 |
| via Reality Mod. |
This vehicle is another disturbing example of how lightly equipped our own airborne forces are.
The Russians have the capability to fly, drop by parachute and then storm off a drop zone with mechanized firepower. Would it have the same throw weight of a Stryker formation? No. Would it heel stomp the capabilities found in the 82nd? Definitely.
It would look a lot better in a lot of ways if it was based on a Brad or cv90 but I'm still impressed.
ReplyDeleteyou can't drop a bradley or cv90 out of a C-17 but you can this vehicle. but thats the point. the Russian airborne is mechanized...ours is footmobile. in a race to a strategic location they'll beat us there or will be able to beat us up once they get there due to the armor they have.
DeleteYou are forgetting that our strategy is also to shoot them down before they get there :)
DeleteBut yes, our mech airborne has been castrated. The 82nd when from the M551 to the Humvee!
thats a luxury we most likely won't have. its always going to come down to a force on force encounter and that means our light infantry will be fighting their mechanized infantry...i'll be posting the table of organization/equipment but its damn near equal to a stryker brigade...real close as a matter of fact.
DeleteCan you please elaborate Spudman...how will the US shoots down the Russian airborne?
Delete1-They have better planes than the US and are buyng new airframes
2-Their new T-50 will be flying at 23km high with a P-suit and outperforms the F-22...no matter in talking about the F-35
3-Their armored forces are protected against air attacks by SAMs and AAA.Some of this systems are unique in the world...
By 2025 if they want to take Georgia of any contry near Russia you just have to live with it...
Ah, the attack of the uninformed.
DeleteThe Russians have nothing comparable in strength or technology when it comes to the F-22, F-35, Aegis, etc. Not only the US 5th gen air assets, but the F-15/16/18 either has AESA or is getting it.
Btw, we have AAA and SAMS too. The Russians rely on a more mobile IADS due to the fact their air assets suck so badly and they have virtually ceded the air war to the US and they know they are going to get chased around the map by air attacks.
Call me when they, or anyone else, has a modern CATOBAR carrier, let alone 11 of them.
thats a pretty arrogant statement about their anti-air systems. the US has never faced a first rate capability being operated by the Russians. we've always faced users that operated their systems with at best some advisors. when we faced them and they were operated by Russians we've had a much harder time. that counts as reports out of Korea with Russians flying Mig-15's and the same in Vietnam with them supposedly flying Mig-21s and operating SAM sites.
Deleteif you don't think their defenses were formidable then ask Senator McCain and a bunch of B-52, F-4 and A-4 pilots (to name just a few).
the Russians have AESA but the boogey man that should scare the US pilots are the IR systems and the EO systems that they tend to use. i'm not an air guy so i'll leave that talk to those people.
as afar as the Russian airborne is concerned, you're being rather complacent in your view. they can deploy a fully mechanized force by parachute within their region of influence ... and that includes the middle east.
if the Russians wake up one morning and say that they want to get into a fight over the Saudi Arabian oil fields then they would be able to fly in and airdrop at least a Battalion before Amos had his first cup of coffee. thats impressive. oh and don't forget that the US Army had in mind the ability to deploy a medium weight force by airlanding when it bought the Stryker.
I never said their anti-air stuff was bad, just that it exists in its form due to the Russians knowing that they will not be able to oppose us in the air. Our respect of their IADS capabilities is the reason why the F-35 is being developed. If we did not care for their IADS, there would be much less of a push for a VLO Striker.
DeleteBtw, their heavyweight IADS is NOT air portable and would not play a role in the above scenario. What they would have is short range IADS and AAA vs a well-coordinated attack by 5th gen assets. This is one reason why the F-35C is important as it allows for a VLO asset worldwide, not just from select bases.
Yes, their airborne assets are getting better, which I have lamented about. However, if they attacked SA then they would have F-15s, F-18s, B-2s, B-1s, F-22s, F-16s, Reapers (and other UCAVS), etc pounding the crap out of them until C-17 delivered M-1s, Bradleys, etc join the fight. 5 years from now you can add F-35s. They would basically get one chance to surprise fly something in before we shut the air corridor down.
Yeah I get what you're saying, I just meant WE should have a light/medium tank. I guess the M8 would do but it would be good to have a sort of common chassis. I like the 113 gun carrier idea below, Egypt is supposed to have 113s with bradley turrets, if thats air portable then that would be better than no armor vehicle.
