Controversy surrounding promising airborne combat vehicle

Controversy surrounding promising airborne combat vehicle

In the past few years, commanders of airborne troops «fighting» with the management of the Ministry of Defence for the latest military vehicle. BMD-4M has become an object of controversy almost at the level of self-concept: both parties require it mutually exclusive properties. One of the latest news about the BMD-4M appeared in August this year. Then first deputy defense minister Alexander Sukhorukov said that the Defense Ministry will not purchase these war machines because of the level of protection that the military department bureaucrats considered missing. At the moment, against the backdrop of permutations in the top ranks of the Defense Ministry, the subject of BMD-4M can again become topical and, in addition, may change attitude towards the newest car.
According to the August statements Sukhorukov, booking BMD-4M tribute not provide protection against shells and mines. First Deputy Minister and other leaders supported the military. But with such a «verdict» disagreed Airborne Troops Commander Colonel General Vladimir Shamanov. He believes that the airborne troops have long needed brand new combat vehicle BMD-4M and absolutely meets the requirements that are put forward control «airborne infantry.» As a result, such a collision views and four and a half years after the presentation of new model airborne combat vehicle prototype is experienced with not quite clear prospects. Let’s try to understand the conflict and realize what could be the solution to the situation.
The class armor «airborne combat vehicle» is a Russian innovation proposed to increase the striking power of commando units. Made in the 60s of last century the concept of BMD included the creation of comparable light aviadesantiruemoy machine capable of this role in the fight, including against the heavy armor. Further development of the concept of an old eventually became BMD-4M. Since the time of development of the BMD-1 form of this class of vehicles palpably changed. Namely, almost twice increased combat weight (13.5 tons of BMD-4M against 7.2 in BMD-1) also increased firepower. So, instead of 73-mm cannon brand new machine landing a 100-mm gun-launcher, 30mm automatic cannon and 7.62mm machine gun. As a result of these transformations firepower newest machines increased significantly.

The price paid for the best weapons was comparable large combat weight. Yet, even with the weight of the machine 13 tons transport aircraft IL-76 can carry and immediately landed two BMD-4M. In addition, one of the prerequisites to increase the mass proved best level of protection. Yet, even more secure airborne combat vehicle control did not work for the Ministry of Defence. With all this protection will increase in coming to the weighting of the entire machine, which will allow her to not meet the requirements for Airborne landing abilities.

In general, the main controversy surrounding the BMD-4M relate specifically to protect the balance and weight. With all this history of Russian and then Russian airborne troops not allowed to check the loyalty one way or the other point of view in practice. More precisely, the BMD of old models involved in the conflict, they had no chance to work in a large amphibious operations, the criteria for which they were initially intended. In Afghanistan and Chechnya fighting vehicles landing in most cases used as another option 1st infantry fighting vehicle that was appropriate consequences. For example, BMD-1 and BMD-2, which not surprisingly, proved vulnerable to anti-tank grenade. For this reason, there were demands for higher level of protection, even at the cost of landing abilities, which in fact were not in demand.

Judging by the statements of Governors of the Defense Ministry, they want to get some tracked vehicle with arms not worse than the BMD-4M, protivosnaryadnym booking and mine protection. Fully understood that with such requirements is practically impossible «to meet» in a combat weight applicable for landing from aircraft. But the Defense Ministry stands on its own. On days are over promising airborne combat vehicle spoke Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin. He believes the BMD-4M decent machine, but I agree with the military about her damn armor. As for the resolution of disputes between the Ministry and the Airborne Troops, the solution to this Rogozin sees prepyadstviya in developing the newest machine that meets all requirements. Deputy Prime Minister confirmed that the current time based on broneplatformy «Kurganets-25» developed, including brand new and airborne combat vehicle.

Perhaps the newest armored vehicle design for the landing is another factor that hampers decision adopted BMD-4M. In this case, apparently, at the present time specifically design «Kurgan» is a prerequisite of all problems BMD-4M. Meanwhile, the airborne troops continue to update the existing fleet of vehicles by repairing and upgrading. Lately, all the troops in the BMD-1 will be reported to the state of the BMD-2. It is expected that such modifications will allow at least a little to renew the fleet of vehicles VDV and increment its fighting capacity. In other words, there is no BMD «Kurganets» and BMD-4M does not comply with the Ministry of Defense, Russian paratroopers have to use old BMD-2, including machines converted from the first model.

Rogozin also suggested a fascinating proposal for Airborne equipment with the latest technology features and its implementation. According to the experience it offers zabugornyh countries arming «winged infantry» not only airborne combat vehicles, and light armored vehicles, such as «Tiger» or «Lynx». At first glance, this looks far candidacy is not present. But it is worth remembering that the vast majority of armored landing refers to teachings. In real conflicts Airborne almost always acted in the same combat formations with motorized infantry and tank crews. This fact can affect the whole concept of reviewing the implementation of airborne troops with the following configuration complete their goals, objectives and ways to combat work.

And yet no one is going to change the appearance and significantly Airborne process any documents related to their structure, weapons, etc. In general, the situation around promising combat vehicle for airborne troops recalls the traditional dispute between those who would use the technique to be ordered and those who will pay for it. Judging by previous applications and processes, the last word in re Airborne is not for this kind of command of the troops, and for the General Staff and other units of the Ministry of Defence. And hardly a final decision will be in favor of the long-suffering BMD-4M.

Like this post? Please share to your friends: