buy 7 new toys at the price of a T-90 tank - 80 million rubles (BMD-4m), to go for a ride (for military trials) and then say "Oh, and Kurganets has appeared" so we "can".
    http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20130423/934101424.html
    And how to deal with machines that can go into battle right now because it did not work out - a stabilizer + a walkie-talkie is enough.
  13. kafa
    kafa 14 November 2013 16: 09
    +4
    no words (The text of your comment is too short and, in the opinion of the site’s administration, does not carry useful information.)
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 15 November 2013 08: 34
      +2
      Everything is on fire, including the 70-ton "Merkava". A tank or BMD is not a bomb shelter, so that there are fewer losses, you just need to have competent commanders and well-trained soldiers who use various armored vehicles for their intended purpose.
  14. Sanamana
    Sanamana 14 November 2013 16: 26
    +2
    170 million for 200 cars? Some kind of thin modernization.
    1. kafa
      kafa 14 November 2013 16: 44
      +1
      it does not need to be reanimated. need to do new
  15. alexmaneger
    alexmaneger 14 November 2013 18: 41
    +1
    The car may have been good for its time, but let's face it. It is morally and especially physically long obsolete and its entire modernization is just the same as an injection into the prosthesis, and even in a compartment, to all this, take into account that it was never used for its intended purpose, like all airborne forces including. Something better, of course, than BMD 1, just a BMP for airborne with krnstein for slings.
  16. e3tozy
    e3tozy 14 November 2013 19: 27
    +4
    Greetings to all! Unfortunately, this is not the Airborne Forces at the crossroads, this is a trend in the rearmament program of the RF Armed Forces. When Sergei Shoigu took over the Moscow Region, he and Mr. Rogozin examined the BMD-4M and exclaimed: “Why hasn’t been adopted yet.” Recently there was information about replacing the BMD with the BTR-82, now the BMD-2. There are also uncertainties with Octopus, although after the Chechen company it was decided to arm the units of the Airborne Forces with heavy weapons. This situation is not only in the Airborne Forces. In tank units the same thing. Of the three main tanks, the T-72, T-80, T-90, the modernized T-72 remains in service, and the wait for “Almaty” is not an excuse, most likely due to its high cost it will not be a mass tank. Castration of the MiG, an attempt to shove the stuffing and armament of the frigate into the corvette, and so on. If you call everything by their proper names, then this is another optimization. If someone thinks we’ll wait a bit, and then by 2020 we’re mistaken to re-arm. Money for the army is needed round the clock day by day, from month to month, from year to year continuously. While all prospective equipment will be developed, brought to mind, put on the conveyor, it will already require modernization, and also funds will again be needed for more promising weapons. This is an ongoing process. We have already lost 20 years and another 10-15 will pass until promising weapons begin to arrive in droves. The technology park does not even age, it becomes ancient. So you need to buy now and BMD-4M and T-90SM, and BMP-3, and MiG-35, and so on today or even yesterday.
    1. Conepatus
      Conepatus 14 November 2013 19: 39
      +1
      This is not called optimization, but "we take what we can still release".
      And there’s nothing to be surprised at. KB (and even not all) can still give out new projects, but the production base, they cannot master these projects. The equipment is old, they don’t invest in the training of workers. Here it turns out that BMD-2 and T- 72B3 is the maximum that can be. Everything else, either in small series, or for export
    2. gallville
      gallville 14 November 2013 21: 12
      0
      Quote: e3tozy
      When Sergei Shoigu took over the Moscow Region, he and Mr. Rogozin examined the BMD-4M and exclaimed: “Why hasn’t been adopted yet?”

      Because there were no military tests? Or maybe because 1 piece is 80 million rubles? Or maybe because the car is conceptually of the 20th century, and we are in 21?
      Or what is burning from an RPG, and inside a pile of 30 more OFS shells of 100mm each? Can you imagine "Fireworks" in case of defeat?
      Quote: e3tozy
      Recently there was information about the replacement of BMD on the BTR-82

      Nothing like that in the airborne forces were BTR-80 they are being changed to BTR-82.
      Quote: e3tozy
      . There are also uncertainties with Octopus, although after the Chechen company it was decided to arm the units of the Airborne Forces with heavy weapons.

      DSBB is already on land equipment and transferred to the command of the Airborne Forces.
      Quote: e3tozy
      the modernized T-72 remains, and the expectation of “Almaty” is not an excuse; most likely, due to its high cost, it will not be a mass tank.