DeleteThank you Solomon for making my response shorter...
DeleteSpudman,do you read on aviation?By reading i mean magazines and websites on the matter,not the LM site...
You lost in the late 1990s the only airframe that allowed your aircraft(even the F-117)to operate against legacy IADS...it was the EF-111...
Now you would perform even worst against those systems...thank God the Navy has the EF-18 and for the 120 combat coded F-22s...
Todays systems used by Russia(and avalable to someone with money,like Iran,Venezuela or even China)are more capable and only your canceled programs had a chance against them...even systems that would give the edge to the F-22 are canceled(side loking AESA,IRST,hell even the HMD)...
i don't know about their heaviest anti-air not being mobile. the S-300/400/500 are all equal in mobility to our own patriot system...maybe even better because of their carriers. heavier yes but more mobile? yes.
Deleteadditionally you're talking about the USAF and USN operating in a vacuum. they'll be making counter moves as well. while we flood aircraft into the region, so will they. additionally we can't ignore the diplomatic state craft that will be at play. while we're looking at the M.E. again, that would be the perfect time for China to make their play on some disputed lands.
we're in a hurt locker on several fronts. and its going to get worse. but my bigger take away is that the 82nd needs funding. we can lavish money on SOCOM but other forces are gearing up for a fight that's going to be conventional (or near conventional) and the Army and Marines are being degraded to a dangerous degree. both financially but also by doctrine. unfortunately that doctrine originates at the highest levels of both organizations. Rangers are good but they'll get run over by Mech Infantry.
I thought we were talking about an "air mobile" force? The S-200/300/400 are certainly not air mobile.
Deletenot easily air transported but doable if its a must. besides if we're still talking mythical Saudi invasion they have much shorter supply lines. i'd expect them to use Iran to stage out of and then to simply ferry supplies across the gulf once the paratroopers have a toe hold.
Delete@Nano... The EF-111 was only used because there was no other choice. The experience of the F-117 shows that it can be done without it. The F-35 is a generation ahead of the F-117 in RCS and light years ahead of it in maintainability, maneuverability, speed, weapons, situational awareness, etc. For those times where outside EW support is desired, the F-35 can draw on EF-18s, MALD-J, standoff munitions, and other standoff jammers.
DeleteDon't forget the upcoming generation of UCAS which ups the ante on RCS.
Actualy ruskis have that much more emphasis on both anti air and anti armor due to their military being meant to fight on home turf while US is always on someone elses turf and force is designed that way.
DeleteAs per Clausewitz defense is stronger form of waging war.
US military relies on airpower but AAA and SAMs that are mobile with the units and provide effective cover(US has nothing comparable) actualy strip air support from an opponent in contact
All rusian SAM are quite mobile even the heavy S300-400 are way more mobile than patriot. How hard it is to kill mobile sams we could see in Kosovo 72 days of bombing but very few SAMs destroyed and a minimum ceiling limit was imposed to protect planes from short range SAMs
US never faced top of the line russian airdefence, closest some one came to that was IDF in 1973 and they were losing planes and pilots by the minute ,100+ in couple of days.In essence IAF couldnt provide close support in Sinai till lines were broken.
Ruskis need a do poses air mobility just to cover the 11 timezones , just look at who is air lifiting stuff to Iraq and Afghanistan ,russian cargo planes.
Russian airborne are the oldest airborne force with some unique capability ,like Salomon said are mechanized and also long ago mastered airdroping armor with crews inside ready for combat as soon as they land.
BMD3 chassis, not BMP3: it's lighter and already designed for air drop. Also I believe that is a full pressure 125mm gun, ie fully capable of engaging modern MBT, not just APC.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWe should have NEVER given up the M551 until the M8s were delivered.
ReplyDeleteThere were several M113 variants that can fit the role outfitted with 60/75/90/105mm guns. There is even one with the BMP-3 combo turret. Nice thing about the M113 is that a CH-53 or 47 can carry one
The Egytians use it with a Bradley turret on top, TOW and 25mm are better than nothin .... could maybe even upgrade to the new 40mm Bushmaster and maybe Javelin, really could go lots of ways with the 113
DeleteThere is a good video of this vehicle on YouTube. The gun is stabilised. There is a sequence of it swimming and firing at the same time. A bit light armour wise. But I am lead to believe by marines the job is to kill the enemy, that war is risky, and not to get to hung up on personal protection.
