Landing technique: what is the winged infantry of Russia armed with

MOSCOW, 2 August. / Tass /. In recent years, the technical equipment of the Airborne Forces (Airborne Forces) continues to grow steadily due to the appearance of the newest models, the main requirements for which (except for unification on the base chassis - TASS note) are air transportability and the ability to drop by parachute method.

"Winged infantry" is equipped with both general military equipment and specially designed for specific tasks landing. These include BTR-80 armored personnel carriers, Tigr combat reconnaissance vehicles, Orlan-10 multifunctional UAVs, various anti-tank missile systems, self-propelled artillery mounts, mortars, howitzers, flamethrowers, grenade launchers, as well as portable anti-aircraft missile systems of short-range action.

The main equipment and weapons of the "winged infantry" - in the TASS material.

Future power of the Airborne Forces

Until the end of 2016, the "winged infantry" will receive a total of 144 latest assault vehicles BMD-4M "Gardener" and the armored personnel carrier BTR-MDM "Shell". It is planned to receive about 250 units of various vehicles for the Airborne Forces. By 2025, the latest combat vehicles must completely replace outdated armored vehicles, such as the BMD-2 and the BTR-D.

In addition, the troops received additional resources for developmental work on a wheeled vehicle for special forces with a combat module. Work on the modular wheeled armored airborne troops are carried out together with KamAZ.

For the "winged infantry" is being tested desanted version of the armored car "Tiger". Work is also underway to create a landing system for the Ptitselov anti-aircraft missile system based on BMD-4M.

In 2019, Zauralets is expected to appear in the landing forces of self-propelled artillery guns, and the Kornet anti-tank missile system is being developed, and Zavet-D artillery control vehicles are in developmental design.

In the interests of the Airborne Forces, the modernization of the 120-mm Nona self-propelled artillery, the Rheostat artillery fire control and artillery control unit, the 125-mm Sprut-SD self-propelled anti-tank gun continues.

BMD-2

The BMD-2 "Budka" is a Soviet / Russian combat tracked amphibious vehicle. Created on the basis of BMD-1, intended for use in the Airborne Forces and landing by parachute or landing method from a military transport aircraft such as An-12, An-22 and Il-76. Adopted in 1985 year.

Baptism of an armored vehicle took place in hostilities in the Republic of Afghanistan. In subsequent years, BMD-2 was used in armed conflicts on the territory of Russia and abroad. It is in service in the armies of Russia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.

BMD-2 is equipped with:

30-mm tool 2А42;
paired and course 7,62-mm PKT machine guns;
anti-tank missile complex 9М111 "Fagot" or 9М113 "Competition".
BMD-4M

The BMD-4M airborne combat vehicle is a seriously upgraded version of the BMD-4 with a new hull, engine, chassis and other components.

The BMD-4M is equipped with the Bakhcha-U combat module, which includes 100 mm and 30 mm guns, as well as a machine gun.
The design of the machine allows you to parachute from the aircraft c crew inside.

The BMD-4 suspension has a telescopic hydraulic shock absorber that allows the car to rise / fall on the 40, see.
The BMD-4M fire control system includes a high-precision gunner's sight, stabilized in two planes and having a thermal imaging and distance measuring channels, which allows accurate fire on the move.

The composition of the basic weapons (according to data from open sources):

100-mm gun / launcher 2A70;
30-mm automatic gun 2А72;
7,62 mm PKTM machine gun;
ATGM 9М117М3 "Arkan";
ATGM 9М113 "Competition";
81-mm smoke smoke ZD6 (ЗД6М);
automatic grenade launcher AGS-30.

BTR-MDM "Shell"

Amphibious armored personnel carrier BTR-MDM "Shell" ("955 Object"). Created on the basis of the BMD-4M airborne combat vehicle to replace the troops of the BTR-D landing armor, which was put into service as early as the 1970. Can be parachuted, is floating.

Combat crew: 15 man (crew member 2 and paratrooper 13).
Armament: two PKTM machine guns of caliber 7,62 mm (2 thousand cartridges for each).
Maximum speed: 70 km / h on the highway, 45-50 km / h over rough terrain, 10 km / h afloat.
Combat weight: 13,2 t.
Power reserve: 500 km on the highway, 350 km over rough terrain.
The BTR-MDM can be parachuted by parachute, is floating.
Adopted by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in April 2016.

Self-propelled gun "Sprut-SD"

The basic model of the Sprut-SD ("self-propelled", "landing" - approx. TASS) is an airborne self-propelled anti-tank gun caliber 125 mm, designed to combat armored vehicles and manpower of the enemy as part of the airborne unit, marines and special forces.