      Only the army will remain in the active forces - 2 thousand T-72 will be at the storage bases as mobilization - as he thought about it, plus and minus.
      Quote: e3tozy
      So what needs to be purchased now and BMD-4M and T-90SM, and BMP-3

      BMD-4m is not much different from the NORMAL version of the modernization of the BMD-2 - it is enough to bring the BMD-2 weapons to the level of the banks.
      T-90SM - in fact, if the B3 had been brought to mind (the next news everything is specifically painted there - in the right place is Sosna, ZPU, Onboard DZ, panorama to the commander) then the T-90SM is no longer needed.
      BMP-3 - if you start again the mass production of BMP-3 - this is a rejection of Kurgan which is already in the metal. Yes, BMP-3 will be relevant for another 20 years, but conceptually this is modernism of the 20th century with all moral and technical problems, be it the application concept (nuclear war) or the layout of the machine (BO inside - the module has not been moved out and there excuse me 30 OFS shells 100mm, booking bulletproof, dubious DZ).
      So they are forced to repair what is based on the ratio of price-quality-time. With the second with quality, there are obvious jambs especially when considering the T-72B3 and BMD-2.
      Although the alteration from the BTR-80 to the BTR-82 was clearly a success.
      As for aviation, this is a topic for another conversation, highly classified objects. As regards the fleet, everything rests on the concept of its application - so far they cannot articulate it clearly, such as in the USA aircraft carriers, as in the USSR, nuclear submarines, nuclear submarines, and other options. So the industry is building a child prodigy such as a frigate in a corvette and a corvette in a motor boat.
      1. Flooding
        Flooding 15 November 2013 13: 07
        +1
        Quote: gallville
        The army will only armata - 2 thousand.

        I liked this phrase the most.
        I will not touch on issues of implementation, resources and time.
        But in principle, for the Russian Federation 2 thousand tanks do you think is a sufficient number?
        1. gallville
          gallville 15 November 2013 14: 03
          0
          Quote: Flood
          I liked this phrase the most.
          I will not touch on issues of implementation, resources and time.
          But in principle, for the Russian Federation 2 thousand tanks do you think is a sufficient number?

          Personally, I think not. Reform of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation considers yes.
          Personally, my opinion needs to form 2 more tank divisions of them. Since in the event of a really serious conflict (China, NATO), trained existing tank crews of these units will be able to effectively support the mobilized infantry.
          If we consider that 2 divisions are about 800 tanks, then 3 thousand tanks in the operating Armed Forces of the Russian Federation at the time of "peace" time is enough. (in the warehouses, 5 thousand more T-72s will hopefully be brought to at least B3 level).
          In principle: Shoigu decided to revive the Kantemirov’s division - let’s look at the implementation, while in fact this is still a tank brigade.
  17. Prohor
    Prohor 14 November 2013 19: 55
    +3
    During 2014, the Airborne Forces will receive 200 upgraded BMD-2s ...
    And also 43 upgraded carts, 28 upgraded catapults and 300 advanced sets of XNUMXth century Streltsy dresses! Bravo!!! fellow
  18. GVARDEETS
    GVARDEETS 14 November 2013 19: 59
    16
    "Mekhanom" walked along the hills for several dozen miles. the infantry fired over us: "Oh, the landing party rolled on their scooters!" And I am on the "airborne" of my beloved "TWO" loaded like a donkey: 2 BC on the armor, a stove, tents, food rations, erdeshkas, grenades, and so on .... ny, 5-7 guardsmen, the with my bk and junk, I flew and climbed there, nothing wheeled or tracked, but only my beshka could pass! it was our little rink house! eh, I can’t flood, I’ll go raise my "17" BOX, pump up 756 !!! drinks soldier
  19. castle
    castle 14 November 2013 23: 49
    0
    Question. For what war is the airborne forces made? If you are against your people and on your own territory, then you can also drop BMD from airplanes, but it will be cheaper on the ground. If Europe or the USA is crushed for themselves, they won’t reach. Maybe it’s better to train all the infantry as a trace, so that they fight almost at the level of airborne troops? It will be expensive, but it will not be necessary to throw money out of the BMD; again, there will be savings. Then the money will remain for the professional army and for the preparation of the reserve.
  20. And Us Rat
    And Us Rat 15 November 2013 05: 54
    +1
    Quote: Kolovrat77
    You Dangerous have an 7 RPG grenade launcher and a cover group (small winked ), the task is to attack the airborne squad on the 2 BMD (the number of grenades, personal weapons and all the equipment at your discretion):
    A) in defense
    B) on the march
    C) in the offensive, your actions. I want to understand and you understand correctly my interest, which did not please the 2 BMD. Please explain, maybe I will also change my mind. And another question, what did you mean by RPG:
    A) manual anti-tank grenade launcher
    B) a manual anti-tank grenade
    C) anti-tank rocket-propelled grenade.


    Intrigued winked
    We take a platoon (3 BMD and 22 people. Personnel) in the offensive. At my discretion - I will take a mortar 60 mm. 2 machine gunner, one 7.62 and one 5.56, both without a second number. One grenade launcher with smoke (to the commander), 2 sniper with silent automation (SR-25 for example) and the grenade launcher itself (RPG-16 with a thermal imaging sight and cumulative grenades).

    In the course of the platoon’s attack, I’ll organize a defense line in an open area, mortar crew shelter (the knoll will descend) machine gun nests with on the approaches to the mortar (50 m removal), 350-400 snipers from one flank (camouflage network, if in haste) , calculation of RPG meters 200 from the second flank. All camouflaged properly, without frills. (Total 9 people trained soldiers from the combat unit)
    From the maximum distance, the mortar starts a provocative fire, and lures the platoon onto itself when the landing assault begins the maneuver to the mortar position - the machine guns are also turned on at maximum distances in order to link the advance of the infantry, snipers start aimed fire on the flank, primarily for radio operators and machine gunners, the commander puts a smokescreen in front of between machine guns and a platoon to prevent BMD aimed fire at machine gun nests, the task of machine guns is to disturb a dense fire, they can simply beat through the smoke to the side rotivnika immediately after - veil between platoon and calculation RPG, which starts with the second side run through the smoke by thermal signature BMD. And at the end - with the snipers and mortar of the remaining infantry.

    This is a vaping plan, with 10-15 min preparation. I think that the probability of success of such an attack is quite high with proper coordination of actions, with minimal losses. And if you give the commander control over a mini UAV with a laser designator, and a system like NLOS-LS or JUMPER at a distance of kilometers in 15 ... the result will be obvious.

    That's how it is, constructive criticism from professionals is welcome.
    1. tchoni
      tchoni 15 November 2013 10: 16
      0
      And what will happen if the landing under the mortar fire leaves and stupidly starts a shootout?
    2. gallville
      gallville 15 November 2013 14: 23
      +1
      Quote: And Us Rat
      We take a platoon (3 BMD and 22 people. Personnel) in the offensive. At my discretion - I will take a mortar 60 mm. 2 machine gunner, one 7.62 and one 5.56, both without a second number. One grenade launcher with smoke (to the commander), 2 sniper with silent automation (SR-25 for example) and the grenade launcher itself (RPG-16 with a thermal imaging sight and cumulative grenades).

      In the course of the platoon’s attack, I’ll organize a defense line in an open area, mortar crew shelter (the knoll will descend) machine gun nests with on the approaches to the mortar (50 m removal), 350-400 snipers from one flank (camouflage network, if in haste) , calculation of RPG meters 200 from the second flank. All camouflaged properly, without frills. (Total 9 people trained soldiers from the combat unit)
      From the maximum distance, the mortar begins a provocative fire, and lures the platoon onto itself when the landing starts the attacking maneuver to the mortar position

      It all comes down to secrecy - yes, such an attack on a platoon will be effective. If it is known where you are located, then a competent (or rather, any lieutenant reading a BUSV) will first try to identify your firing points.
      Which will nullify all your efforts.
      If it will be a "cavalry" attack outright - that the height of stupidity, but so loved by our generals. Then, as soon as the mortar starts, the landing force will crawl under the armor, and the armor itself will hide behind a natural shelter on the ground, it is good in our area, and in Europe it is in principle possible to do this. And BMD contributes to the changeable ground clearance and dimensions.
      And further .... further, as per the situation, to call artillery fire on the radio - which is not an option for the paratroopers because the regimental Nona do not strike very far, and the platoon may be in isolation, or send someone for reconnaissance again identifying your points.
      As far as Non is concerned, this is precisely why I believe that in the regiments of the Airborne Forces there should be a division of "lightweight" MSTA-B.
      Or you can just sit under the armor and retreat to a safe distance of firing your RPG at 500m.
      Z. s. in your version most of all "strains" the mortar. how dangerous it is for the infantry sitting on top or walking next to it, and by lowering it into the BMD, the view will be lost and there will be a chance to lose separation from the RPG fire.
      Your trick corresponds to the flag opposite the nickname =)
  21. tchoni
    tchoni 15 November 2013 10: 14
    +1
    I agree with Hrad. The concept of using the Airborne Forces in our village or city. And practice - even more so.
    Especially in the Caucasus. After all, there the landing did not solve its inherent tasks: the assault on fortified settlements, and sticking out on the blocks - this is more to ordinary infantry. They have more suitable equipment for this (the tanks are different there, and the BMP is all protected more seriously than the BMD).

    Destiny of the Airborne Forces - sudden strikes, quick response. The task is to have time to resolve the issue before it develops into a problem. And do not storm well-fortified lines.
  22. And Us Rat
    And Us Rat 15 November 2013 12: 35
    0
    Quote: tchoni
    And what will happen if the landing under the mortar fire leaves and stupidly starts a shootout?


    More precisely. What is the counter scenario? Mortar duel? What kind of shootout? Yes, and I don’t think that a platoon of the airborne forces will pass in front of one mortar, most likely they will bite the bait, if the commander is sensible, he will try to take the mortar point into pincers, the task is to cut it before the separation of forces. Then the script no longer allows us to complete our plans with cash, and we need to command regrouping and withdrawal, this is a game of vabank.
    1. tchoni
      tchoni 18 November 2013 14: 00
      +1
      In general, the scenario here can be said to be regular for the North Caucasus. Depending on the task: if there is a task of reconnaissance nature - to move to the maximum distance and start an exchange of meaningless pleasantries. At the end of reconnaissance, an attack or a call for support. Depends on a situation.

      in general, it is necessary to consider the situation based on the specific task of the platoon and ambush.

