Military Review

Airborne will have helicopter shelves

Airborne will have helicopter shelvesBy the 2020 years, helicopter regiments can be created as part of the Airborne Forces (Airborne Forces), reports Interfax, citing Lieutenant General Nikolai Ignatov, Chief of Staff of the Airborne Forces.

"The reform of the Armed Forces has not yet been completed, the state armament program, naturally, has not yet been completed. Helicopter regiments will be created by the 2020 years, when the rearmament program is completed," Ignatov noted.

As previously reported, "RG", in the course of the reduction in the army of managerial units and backup structures, a helicopter aviation Ground forces and winged airborne equipment were transferred to the Air Force. According to the Commander-in-Chief of the Airborne Forces, Lieutenant General Vladimir Shamanov, this hit the mobility of the Blue Berets. The presence of helicopter regiments in the Airborne Forces should correct the imbalance. Earlier, Shamanov said that the most acceptable is the placement of helicopter regiments at some distance from the location of the regiments of the airborne forces, divisions or brigades. In particular, Shamanov proposed creating infrastructure for an air base near Ulyanovsk, where the 31st separate airborne assault brigade is based.

It should be noted that a number of media outlets reported on possible plans for the transfer of airborne troops to other troops. However, at the present time there is no talk of disbanding the Airborne Forces and transferring them to other troops, Ignatov told journalists.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. merkawa
    merkawa 30 July 2011 11: 32 New
    Yes, they can be created or they can not, we will think that there will be no conflicts during this time, otherwise the thought will be lost during this time fellow
  2. Rustam
    Rustam 30 July 2011 11: 56 New

    _ TRANSPORT MI-17 is understandable

    but from circles it is known that against the idea of ​​a winged airborne forces, AGAINST THE STAFF GENERAL OF THE STAFF AND THE AIR FORCES - INDEPENDENCE OF THE INDUSTRIAL AIRCRAFT AND ENVY SHAMANOVA (but he is still a favorite of VV PUTIN) - by the way, the most interesting airborne forces in our army were the first to receive English and Austrian sniper rifles

    frightening the end of the article can be — helicopter regiments can be created — THERE ARE POSSIBLE TO BE
  3. vlad
    vlad 30 July 2011 14: 41 New
    He served with Shamanov in the Russian Communist Party, such people in Russia and more !!!!!! This is OFFICER !!!!
    1. LESHA pancake
      LESHA pancake 31 July 2011 16: 13 New
      yes shamans is cool.
  4. Victor
    Victor 30 July 2011 18: 30 New
    Given the fact that the Airborne Forces are more and more de facto referred to as quick reaction forces, the deployment of helicopter regiments is not only desirable, but also vital. The time when the Airborne Forces were to be used in strategic front-line operations has passed. The locality of the events (operations, clashes, wars) dictates its own rules of warfare, and above all tactical mobility and air fire support at the expense of their own or attached forces. It is the integrated helicopters, incorporating both transport, reconnaissance and fire support helicopters, that will help the Airborne Forces become a real quick reaction force. My native 98 guards. VDD is already the backbone of the CSTO rapid reaction forces and it needs such a regiment like air. I hope and believe that Shamanov will become the new Margelov for the Airborne Forces and that the troops will be separated from the encroachments of stray villains from the army.
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 31 July 2011 00: 10 New
      Given the fact that the Airborne Forces are more and more de facto classified as quick reaction forces