The first sample of the upgraded car has already been created. It was reported that he received a digital fire control system and engine from an infantry fighting vehicle BMP-3.

According to data from open sources, the Sprut-SD is equipped with a unique hydropneumatic chassis that allows the combat vehicle to move smoothly and quickly in off-road conditions at speeds up to 70 km / h, which significantly improves the conditions for firing in motion.

In addition, the self-propelled gun is able to overcome water obstacles at a speed of afloat to 10 km / h. The machine can parachute from the cargo ships to the water surface and independently returns to the ship.

The Octopus-SD gun was created on the basis of 125 mm tank guns 2A46, which is installed on the T-72, T-80 and T-90 tanks. As an auxiliary weapon, the machine is equipped with a 7,62 mm machine gun coaxial with a cannon with an ammunition of 2000 rounds.

It is expected that the mass production of the modernized Sprut-SDM-1 self-propelled anti-tank gun for the Airborne Forces will begin in the 2018 year.
AC-1 snowmobile

AC-1 - Army snowmobile high cross.

Designed to perform operational tasks by mobile crews behind enemy lines and quickly retreating to their initial positions, conducting reconnaissance and patrol operations, raiding and search and rescue operations in various conditions, including in the Arctic regions.
The basis for creating the AC-1 was the well-proven model "Taiga Patrol 551 SVT" with a two-cylinder RMZ-551 two-cylinder engine with a capacity of 65 l. with.

Since the beginning of 2016, 10 snowmobiles have received units deployed in the Western Military District.
Specifications:

Length - 2950 mm, width with skis - 1150 mm.
Weight - 320 kg.
Fuel tank capacity - 55 l.
Transmission - two-stage with reverse.
The maximum speed is 80 km / h.

LAW "Strela-10"

The Airborne Forces have various modifications of the Strela-10 anti-aircraft missile system, the basic model of which was put into service in the 1976 year.

The Strela-10 anti-aircraft missile system is designed to protect military units in various forms of combat and on the march from airborne attack and reconnaissance equipment diving and flying at low and very low altitudes.

The new version of Strela-10MN (night) has the possibility of night autonomous sector search and target detection, it can work at night by entering autonomous sector search and target detection.

The anti-aircraft missile system is used to shield military formations from airborne objects. Such objects can be not only airplanes, but also unmanned aerial vehicles carrying out reconnaissance and flying at ultra-low altitudes. According to experts, the Strela-10MN is also effective against diving air objects.

Now, on the basis of the BMD-4M combat vehicle, the first in the world airborne anti-aircraft missile system Ptitselov is being created.

MANPADS "Igla" and "Verba"

The Igla is a Russian and Soviet portable anti-aircraft missile system (MANPADS) designed to destroy low-flying air targets on head-on and catch-up courses under the influence of false heat interference. The complex was put into service in 1983 year.

The development of a fundamentally new complex began in Kolomna in 1971 year. The Igla complex was supposed to change the Strela complexes belonging to the previous generation of MANPADS and having lower technical characteristics. The main advantage of the Igla MANPADS is the best resistance to countermeasures and higher combat effectiveness.

There are a number of modifications of MANPADS, in particular the Igla-S complex, capable of hitting low-flying cruise missiles and Drones. The complex is in service with the armies of Russia, the CIS countries, and since 1994 it has been exported to more than 30 countries.

In 2015, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation began to receive the first portable Verba anti-aircraft systems.

MANPADS "willow", according to the developers, in its characteristics surpasses all existing foreign samples. The anti-aircraft missile, which is part of the complex, for the first time in the world received a three-spectral homing head with increased sensitivity and can hit low-emitting targets.

The complex is capable of destroying targets at altitudes from 10 to 4,5 thousand meters and at a distance from 500 to 6,5 thousand meters. At least 10 once increased the security of the complex for pyrotechnic interference. In 1,5-2 times the combat effectiveness of the complex is increased.

According to the developers, this became possible due to a set of innovations and improved characteristics of MANPADS. The complex has a higher shooting accuracy. In Verba, the practice of using the “friend-foe” query has been resumed.

Comments

[Sharapov]

Rather, "what will be armed with" (refers to half of the weapons in the article).

[Dora2014]

Informational and educational article, very necessary for young and beginners. And the paratroopers are good guys. And for those who disagree, we stock up on "Booths", "Octopuses" and other "Shells".