      Well, if we ignore this and consider the situation as part of a gladiatorial duel, then the gap between the distance and the subsequent reconnaissance will be the most correct. those. you need to retreat to a distance that excludes direct observation by the enemy, but it is desirable within the range of the AGS fire (there is a regular one in the airborne platoon) And drag it onto the mortar - there are no fools. By itself, he does not shoot, which means either an ambush or mines or some kind of dirty trick
      1. And Us Rat
        And Us Rat 21 November 2013 03: 50
        0
        Quote: tchoni
        In general, the scenario here can be said to be regular for the North Caucasus. Depending on the task: if there is a task of reconnaissance nature - to move to the maximum distance and start an exchange of meaningless pleasantries. At the end of reconnaissance, an attack or a call for support. Depends on a situation.

        in general, it is necessary to consider the situation based on the specific task of the platoon and ambush.

        Well, if we ignore this and consider the situation as part of a gladiatorial duel, then the gap between the distance and the subsequent reconnaissance will be the most correct. those. you need to retreat to a distance that excludes direct observation by the enemy, but it is desirable within the range of the AGS fire (there is a regular one in the airborne platoon) And drag it onto the mortar - there are no fools. By itself, he does not shoot, which means either an ambush or mines or some kind of dirty trick


        Competently good, although I would suggest based on the results of reconnaissance, if possible, a speedy maneuver with approaching the rear of an ambush group, it is dangerous to remain within the AGS range (up to 1700m), because the 60mm mortar covers up to 3200m - which leaves the calculation of the AGS vulnerable. The primary goal is to identify and neutralize the mortar fire spotter.

        It was within the framework of a gladiatorial duel that a question from "Kolovrat77" would have been initially asked, and what was the question - so is the answer. smile

        hi
  23. And Us Rat
    And Us Rat 15 November 2013 12: 35
    -1
    Quote: tchoni
    And what will happen if the landing under the mortar fire leaves and stupidly starts a shootout?


    More precisely. What is the counter scenario? Mortar duel? What kind of shootout? Yes, and I don’t think that a platoon of airborne forces will be paused in front of one mortar, most likely they will bite the bait, if the commander is sensible, he will try to take the mortar point into pincers, the task is to hook him up to the separation of forces with machine gun fire and force him to be distracted by machine guns for very short time, this plan is of course recklessness, but as if I didn’t think it over too much, I specially cut off my platoon and weapons to fit the scenario. (Could 12.7mm snipers, and ATGM write - absolutely Lafa) This is an impromptu bully
  24. And Us Rat
    And Us Rat 16 November 2013 05: 12
    0
    Quote: gallville

    If it will be a "cavalry" attack outright - which is the height of stupidity, but so loved by our generals.


    So this is the stake that is made, first of all, the opponent’s characteristics and level of equipment are taken into account - these are the basics of competent planning, if we were talking about Yusovites, for example, I would choose a different scenario, since I know that they are in a similar scenario - they will sit in the dead defense and try to get the ambush group remotely. In war, the brain is the most destructive weapon available to man.
  25. And Us Rat
    And Us Rat 16 November 2013 05: 21
    0
    Quote: gallville

    And further .... further, as per the situation, call artillery fire on the radio - which is not an option for paratroopers ...


    Namely, we are not talking about motorized rifles on the front lines, which may have artillery support. The task of the Airborne Forces is to act in the depths of the orders of the enemy. And with strong air defense or air superiority of the enemy air force, air support may also be unavailable. By the way, it was for such options that they developed the NLOS-LS and JUMPER that I mentioned earlier. (Google)
  26. And Us Rat
    And Us Rat 16 November 2013 05: 51
    +1
    Quote: gallville

    as soon as the mortar is launched, the landing will climb under the armor, and the armor itself will hide behind natural shelter on the ground, it’s good in our locality and it’s possible to do this in Europe


    That will not complicate my task much, no more, I chose 60 mm, for its mobility, and in some ways even simplified it - with this maneuver, airborne troops lose, or rather give way to, the ambush group. I’ll just start to reduce the distance to me. Here the difference is revealed in the doctrine, in our charter - the loss of initiative is the most undesirable, and the cession of the initiative voluntarily is simply incompetence. Our main doctrine is to try to keep the dynamics of the battle at a level superior to the actions of the enemy, and to keep the enemy in permanent defense. One of the reasons for the relatively high losses in Lebanon in 2006 is the episodic repeated loss by the strategic command of the initiative, due to inconsistency of goals between the General Staff and the Cabinet, and not because of the loss of combat efficiency - as it is fashionable to say. The army was regularly pulled and stopped in an attempt to agree on what to do next, and at these moments, hezbollons immediately passed from defense to attack. (students who are not bad by the way - fighting against us, study on their own skin and not bad - in Syria they are more combat-ready than Assad’s troops)
    1. gallville
      gallville 16 November 2013 15: 09
      0
      Quote: And Us Rat
      So this is the stake that is made, first of all, the opponent’s features and level of equipment are taken into account - these are the basics of competent planning, if we were talking about Yusovites, for example, I would choose a different scenario, since I know that they are in a similar scenario - they will sit in the dead defense and try to get the ambush group remotely.

