It is necessary to figure out whether the BMD-4 and "Sprut" are needed by the Russian Airborne Forces
The topic of providing the airborne troops with armored vehicles has already been discussed more than once on the pages of the "Independent Military Review" (see my article in "NVO" dated 08.20.10.)
However, this topic seems to deserve a much more attentive attitude - and above all with regard to the fate of the BMD-4 and related issues related to the development of weapons for the Airborne Forces.
UNWARDED OFFENSE BMD
BMD-4, in principle, meets all modern requirements. I will repeat a little: the base chassis is BMD-3, armament is BMP-3. Let me remind you: BMP-3 has been in production since 1979. Let's move on to considering the performance characteristics of the machine. We will not consider everything, only selectively, problematic moments in comparison of BMD-4 and BMD-2 (BTR-D).
Machine weight - more than 13 tons. The question immediately arises: isn't it a lot? Apparently, the mass is prohibitive. For example, the mass of the BTR-D is 8 tons, the Il-76 is capable of transporting three units of the BTR-D (BMD-2), and the BMD-4 only one. Again the question is: where to get so many planes? There is no answer, just as there are not so many planes.
The transmission on the machine is hydromechanical. Easy to operate, but much more complicated in design, in contrast to the BMD-2 mechanical transmission, hence some problems. The transmission device has three powerful oil filters and quite a few different valves. In particular, high-quality fuels and lubricants TSZp-8 (MGE-25T) are used, strict requirements for the presence of moisture and all kinds of impurities, as well as high requirements for the qualifications of service personnel - in particular, the driver.
The weight of the BMD-4 transmission is over 600 kg, the BMD-2 is over 200 kg, the difference is significant.
The BMD-4 transmission is repaired only at the manufacturing plant; the BMD-2 transmission can be repaired in the field.
The engine on the BMD-4 is of the same family as on the BMD-1, -2 and BTR-D, only these engines are different in power and weight, we will not consider them. There is only one drawback, again, the weight of the BMD-4 engine and the dimensions are higher.
The armament is similar to the BMP-3: 100-mm cannon 2A70 and 30-mm cannon 2A72, the FCS is basically the same. The mass of the BMD-4 ammunition is higher than the mass of the BMD-2, and this, in turn, causes a problem with the provision of ammunition, an increase in the number of vehicles or the number of ammunition feeds per day is required.
Machine 2S25 "Sprut" 125-mm self-propelled guns, in fact, the same BMD-3, only different weapons.
"Sprut" is equipped with a 125-mm 2A75 cannon, an analogue of the 125-mm 2A46 tank gun of the T-72 tank. The gun loader is apparently also borrowed from the T-72. In general, the armament complex has long been tested, reliable and raises no objections. Moreover, the T-72 tank is the most sold abroad and the most belligerent domestic tank, no other advertising is needed. But the mass of the vehicle is 18 tons (!), Which is clearly excessive for an airborne vehicle.
And the weight of 125-mm ammunition is clearly high and incomparable even with the ammunition of the "Nona" and the D-30 howitzer with all the ensuing consequences. At the same time, in terms of its combat qualities, the Nona's 120-mm HE shell is superior to the 125-mm HE shell and is comparable to the combat power of the 152-mm HE howitzer. If the presence of "Octopus" in the Ground Forces and the Marine Corps is necessary, easy to justify and historically confirmed, then the presence of such a heavy and oversized vehicle in the Airborne Forces is incomprehensible. After all, there are ATGMs that are most suitable for paratroopers, besides, the Airborne Forces already had a similar machine ASU-85, which was later abandoned, although in general the paratroopers gave it a good rating - but it weighed 15 tons.
ECONOMIC COMPONENT
At the moment, the purchase price for BMD-4 and "Sprut" is in the range of several tens of millions of rubles per vehicle. This is definitely an overpriced price, and at times, and is not justified by anything, obviously the cars do not cost so much. What is the reason? For example: at the moment the cost of the T-90 tank is at the level of 55-60 million rubles. for one car, depending on the configuration, (the figure is taken from the media). It is not difficult to conclude: at such prices, the Airborne Forces will indeed be on a starvation diet.