[Serg 122]

"Winged Infantry" is equipped with both combined arms military equipment and specially created for specific landing tasks. Among them are armored personnel carriers BTR-80, combat reconnaissance vehicles "Tiger", multifunctional UAVs "Orlan-10"

Why does the author not write who exactly is equipped with this technique? Or doesn’t he know? Doesn't know for an example that armored personnel carriers BTR-80 How are they not corresponding to the "image of the Airborne Forces" removed from the RAP, about five years ago?
The article is beautiful, but all the described equipment will be possibly put in the troops in the future. About all this splendor, we have heard from Shamanov since 2008 ...

[igordok]

The worst test for technology is the test of children. These testers unscrew, something that does not spin, break something that never breaks.
The traditional exhibition of airborne vehicles 2 August in Pskov.

[mr.redpartizan]

The article is very superficial. There is little information on new and newly developed airborne weapons models.

[mr.redpartizan]

Minusut asshole. There is very little information in the article. Nothing is said about the BMD-3 and BMD-4, there is little information on the PT-self-propelled guns Sprut-SD (SDM-1). And on these machines, there is a lot of information in the public domain. In addition, nothing was said about the SV technology in service with the Airborne Forces. It was necessary to dwell in more detail on airborne landing machines.

[Couchexpert]

A question for connoisseurs: as you can see from the article, all equipment in service with the Airborne Forces is tracked, and not unified on any one chassis (although there are borrowings: rollers from MTLB are hinted at), and, at the same time, now the ministry has already begun to think categories of common platforms ("Armata", "Kurganets", etc.). So, maybe it is worth starting the development of a new (or adapting the existing one - "Boomerang", for example) unified airmobile platform with an open architecture of modules instead of endlessly producing armored personnel carriers and BMDs of outdated standards? Ideally, it should be something like a light brigade of "Strikers" in the United States. Is the choice of tracked vehicles very critical for the Airborne Forces? The use of a wheeled platform would increase the highly valued buoyancy, speed, range, and (combined with a modern design approach) mine protection, etc.
Although the issue of the price of rearmament, of course, prevails.

[mr.redpartizan]

The unification of the chassis is in the Airborne. Octopus-SDM1, BTR-MDM and BMD-4M are made on the basis of one chassis, the new air defense system will also be unified with the BMD-4M. So the process is going on, albeit slowly.

[would]

I support and repeat that everything is really doing the new equipment on the BMD-4M chassis by itself with extremely high unification. At the same time, BMD-4M, in turn, has a high level of unification with BMP-3.

[Couchexpert]

This is not quite a unification, but rather "variability and heredity" - they have a common ancestor - MTLB
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/МТ-ЛБ
The tractor was sawn for different needs, changing the body and engine, the number of rollers in the chassis, etc. Moreover, the samples are not interchangeable: the tower from the Octopus can not be put on the Shell. Of course, it’s nice for the paratroopers that, in conditions of difficult supply, it is possible, for example, to rearrange the track or skating rink from damaged equipment to working, but I would like more.
It is high time to depart from the initial requirements for the airborne landing gear (strict limits on the mass of a single unit, the maximum possible increase in the number of units that are on board the aircraft at one time, forced to save on armor, but allow to increase the massed landing).

[would]

This is just the same unification, but not 100%. Octopus-SD is unified with BMD-4M for engine, transmission, chassis. And what you are talking about is already complete unification and an extremely high degree of modularity. This is of course good and cost-effective when almost the entire line of cars is made literally on one base, and differs only in internal modular parts and a tower. But so far, the Airborne Forces have not officially reached this point. Surely one of the reasons is far from the best budget of the Russian Federation from which you still need to spend money on Kurganets-25 and Armata.

By the way, unification is not only so that one technology could be put on another. This is primarily for economic efficiency and logistics: It is much more efficient to make an engine for 4 different machines on one line, one equipment, than to have 4 lines. Then it is much more convenient to deliver them, and then to mount and repair them. Repairmen need to know not 4 engines, but only one. Etc.

It is high time to depart from the initial requirements for the airborne landing gear (strict limits on the mass of a single unit, the maximum possible increase in the number of units that are on board the aircraft at one time, forced to save on armor, but allow to increase the massed landing).

Just remember that these limits were taken not only from the carrying capacity of the aircraft, but also from the carrying capacity of the airborne landing system, the very same parachutes on which the BMD are being dropped. So if we move to the direction of increasing mass, then we need either new, more lifting systems for landing (or even new aircraft), or make a major turn in the concept of airborne forces and refuse parachute airborne landing and finally turn the airborne into motorized rifles.

[strannik1985]

There is a third way, to divide the airborne units into two echelons: light airborne ones by parachute method (for example, in the US Army 14 infantry battalions (690 people), Shamanov said last June that there were 10 combat-ready battalions (460 people) in the Airborne Forces and medium, airborne landing method at the captured airfield (Stryker brigade).

[Couchexpert]

The first two paragraphs - I agree.

Quote: rait

Just remember that these limits were taken not only from the carrying capacity of the aircraft, but also from the carrying capacity of the airborne landing system, the very same parachutes on which the BMD are being dropped. So if we move to the direction of increasing mass, then we need either new, more lifting systems for landing (or even new aircraft), or make a major turn in the concept of airborne forces and refuse parachute airborne landing and finally turn the airborne into motorized rifles.

Yes, it seems like all the rules are here. The weight (18 tons) and dimensions of the Sprut are quite comparable to the Boomerang (and the cruising range is 500 km on the highway versus 800 km with the same engine power of 510 l / s) or possible equipment based on it and nothing is dropped somehow.

At the same time, modularity and unification of the landing will be more necessary than regular motorized rifles, again because of the distance from the main forces - for example, you can take less repair kits with you (remember the limitations on the mass of aircraft). Yes, and to equip them with new equipment is primarily as a force of increased combat readiness.

And in general, if we talk about the technology of the Airborne Forces, then in no country does one "rush" with paratroopers like that - they put them on a combined-arms service and do not soar. Our situation has developed as a result of the indefatigable energy of the founding father (the same "Uncle Vasya", whose troops they are), who at one time could do it ALL (armored personnel carriers, BMD, self-propelled guns, PTSAU, air defense missile systems and even a truck - that very "shishiga" ) "punch" yourself with your performance characteristics "above" and force engineers to rivet it from an artillery tractor, which did not expect such an honor at all. Yes, earlier the landings had to take place "on the English Channel" not otherwise, they had to be massive, and they did not have to live long. But now the realities of the use of troops are different.

[would]

Yes, it seems like all the rules are here. The weight (18 tons) and dimensions of the Sprut are quite comparable to the Boomerang (and the cruising range is 500 km on the highway versus 800 km with the same engine power of 510 l / s) or possible equipment based on it and nothing is dropped somehow.

The mass and dimensions of the "Boomerang" are still secret and there are no exact data in open sources, there is not even exact data on what kind of armor it has (it is known that it is combined with the use of ceramics), so I would not speak so confidently. It may easily turn out that "Boomerang" at least does not pass in any way in terms of mass and dimensions.

And in general, if we talk about the equipment of the Airborne Forces, then in no country do they "rush" with paratroopers like that - they put them on a combined arms and do not soar.

This is our concept of airborne forces and so far they are not going to change it. I myself agree that all this airborne descent in modern conditions, to put it mildly, is extremely contradictory. First you need to raise a bunch of planes into the air, after they have to fly to a place and at least throw off the landing. And the landing, in turn, should at least for the most part land and launch a lightning-triumphal attack on equipment that is burned by obsolete RPGs, and after triumphantly gain a foothold and wait for the main forces to approach. I, as a person in this, by itself do not understand anything, complete zero, etc. I see that this is rather a variant of the war with some Nigerians who can’t get into the air or resist on the ground. Maybe I'm really stupid and I don’t understand anything, I don’t know. But in modern local conflicts, the very airborne airborne forces are used as ordinary motorized rifles, and no one is airborne from the airborne infantry and sent into battle on the ground like ordinary infantry fighting vehicles.

But we have such a concept, and nobody is going to change it so far, therefore, we proceed from the fact that the machine should be airborne.

[cast iron]

Uncle Vasya Margelov was a super professional in his field. And derogatory epithets from you on his side. Uncle Vasya looked 40-60 years ahead and saw the prospect of developing airborne forces not for mass landings behind enemy lines, but as highly mobile fire brigades ready to shut up any enemy breakthrough in a matter of hours at any distance and in any direction.
Moreover, the events in 1956 and 1968 showed that it was the Airborne Forces that were capable of liquidating the arisen threat over hundreds of kilometers during a time.

[Blackgrifon]

Quote: cast iron

Uncle Vasya Margelov was a super professional in his field. And derogatory epithets from you on his side. Uncle Vasya looked 40-60 years ahead and saw the prospect of developing airborne forces not for mass landings behind enemy lines, but as highly mobile fire brigades ready to shut up any enemy breakthrough in a matter of hours at any distance and in any direction.
Moreover, the events in 1956 and 1968 showed that it was the Airborne Forces that were capable of liquidating the arisen threat over hundreds of kilometers during a time.

Which is fully confirmed by the practice of using the Airborne Forces. Since 1941 they began to be used as the last reserve (periodically conducting large-scale landing operations and the deployment of RDGs), so they continued after the war, and in the XNUMXst century - Hungary, the Czech Republic, Afghanistan, the Caucasus, etc.