      Essentially, I described the same thing. There is no difference in this case. Besides one, putting Bradley or a striker on the defensive is clearly more difficult.
      The task of the Airborne Forces is to act in the depths of the orders of the enemy. And with strong air defense or air superiority of the enemy air force, air support may also be unavailable.

      It seems to you even more than I should know that in any conflict air defense is suppressed in the first place. Again, how will the paratroopers end up in the rear with strong air defense, and even on the BMD? Therefore, in fact, it makes sense to rely on air support. On the other hand, as the recent conflict has shown, it is better to rely on yourself - the teachings will show what the reforms have brought. The same amers in their "Airborne Forces" have an M-777 - a 155mm howitzer would be ours, but they don't have a BMD.
      Quote: And Us Rat
      I’ll just start to reduce the distance to me.

      Caught in a standard maneuver - you will find your firing points. That will make it possible to work effectively with BMD guns.
      Quote: And Us Rat
      Here the difference in doctrine is revealed.

      So yes) we have the principle of any action based on goal-identification. As soon as the target has already been identified at the platoon level, there are means to suppress it - compare weapons on armored vehicles.
      On the other hand, given that we have 1 person less in the squad (if the machine gunner doesn’t change his memory), the independence of our platoon squads decreases sharply when the car is lost.
      1. And Us Rat
        And Us Rat 17 November 2013 01: 06
        0
        Quote: gallville
        Essentially, I described the same thing. There is no difference in this case. Besides one, putting Bradley or a striker on the defensive is clearly more difficult.


        Why harder? Bradley is an analogue of the BMP, it is more armored in the class than the BMD. The striker is in its simplest form an analogue of an armored personnel carrier. And besides, it’s also modular. Variations - M1128 - heavy weapon combat vehicle (105-mm gun M68)
        M1129 - 120-mm recoilless mortar “CARDOM”, equipped with Elbit Systems fire control system (8km, 16v / min).
        I wouldn’t climb to Stryker without ATGM - he won’t take it with RPGs. In the first year in Iraq, he got 115 RPG grenades. And not one pierced.

        Quote: gallville
        It seems to me even more than I should know that in any conflict, air defense is suppressed first and foremost. Again, how with strong air defense will the paratroopers be in the rear and even on the BMD?


        To suppress the same "strong air defense" with the difficulties of doing this with aviation (which is more than relevant for Russia today, due to the lack of unmanned anti-air defense systems), Landing outside the air defense reach and marching towards the target, for this purpose, the BMD was convened by and large account, and therefore there is no equivalent in the armies where there is a UAV to suppress air defense. By the way, the Yusovites parachute the same Bradley in case of strong need, but not with a parachute, but on an exhaust platform with a C-130 at low level.

        Quote: gallville
        Caught in a standard maneuver - you will find your firing points. That will make it possible to work effectively with BMD guns.


        I will only find mortar crews, and the remaining points will be silent if the airborne forces do not start the maneuver I need, but begin to retreat. And who makes me approach them in direct line of sight? Terrain rolling pin for what? After all, you can creep up the smoke screen (there is no thermal imager on the BMD-2). Of course, I’ll secretly reduce the distance, but I’m not with a tank company.

        Quote: gallville
        So yes) we have the principle of any action based on goal-identification. As soon as the target has already been identified at the platoon level, there are means to suppress it - compare weapons on armored vehicles.


        Targeting is the basics, it’s just that it’s not customary for us to do this in a defensive defense, which is why Israel is developing shockingly UAVs, radio electronics and optics in order to be able to detect the enemy first and first. And in the event of an attack, the best defense is a counterattack, knock down the enemy’s rhythm and seize the initiative in battle. I am repeating myself.
        And I compared the armament in armored vehicles above, and if you take into account the level of technological equipment, but still you prefer to attack a platoon of airborne forces on a BMD than a platoon of yusovtsy on Bradley, I also mentioned Strykers earlier.

        PS - About independence, we have such a cute little thing in the infantry platoon 52-mm mortar, weight in the fighting position 7,9kg, mine weight - 1,09kg, 2 people, the maximum firing range - 480m - sometimes it is simply irreplaceable.
  27. gallville
    gallville 17 November 2013 02: 52
    0
    Why harder? Bradley is an analogue of the BMP, it is more armored in the class than the BMD.

    We will not go into details. But for quick defense, the dimensions of the machine also solve the problem. In addition, you yourself chose RPG-16. The latter will burn both BMD and Bradley.
    Quote: And Us Rat
    I wouldn’t climb to Stryker without ATGM - he won’t take it with RPGs. In the first year in Iraq, he got 115 RPG grenades. And not one pierced.