      It’s interesting, but on what will they be delivered to the theater of operations (TVD), there will be practically no transport aviation (solid commerce, I don’t hear about new aircraft), will helicopters to the theater of operations be delivered under their own power? From Pskov or Ryazan to the com ...
      1. Superduck
        Superduck 31 July 2011 16: 18 New
        An-70 bought that week :-)
  5. Sorry
    Sorry 30 July 2011 19: 34 New
    Airborne forces were born the genius of military art - Margelov. Today it is the necessary troops with new equipment and new tactics. And if professionals say that, then helicopter regiments are needed.
    The only thing that is alarming is that they would not be used as riot police and SWAT - i.e. against popular movements (pensioners, miners and other demonstrators). Remember! You were created by a real, not fake, Army General Margelov not for these purposes.
    No offense to you, the Airborne Forces, it will be said that the Air Force has always been the elite, and among them are the pilots of supersonic aviation and the Navy, and among them the submariners. Today and always, outside the competition of the Strategic Missile Forces. But these types of aircraft practically collapsed, and you are still afloat. So the question is why
    1. Victor
      Victor 30 July 2011 19: 42 New
      Sorry To argue about elite is a thankless task. Too different functionality for combat use. If you are a military man, you will understand, if you know about the army from the press, it will take a long time to explain. And why are the Airborne Forces a rhetorical question. We remember about our duty without reminders and incorrect hints! Thank you very much for your kind words about Uncle Vasya, we really love him very much!
  6. mitrich
    mitrich 31 July 2011 09: 44 New
    This bike has been invented for a long time!
    In the United States, the 82nd and 101st divisions, ILCs have long been airmobile, in Afghanistan, Soviet paratroopers and special forces also had air squadrons and even regiments attached to them (in Bagram, for example). This is the ordinary logic of modern war ... Only a fool could withdraw aviation from Chechnya’s subordination, Chechnya is a direct confirmation of this, many brothers have checked this axiom on themselves.
    It is necessary to transfer all the airborne forces to helicopters, there is nothing to be smart here and to poke around in the ass, and for the transfer of troops over long distances there is a military transport aircraft of the Russian Air Force.
  7. kazanskii
    kazanskii 31 July 2011 11: 35 New
    Why is it now impossible to begin the creation of helicopter regiments for the Airborne Forces, in parallel with the reform? Do we have everything known before 2020? Will everything be quiet and peaceful? And not only the Airborne Forces, almost all the Armed Forces need the latest weapons. Maybe it is time to open the piggy bank and start arming our army?
  8. mitrich
    mitrich 31 July 2011 11: 42 New
    It is being armed, KAZAN. They just don’t tell you when new units arrived.
    1. kazanskii
      kazanskii 31 July 2011 11: 50 New
      Yes, it’s clear, Mitrich, that they don’t inform. But they can more intensively arm, so that the same Anglo-Saxons generally have a desire to repel us with growls.
  9. mitrich
    mitrich 31 July 2011 12: 02 New
    They don’t growl at us anymore, thanks to Putin. Pizdobol leave, we’d better live, I think.
    1. Rustam
      Rustam 31 July 2011 12: 26 New
      Pizdobol will leave, we’d better live, I think
      maybe we’ll return to the 90s where gentlemen the democrats promised everyone a Paradise democratic life, in an apartment and on the Volga !!!!! YES NO WE ALREADY PASSED THIS