[Couchexpert]

Quote: cast iron

Uncle Vasya Margelov was a super professional in his field. And derogatory epithets from you on his side.

And where did I use derogatory epithets?
He's just like an artist - "he saw in his own way."
The US Marine Corps, for example, also fought in Vietnam among the first. Did they spend much overseas landings from ships there?

Quote: cast iron

MTLB with a BMD4M chassis has nothing to do.

Op. What is nothing in common? I give a tip: Volgograd Tractor Plant. Google works around the clock.

[cast iron]

Do not hesitate, write right away that the US Marine Corps is the ideal of all non-living highly educated people, but the troops of "Uncle Vasya" are outdated toys of a wadded obscurantist commander who "fantasized" and "saw in his own way."

The ILC does not conduct overseas landings. This is the marines if you are not up to date. Army of invasion and intervention. They do not parachute. They are held by the US Airborne Forces. They have their whole ONE division.

The BMD4m chassis and MTLB have nothing in common. The BMD4M chassis is a shortened BMP-3 chassis. If you are not up to date.

[Couchexpert]

Quote: cast iron

The BMD4m chassis and MTLB have nothing in common. The BMD4M chassis is a shortened BMP-3 chassis. If you are not up to date.

Hmm. Then I confused the BMD-4M with the BMD-4 a little. I repent a lot.

But the BMD-4 is developed on the basis of the BMD-3, which is developed on the basis of the BMD-1, which was developed heavily with an eye on the BMP-1, which is developed on the basis of the BTR-50, which is developed on the basis of the PT-76. Here, somewhere in the middle, and MT-LB can be attached, because the time path (from 1951 - the start of production of the PT-76 - to 1964 - the beginning of the release of MT-LB) is not close and what exactly was taken as the basis (the plants could calmly exchange technical documentation) I can not say. If you look at all this technique, then the relationship between the undercarriage (5/6 roller, with hollow rollers) is quite traceable, and MT-LB is simply the most massive representative of these similar floating machines. If in this context, change MT-LB to BTR-50, then the essence will change much?
So it goes.

But you stay there, you all the best, good mood and health.

[cast iron]

Well, you don’t need to confuse and hand out the minuses in vain. BMD-4 did not take root in the army, as well as the BMD-3. They were too raw with a bunch of childhood illnesses. Now the whole park is being replaced by the platform, originating from the BMP-3. Not forgiven and 30 years as they say.

The main thing you do not play down is the military specialists of Russia and the structure of the Airborne Forces in particular. Americans are not the only cool warriors in the universe.

[would]

ready to shut up any enemy breakthrough

For example, shut up the breakthrough of an enemy armored group on those BMDs? Sorry, but funny. The Airborne Forces have much weaker armaments than the most simple motorized rifles, BMD cannot compete with MBT on equal terms, and the 122mm MLRS can be replaced by 300mm MLRS and so on and so forth. So God forbid the Airborne Forces to stand in front of the normal grouping of the enemy, if they do not grind into dust, then the losses will be colossal. As a highly mobile motorized infantry, they were indeed used, for example, in Chechnya because airborne transport by the airborne forces was much better than by motorized riflemen, but there they were assaulted by the landing method, and on the ground they were strengthened by the same motorized rifle and other military branches that leveled the weak weapons adapted for landing, but not adapted for a full-fledged ground operation.

In principle, everyone has already understood this and, for example, is transferring airborne tanks that cannot parachute from the air, I feel that they will continue to turn the airborne forces into motorized rifles with high mobility.

[would]

Speaking of Chechnya. The assessments of the Airborne Forces in both campaigns are different, but I can quote from the book "I was in this war" by Vyacheslav Mironov about the first Chechen war.

Intelligence in front of us reported that they had reached the first checkpoint.
our neighbors. This is more fun. Now they will lead us through their territory
Ulyanovsk paratroopers. The guys are not bad, they just don’t have enough
perseverance, and a lot of force. They can’t fight long and hard for
some object. The pressure is initially furious, but gradually subsides, goes on
no. But to support someone, to work as slaves, they can, and
on its own - the gut is weak. They were only taught to capture an object,
destroy and dissolve, and then something else to explode. But to such
They are not ready for heavy, protracted battles. "Mahra" is another matter. And in the heat, and
in the rain, in the blizzard, anywhere. In the North, in the desert, in the swamp
task. We’ll lie with the bones, but we’ll do it.

[cast iron]

The subjective opinion of a motorized rifle about the airborne forces is just a subjective opinion.

[cast iron]

MTLB with a BMD4M chassis has nothing to do.