Due to the fact that the machines are more complex, then the cost of operation has increased in comparison with the BMD-2. Take fuels and lubricants, oils are more expensive, fuel consumption is higher.
The repair of the car, most likely, will be carried out at the manufacturing plant for obvious reasons. In the troops, repairs will also become more expensive, since they mainly carry out welding work on the body of the machine. The body is aluminum, and this work has always been expensive, besides, a highly qualified welder is required, with them there has always been a problem in the troops. Spare parts for hydromechanical transmissions are more expensive than for mechanical ones, and the assembly requirements are also much higher.
Due to the fact that the cost of operation has increased, the cost of training crews has also increased. Moreover, the complexity of the machine makes increased demands on the crews, since the RF Ministry of Defense has practically abandoned the contract army, and one year of service is clearly not enough for service on such machines.
FOREIGN EXPERIENCE
Consider military equipment for the Airborne Forces in foreign armies.
In the FRG, since the mid-70s, the Wiesel tracked combat vehicle has been developed for the airborne troops.
The machine body is made of steel sheets. Combat weight is 2.6 tons. The vehicle is designed to transport various weapons; self-propelled air defense systems and a flamethrower, command and ambulance vehicles are also being developed.
China. Since the mid-1990s, active work has been carried out in the PRC in the field of creating airborne combat vehicles to increase the combat capabilities of the PLA airborne units. For the first time, the new vehicle, designated ZLC-2000, was demonstrated at the exercises of the PLA airborne units in early 2005. Combat weight - 8 tons. The armament is similar to the BMD-2.
USA. At the present stage of development, the US airborne units are lightly armed infantry, which is armed with modern lightly armored equipment and artillery capable of parachuting or landing in a combat area. After the Vietnam War, the development of parachute technology reached such a level that it became possible to drop armored vehicles such as the M113 universal armored personnel carrier and the M551 Sheridan light tank. The modern Stryker combat vehicle, due to its significant weight, cannot parachute from VTA aircraft. By the way, the M113 has been in service for more than 50 years and, according to the statements of the American military, it will serve as much more.
The experience of the International Military Coalition (IAC) in the use of military equipment in Afghanistan and Iraq has shown that the use of infantry fighting vehicles and tracked armored personnel carriers is very expensive, and gradually switched to the use of wheeled armored personnel carriers and armored vehicles. This transition is mainly due to two factors: the enemy's lack of a large number of heavy weapons and economic feasibility.
I propose to consider this problem in more detail by comparing the effectiveness of the use of a tracked infantry fighting vehicle (BTR) and a wheeled armored vehicle (KBA).
Main evaluation criteria:
the cost of production of BMP is several times higher than the cost of CBA, R&D need not be mentioned - and so it is understandable;
the operating costs of the BMP are higher than those of the KBA, taking into account the costs of transportation and storage;
the time spent on the production of BMP is higher than on the KBA;
the time spent on training crews for infantry fighting vehicles, and the cost of this training is higher than for KBA;
the cost of repairing the BMP is higher than that of the KBA;
deploying and starting production of infantry fighting vehicles is more difficult than that of the KBA;
the cost of modernization and overhaul of the BMP is higher than that of the KBA;
the cost of disposal of BMP is higher than that of KBA.
From all of the above, we can conclude: you need a simple, inexpensive car, preferably a wheeled one, but a wheeled vehicle has restrictions on the cross-country ability and weight of equipment, weapons and materiel. Accordingly, the versatility and the ability to apply it in various terrain conditions are lost. In addition, not in all natural and climatic zones it is possible to use wheeled vehicles, and the lack of buoyancy severely limits the scope of application.
WAYS TO SOLVE PROBLEMS
What are the ways to solve problems? And everything is very simple, you don't need to look for anything, you don't need to invent a bicycle either, everything has been invented for a long time. As the saying goes: "Everything new is well forgotten old."