      ___ _____ ___________________

      It is being armed, KAZAN
      YES NO ALREADY Kazan in 2010 surrendered 8 MI-8MTV (MI-17V5) units and 6 assault troops to the army. Loaded with export orders
      mostly new cars in the amount of 20 units of mi-8amtsh, came from ULAN-UDE republic of Buryatia !!!!!
      1. LESHA pancake
        LESHA pancake 31 July 2011 16: 15 New
        Democrats will give us three meters of land in the cemetery for free
  10. mitrich
    mitrich 31 July 2011 12: 59 New
    buddy, firstly, it is not clear what you mean - in the negative or positive, especially in the 2nd part.
    What bothers you - export orders? They always were, for that matter.
    1. Rustam
      Rustam 31 July 2011 15: 35 New
      no export orders don't bother me, thanks to them our 2 factories survived in the 90s
      it’s just that you didn’t mention about Udan Plant, but this is wrong !!!!
      ME STRESSES that helicopters still come with arrow indicators (there are no LCD displays at all), the absence of flirting surveillance systems (balls for observing a target, this limits the helicopter’s action especially at night) even though they put a meteor radar on the Mi-8amts
      we buy new equipment and we can’t equip it as it should, this enrages us !!! EXAMPLE 80 HELICOPTERS that will go to India (MI-17V5) have a fully Glass cockpit) and for us the simplest version is THE ONLY THOUGH ALL ALL EQUALLY NEW HELICOPTERS ARE SO GOING TO THE AIR FORCES
      1. Evgan
        Evgan 1 August 2011 12: 16 New
        Is it really so important that the Airborne Forces have their own helicopter regiments? No, of course, this significantly increases the combat capabilities of the troops, and, if there is the necessary amount of money for their creation and maintenance, it should be so. But so far these funds are not available (why and because of whom - the third question), maybe transport helicopters should be kept in a separate structure and, if necessary, used not only in the interests of the Airborne Forces, but also for the Ground Forces? After all, do not forget that the Airborne Forces (with all due respect to them) we have only 4 divisions (correct, if I’m wrong) - it follows that in some cases it may be more justified to deliver not units of the Airborne Forces from far, but, for example , more closely located units of the MSV. And with this layout, perhaps it’s worthwhile to deal not with the creation of “pocket” helicopter airborne aircraft, but with the establishment of interaction between the corresponding parts of the Air Force on the one hand, and the units of the Air Force and the Airborne on the other?
        I repeat, I consider this point of view to be correct only in those conditions when, on the whole, the defense budget is not very large, and when a lot of other equipment is required. Ideally, of course, airborne units should be airborne both strategically (using BTA aircraft) and tactically (using their own or attached helicopters).
  11. mitrich
    mitrich 1 August 2011 14: 37 New
    You have touched on the main and most important issue in your own way.
    You know the proverb: “Seven nannies have a child without an eye (unattended, that is)” ...
    So here the question is that the Airborne Forces MUST have its own aviation. The troops are therefore called the Airborne, in contrast to the MSV. A single command solves many problems.
    After all, everything has been tested already ... Why is our memory so short?
    1. Evgan
      Evgan 2 August 2011 09: 18 New
      mitrich, Yes, of course, I agree with you, but there is such a moment. If the Airborne Forces are able to massively land from aircraft (and, in part, with the standard BTT), and this largely determines their tasks (actions behind enemy lines, operational capture of bridgeheads, etc.), then part of the SV cannot do this, and they don’t should. But at the same time, I believe that the use of helicopters (as vehicles, the use of which by landing does not require special skills) can significantly increase not only the mobility of the airborne forces, but also the same motorized gunners. At the same time, the operational mobility of MSVs would probably not be so important if we had more airborne units, and they would be more evenly located throughout the country, but what is not there is not.
      Two options seem to follow from this: either have “pocket” helicopter aviation both in the NE and the Airborne Forces, or have helicopter aviation in the Air Force, which would be attached to one or another part of the Airborne Forces or the NE, depending on the situation (at the same time the percentage “equipment” of airborne transport helicopters, of course, should be higher than that of the SV). As far as I know, the first option was practiced before. But now, unfortunately, the situation is somewhat different, and for this reason, perhaps at the current stage it is easier to establish interaction between the types of aircraft with the subsequent transfer of "transport helicopter regiments" to the airborne or airborne forces.
  12. Victor
    Victor 2 August 2011 21: 56 New
    EvgAn The general course of your reasoning is clear. Only you do not take into account some factors that fundamentally differ between the Airborne Forces and the MSV. From military childhood we are taught to manage small things, to act to the maximum. Motorized riflemen, in principle, are not trained (the functional is different) to perform operations in isolation from the main forces, and for the airborne forces this is the main type of warfare. In the conduct of local conflicts, the transfer of troops and its own helicopter aviation is assumed by BTA aircraft. But in the zone of local conflict itself, it is fundamentally important for the troops to have their own aviation, both transport, and intelligence and fire support. The time for strategic landing in front-line operations has passed. By the way, we do not invent a bicycle. All modern armies have long been equipped with their own aircraft. And if the aviation is attached, then until all approvals are passed, the troops will die. And when setting a combat order, flyers should be in the same place with the infantry,
    1. Evgan
      Evgan 2 August 2011 23: 59 New
      Victor, in general, agrees with you, the only thing that bothers me is the relatively small number of airborne forces in such a huge country, which implies that some of the infantry units should be able (not to be, just have the ability to be) airmobile. And if all of a sudden (the Ministry of Defense probably knows better than me) it is impossible to equip the Airborne Forces and some brigades with helicopters for financial reasons, then for this transitional period it would probably be wise to organize such units in the Air Force that could operate in the composition of both those and others - and to establish interaction.
      But in the main, we all agree here - in one form or another, helicopter-transport aviation of the airborne forces is needed.
      1. Норд
        Норд 19 February 2012 13: 52 New
        No one is against (if the SV command has good will and desire) equipping the infantry with their own means of airborne transport. But this, for now, is more out of the realm of fiction. Own helicopter regiments are needed, like air, primarily the Airborne Forces to really increase their mobility. Moreover, experience is already there. It's a shame that this obvious need has not yet been translated into reality.