ReplyDeleteEntirely agree losing the M551 without replacement was idiotic but of course the M8 was cancelled anyway. That aside the Russian airborne forces are not part of the Russian Army but a separate service with a low proportion of conscripts that is primarily a conventional force. They can't move any large amount of mechanized forces by air over a strategic distance. US airborne are a strategic force that operates strategically from CONUS. If we need to send a medium weight force over a large distance we send the Marines.
ReplyDeleteI know the US Army and the 82 Airborne division once fielded the M551 Sheridan. Maybe they can bring something similar such as the French ERC-90. Imagine if the 82 Airborne Division had the ERC-90, they would surly be a mechanized Airborne division.
ReplyDeleteWhy the ERC-90?The US army has thousands of M-113s in storage...
DeleteCan the M-113 be airdropped off the C-17, C-5 or C-130J
Deleteyes it can. unfortunately nothing else in the inventory (apc wise) can. if you use a jltv as a sort of surrogate it could do the deed...maybe thats why they're pushing so hard for it. to give airborne a type of mobility.
DeleteYes the M113 can and has been air-dropped, even from a C-130.
DeleteHow many M113's dose the US have left and can we refurbished them to 21st century standards. I know we sold many to our allies and maybe we can bring them back for airborne APC. Though I do think their should be something along the lines of the French ERC-90 for Airborne Units as well.
DeleteThe US has THOUSANDS in storage. Google "Sierra Army Depot"
DeleteDon't get me wrong, I think Airborne Units should get the M113's or bring the ERC-90 in. I can imagine the 82 Airborne Div using the M113s as an Infantry carrier or Infantry support carrier.
DeleteCleaning screen of coffee. Just saw "throw weight" and "stryker formation" in the same sentence.
ReplyDeleteyeah sorry bout that. i keep looking at the Stryker concept and think it has promise but they've got to work a few things out.
DeleteRossiani trying copycat man portable Javelin, but the size of their electroinc components forced them to make paper tank with a gun from T-72.
ReplyDeleteSome of my comments may repeat what others have already posted. Also, excuse my lack of grammar :)
ReplyDeleteIt's actually based on the BMD-3 Airborne Fighting Vehicle which is not to be confused with the BMP-3 Infantry Fighting Vehicle. Both are amphibious, however BMP-3 isn't air-deployable via parachute while the BMD-3 is. Since the Sprut-SD is technically based on the BMD-3 chassis (apart of VDV airborne modernization into Airborne Assault Brigades), it's also amphibious.
Not only is there a Sprut-SD amphibious airborne light tank destroyer with a 125mm smoothbore gun + autoloader (most US & NATO vehicles are not amphibious, most do not have laser guided ATGMs with a range of up to 5.5-6.5 kilometers for tracked APCs/IFVs/MBTs, and most do not have autoloaders and instead manually load their cannons), there's also the BMD-4M airborne fighting vehicle that's also amphibious with a 100mm semi-autocannon which can elevate to act as artillery up to 7 km with unguided rounds.
It also stores up to 5 paratroopers in the passenger compartment, is equipped with a Shtora-1 or Arena-E Protection System against ATGMs and RPGs (Shtora-1 is more likely to be purchased by the Russian military since Arena-E is worth 1/3 the price of a BMP-3, therefore UAE is more likely to possess better quality BMP-3Ms they bought from the Russians in addition to domestic modifications using foreign equipment), and can fire ATGMs against land targets 5.5 km away and helicopters or UAVs up to a 6 or so km all depending on the time of day and present weather conditions.
Since appliqué Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) may reduce or completely sink these vehicle's amphibious mobility, something like Israel's Trophy Active Protection System or Russian Shtora-1 or Arena-E is ideal. I do not know much about Israeli Trophy, however I think I know a little bit about some Russian countermeasure systems for tanks and IFVs. Apparently the main differences between Arena-E and Shtora-1 is that Arena destroys the incoming projectile while Shtora-1 diverts its course. I think Shtora-1 may also protect the vehicle from guided artillery rounds, though I am not sure.
ReplyDelete