    In Iraq, without exception, everyone fired from RPG-16?))
    Quote: And Us Rat
    For this, BMD was convened by and large, and therefore its equivalent is not in the armies where there are UAVs to suppress air defense.

    The concept of mass assault takes the basis from the use of nuclear weapons i.e. It intended to deliver a nuclear strike against the main enemy forces, with simultaneous landing in the rear of formations up to a division. At the moment, the Airborne Forces are a highly mobile branch of the armed forces - for quick re-emergence. I doubt that in C-130 you can cram 3 Bradley. In IL-76 intervenes 3 BMD-2 and there is still room.
    I will only find mortar crews, and the remaining points will be silent if the airborne forces do not start the maneuver I need, but begin to retreat.

    The main thing that you find yourself further will be visible.
    Quote: And Us Rat
    And I compared the armament in armored vehicles above, and if we take into account the level of technological equipment

    Well let me compare the Bradley gun is capable of firing OFS shells?
    Variations - M1128 - heavy weapon combat vehicle (105 mm M68 gun)
    M1129 - 120-mm recoilless mortar “CARDOM”, equipped with Elbit Systems fire control system (8km, 16v / min).

    Nona - Don't tell you anything? Remind a striker with a parachute can land?
    Quote: And Us Rat
    but you preferred to attack a platoon of airborne forces on BMD

    And whose platoon of airborne forces did you prefer to attack the USA or the Russian Federation? Given that the US Airborne have no analogues BMD.
    You know, it is extremely strange to ambush a unit that itself acts secretly and in the rear =))) In my opinion, ambush is not the role for which this type of troops was created. Nevertheless, even in such a situation there is a way out. And I described it to you.
    Therefore, a comparison with linear infantry vehicles is not correct.
    Quote: And Us Rat
    On independence, we have such a cute little 52-mm mortar in the infantry platoon, the weight in the fighting position is 7,9 kg, the weight of the mine is 1,09 kg, 2 people are calculated, the maximum firing range is 480 m - sometimes it is simply irreplaceable.

    Honestly, I am not strong in the standard armament of the infantry division of the Israeli army. But for the first time I see that the mortar would be a standard weapon.
    1. And Us Rat
      And Us Rat 17 November 2013 14: 22
      0
      Quote: gallville
      Well let me compare the Bradley gun is capable of firing OFS shells?


      Of course - The Bushnaster’s 25-mm M242 automatic gun is a development of McDonnell Douglas. M242 "Bushmaster" allows you to fire both single shots and bursts. The rate of fire can be 100 or 200 rounds per minute. The maximum M242 rate of fire is 500 rounds per minute. The gun has two-tape power allowing you to quickly switch from one type of shots to another. The gun automation is driven by an 1 horsepower electric motor. (Xnumx watts). The shot is unitary, the ammunition is equal to 750 shots, 900 of which are in the tower, and 300 in the combat ammunition depot. Two main types of shots are used: the armor-piercing sub-caliber tracer M600 APDS-T (Armor-Piercing Discarding Sabot Tracer) and the high-explosive tracer M791 HEI-T (High Explosive Incendiary Tracer). M792 at a distance of 791 m penetrates homogeneous armor up to 1000 mm thick or 66 mm / 28 m / 1500 deg. The M60 APFSDS-T (Armor-Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot Tracer) shot adopted in the 1990 has a higher armor penetration. For firing practice, the M919 TP-T (Target Practice Tracer) is used. The gun has a slotted muzzle brake. Due to the fact that the maximum elevation angle is 793 °, shooting at air targets is possible. Shot cannon shells and machine guns are removed outside the turret.
    2. And Us Rat
      And Us Rat 17 November 2013 14: 37
      +1
      Quote: gallville
      The main thing that you find yourself further will be visible.


      I can find out if it’s possible or not - it’s not so easy to determine the source of mortar fire (as a canopy), especially when it falls on your head, this is from the category of probabilities.
      And then, yes, it will be seen, there is a good proverb: Do you want to ridicule God - tell him your plans wink
    3. And Us Rat
      And Us Rat 17 November 2013 14: 54
      0
      Quote: gallville
      In Iraq, without exception, everyone fired from the RPG-16?

      No idea, but I guess that of everything laughing

      Quote: gallville
      The concept of mass assault takes the basis from the use of nuclear weapons i.e. It intended to deliver a nuclear strike against the main enemy forces, with simultaneous landing in the rear of formations up to a division. At the moment, the Airborne Forces are a highly mobile branch of the armed forces - for quick re-emergence. I doubt that in C-130 you can cram 3 Bradley. In IL-76 intervenes 3 BMD-2 and there is still room.


      I did not quite understand the context. (I know about concepts). According to the technique, there is one armored vehicle in C-130, yes, but I repeat - this is an emergency, but they usually don’t use it, and the rear raids are carried out by small forces of special forces that use the buggies. The bet is on mobility, speed and secrecy.
    4. And Us Rat
      And Us Rat 17 November 2013 15: 02
      0
      Quote: gallville
      Nona - Don't tell you anything? Remind a striker with a parachute can land?