So instead of BMD-4 and "Sprut" you need to use "Nona"; Introduce 100-mm ATGM “Fable” or “Arkan” into the ammunition load, thereby providing the ability to destroy armored targets, and accordingly there will be no need for the “Octopus”. After such modernization, "Nona" will perform three fire missions: howitzers, mortars and anti-tank systems, especially since such modernization will not be difficult, since the guided missile "Kitolov-2" has already been introduced into its ammunition load. This is the nearest perspective.
In the long term, it is necessary to conduct an in-depth study of the use of weapons and military equipment in the Airborne Forces, starting from August 1, 1930, and ending with the present day, to develop a clear concept of an airborne combat vehicle, taking into account all political and economic realities.
The body of the machine must be steel.
The armament of the vehicle is remote and quick-detachable, in extreme cases, towed.
The base of the vehicle is tracked or wheeled.
A few explanations: a steel case is cheaper than an aluminum one, it is easier to repair it in military conditions. In battle, when a fire breaks out, a vehicle with an aluminum body usually burns to the ground. In combat conditions, if the chassis fails, weapons and ammunition can be removed from the vehicle and used on foot.
There are two ways here - create a new car or choose something from the existing one.
The first way is expensive and time-consuming, the second remains. Of the entire range of vehicles available, only MT-LB is most suitable, while nothing is suitable from wheeled vehicles. True, there is a "Tiger" and a car from the Italian company Iveco, but they have restrictions on the cross-country ability and weight of the equipment transported. If you take "UAZ", and in Soviet times, many DSHBs were armed with them, then at the moment it still needs to be modernized, at least to supply a diesel engine.
OUR CANDIDATE - MT-LB
So what is MT-LB. Let's conduct a brief analysis of her, if I may say so, her business qualities. Weight - 9700 kg, the golden mean between the BTR-D and BMD-4. Even if the BMD-4 armament is installed on the MT-LB, its mass will not exceed 13 tons.
The cost of MT-LB. After a major overhaul, the plant sells it for 1 million rubles, which is "nothing" compared to the price of the BMD-4, with the installation of various weapons on it, the cost is unlikely to exceed 5 million rubles. Let's carry out a comparative analysis of the BMD-4 and MT-LB in terms of the main indicators: firepower, security, mobility and command control.
The firepower of the MT-LB cannot be compared with the BMD-4, it can be said not, but the MT-LB can be equipped with the entire range of weapons - from heavy machine guns, anti-tank systems, air defense systems and ending with artillery complexes of 120-mm caliber … Security also cannot be compared with the BMD-4, but again, spaced, easily removable booking can be installed on it. Mobility: the speed on the highway for the BMD-4 is higher, but on rough terrain they compare, and such an indicator as cross-country ability, you don't even need to try to compare, for the MT-LB it is simply fantastic.
Command controllability is a relative indicator, since it depends on the training of command personnel and the availability of technical controls, so it can be ignored.
The above list can, in principle, be continued, but we will not consider each car, this is a topic for another conversation. I will only note one point: until recently, MT-LB was purchased by Sweden to install various weapons on it, if Sweden is a great automobile power, unlike us, it bought MT-LB, then you cannot imagine better advertising.
I am not trying to impose MT-LB as the best car, but at the moment there is simply no other one. At one time, he himself was skeptical of the MT-LB, until he had to serve in the unit in which she was armed. The MT-LB was repaired in the subdivision (battalion) by low-skilled driver-mechanics who served for six months or a year, including the replacement of the engine and gearbox. The mechanics were able to independently repair the checkpoint, and in the field, since the technology of the motorized rifle companies had the appropriate experience. They were even ready to repair engines.
I will express my opinion: at the moment there is no better vehicle for a conscript army and in the near future it will hardly be, there is no better vehicle for a war. Moreover, the MT-LB is adapted for transportation by air, it remains only to adapt it for parachuting.
The MT-LB has practically unlimited stock for modernization, and, I hope, it will have a happy fate of longevity, like its fellow in its class, the American M113 armored personnel carrier.