      Yes, I know what nona is. I found a video - in the second half it is shown what and how they drop, there is Stryker and LDT (Light Landing Tank)
    5. And Us Rat
      And Us Rat 17 November 2013 15: 27
      0
      Quote: gallville
      And whose platoon of airborne forces did you prefer to attack the USA or the Russian Federation? Given that the US Airborne have no analogues BMD.


      The checkbox does not play a role for me, even though Papua New Guinea. If you take a marinz platoon on Bradley from the 1990 of the year, it will be equivalent to today's airborne platoon on the BMD-2 in terms of firepower and technological equipment. In this case, it doesn’t matter, and if we are talking about marines with today's equipment, it will be easier to attack airborne troops, I will need more people for marines, more firepower and our current technological equipment (UAVs, field electronic warfare, anti-personnel radars and other food that I did not take into account when ambushing on the Airborne Forces.

      Quote: gallville
      You know, it is extremely strange to ambush a unit that itself acts secretly and in the rear =))) In my opinion, ambush is not the role for which this type of troops was created.


      Here again, the initiative and the advantage in the means of detection decide - and if both factors are on my side, then when I first discovered the enemy - I will put him in a position convenient to me, and it becomes completely violet for what they were created, even for flights on the moon. And by the way, there’s nothing strange about this - the usual work of counter-sabotage units, a satellite or UAVs detect enemy movements, the group does not intercept. And kirdyk. The scheme worked out for dozens of years - one of the main tactics for breaking the battle dynamics in its favor - will wedge a counterattack in the enemy’s combat maneuver, and God himself ordered the landing groups to be calculated and destroyed. For the sake of example - in the 1973 year, the Syrian commandos which the USSR Airborne Troops coached were almost completely destroyed in the first three to four days of the war - in this way, the counter-interception of sabotage and ambush missions.
    6. And Us Rat
      And Us Rat 17 November 2013 15: 33
      0
      Quote: gallville
      But for the first time I see that the mortar would be a standard weapon.


      Yes, many are surprised - there is such a topic, it is rarely used in modern battles, it lies in the APC and that's it, but it is if necessary wink
  28. gallville
    gallville 17 November 2013 19: 23
    0
    The 25mm Bushmaster M242 gun is a development of McDonnell Douglas

    Those. ok Do you think 25mm OFS is more efficient 30mm?
    Let's just say in terms of armament, Bradley and BMD-2 have relative parity. That's just Bradley does not have such mobility as the BMD-2. And from modern RPGs both burn.
    I can find out if it’s possible or not - it’s not so easy to determine the source of mortar fire (as a canopy), especially when it falls on your head, this is from the category of probabilities.

    22 pairs of eyes - a big chance, unfortunately, there is a chance to immediately get injured by a squelch, sitting inside you can get a coffin to separate from RPG-16 and what’s in Bradley’s in BMD.
    No idea, but I guess that of everything

    I assume that in the Iraqi army RPG-16 as well as RPG-29 in large quantities were not available. And RPG-7 and their ammunition for about 50 years, it is clear that the modern machine type Stryker cope.
    in S-130 one armored car, yes, but I repeat - this is an emergency, but usually they don’t use it, but the rear raids are carried out by small special forces that use buggies. The bet is on mobility, speed and secrecy.

    1. Three armored vehicles - better than 1 armored car.
    2. Special forces are special forces and a separate issue.
    3. BMD are slightly different from buggies. Arms, armor, mobility - buggies do not seem to float. In a desert like Iraq, there may be a buggy and an option for the Airborne Forces in Europe or even the Caucasus - a wooded area with water and swamps.
    Yes, I know what nona is. I found a video - in the second half it is shown what and how they reset, there are Stryker and LDT (Light Landing Tank)

    I would not call it a landing like this is done with BMD.
    If you take the Marines platoon to Bradley from 1990, it will be equivalent to today's platoon of the Airborne Forces on BMD-2 in terms of firepower and technological equipment. In this case, it doesn’t matter, and if we are talking about marines using today's equipment, it will be easier to attack airborne troops, I will need more people for marines, more firepower and our current technological equipment.

    1. We are also developing the UAV electronics and other things, including thermal imaging equipment (including personal devices).
    2. How can you explain that landing a marins platoon with their Bradley with a parachute from an airplane is clearly more difficult than a platoon on the BMD-2?
    And a platoon for buggies, given their armor and the inability to move through swamps or water obstacles, will be much easier for you to catch and hit than a platoon on BMD that has armor and weapons and maneuverability.
    Well, do not forget the main theater buggy in the desert is a great form of transport, and 30+ ton BMPs too (although they occupy the entire plane), but in the next branch you can see what Ukrainian did chernozem with Leclerc ..... and draw conclusions =)))
    By the way it will be necessary to land strongly in the desert, we will think about the buggy.

    As for the thermal imagers and BMD-2 above, I wrote that the modernization is frankly redneck and yes you are right, in particular, the targeting and technological effectiveness of the lag on the face. More such a modernization as in this article causes bewilderment and anger, especially if you start to understand at least at the level of such a discussion.
    1. And Us Rat
      And Us Rat 18 November 2013 02: 15
      +1
      Quote: gallville
      Those. ok Do you think 25mm OFS is more efficient 30mm?


      No, I don’t think it’s just an infantryman that 25 that 30 - the result is the same - minced.

      Quote: gallville
      22 pairs of eyes - there is a big chance, unfortunately


      No, I was under mortar fire, it’s extremely difficult to even understand from which direction they are hammering, if you know about what direction the enemy is — you know where to look, but if not, then there is a problem, the first thing is to get out of the fire, preferably so if the fire spotter wouldn’t notice this, and then try to detect by the sound of the shot (we even developed a device for this — it detects the direction of the stelae by the sound, sniper, mortar, etc. - the soldiers praise very much when I served, alas, it wasn’t yet)

    2. And Us Rat
      And Us Rat 18 November 2013 02: 37
      0
      Quote: gallville
      I would not call it a landing like this is done with BMD.


      But what's the difference, the effect is the same - the car is taken, loaded onto the plane, delivered to the destination, descended to the ground for use. I do not see a fundamental difference. Especially in the case of a forced measure - like the Yusovites. (By the way, the video is not new, and there are shots and parachute jumps - they just have it left in the National Guard, the army almost refused it in favor of newer doctrines and strategies, we also dropped M80 in parachutes in the 113-th years , we don’t throw it anymore, although we still do exportable options for export)
    3. And Us Rat
      And Us Rat 18 November 2013 03: 07
      0
      Quote: gallville
      1. we are also developing the UAV electronics and other things, including thermal imaging equipment (including personal devices)


      I know, but so far these are either projects or piece copies for special forces, and special forces - I agree, a separate topic. When this equipment enters the troops on a regular basis, and they acquire tactical skills for using this advantage, then the approach to them will be different. In the meantime, I proceeded from the realities of today.

      Quote: gallville
      2. How can you explain that landing a marins platoon with their Bradley with a parachute from an airplane is clearly more difficult than a platoon on the BMD-2?


      It’s not harder to execute, it’s harder for logistics - you need more planes, but again, they almost never do this, except occasionally in training exercises - in order not to forget how to do this, they constantly have designs of landing machines, and with the same Regularly, these projects are cut short, their generals do not see the point in its application. Yes, and by and large, too. For a small war - you don’t need to risk this with soldiers, you can also roll away from the enemy’s air, and then gradually displace it with the front. And for a big war - again, the risk is high, air defense, air force, etc. - For a point operation, special forces are easier.

      To be honest, I see BMD as a class - only in the form of a battle against a technologically superior opponent for the lack of other capabilities, as an attempt to create parity, only the price expressed in risk to the lives of soldiers is higher.

      When Russia fought in Georgia, to be honest, I felt "offended for the Power", the use of aviation was primitive, attacks in the style of the Second World War with equipment and weapons of the 70s, zero reconnaissance was ambushed, and this unpleasant the list goes on. The press trumpeted about a confident victory, and the people shook it up - but as a military man (albeit in reserve) with combat experience and the ability to compare, it was clear how things really are. Now, of course, the situation is better, but most of this path is still ahead, time will tell, there is a lot to work on and a lot.
      1. tchoni
        tchoni 20 November 2013 09: 24
        0
        Almost agree with komentom, except for one.
        BMD and vehicles based on it (self-propelled guns, mortars, ATGMs), I believe, are an integral part of the rapid reaction forces. It is by virtue of an easier solution to the logistical problems for this technique. those. this technique allows the rapid deployment of troops, and taking into account the ends of Russia - this, you must agree, is relevant.
        Although, I must admit, the concept of using the Airborne Forces as quick reaction forces is not developed.
        1. And Us Rat
          And Us Rat 21 November 2013 04: 17
          0
          Quote: tchoni
          Almost agree with komentom, except for one.
          BMD and vehicles based on it (self-propelled guns, mortars, ATGMs), I believe, are an integral part of the rapid reaction forces. It is by virtue of an easier solution to the logistical problems for this technique. those. this technique allows the rapid deployment of troops, and taking into account the ends of Russia - this, you must agree, is relevant.
          Although, I must admit, the concept of using the Airborne Forces as quick reaction forces is not developed.


          If we consider the Airborne Forces as a kind of "readiness group" - whose task is to be the first to reach the point of surprise attack and to bind the enemy in battle, before the arrival of the main forces - then, yes, yes, this is true. And the BMD, I think, should be equipped with a complex of active anti-missile defense and add modular mounted quick-change armor (as, for example, on the same Rafael rework of the M-113, photo in the previous comments) to protect against the 25mm autocannon of the same Bradley, say.