Combat tracked amphibious vehicles BMD-4M © Vladimir Astapkovich / Sputnik
Posted on 05/06/2016 8:22:22 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Russia is developing a new mobile air defense system for its elite airborne troops that will be based on the BMD-4M armored vehicle. The new weapon system—which is designed to be parachuted down to ground forces—will be able to protect paratroopers from enemy aircraft operating at high or medium altitudes.
“Work is underway on the on the creation of an air-droppable anti-aircraft missile defense system based on the BMD-4M airborne combat vehicle. The experimental design work is codenamed Ptitselov,” a Russian defense ministry spokesperson told the Moscow-based TASS news agency.
The Russian report does not describe the system in detail. However, given that the Ptitselov—or “Fowler” in English—is based on the lightweight BMD-4M armored vehicle chassis, the system is probably comparable to the Pantsir-S2 anti-aircraft gun/surface-to-air missile system.
The Pantsir-S2 has a range of about 19 miles and can engage targets at altitudes of about 33,000ft. The older Pantsir-S1 can attack two targets simultaneously and can attack as many as 12 targets in less than a minute. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the Ptitselov will be as capable—if not more so.
The addition of the Ptitselov will greatly increase the capabilities of Russia’s airborne forces, which have previously relied on man portable air defenses to ward off air attacks. The Ptitselov will afford those lightweight—but fully-mechanized—troops some level of area air defense capability similar to other Russian mechanized forces. Russian mechanized forces are usually accompanied by mobile surface-to-air defense systems such as the fearsome Buk-M3 (NATO: SA-17 Grizzly).
Unlike comparable U.S. units such as the 82nd Airborne Division, the Russian Airborne Forces are fully mechanized using the BDM-4-series light armored vehicles—all of which can be parachuted to the ground. There is an infantry fighting vehicle variant equipped with a 100mm low-pressure gun and 30mm cannon called the BDM-4M, the BMD-4K command vehicle and an anti-tank variant equipped with the same 125mm cannon that equips the T-90S main battle tank. There are also a host of other variants. The Russian airborne forces are also equipped with a variety of self-propelled artillery.
Conversely, the U.S. Army has not had an air-droppable tank since the M551A1 Sheridan was retired from active service in the mid-1990s. The antiquated Sheridan light tank was retired without a replacement after the XM-8 armored gun system project—which would have succeeded the M551A1—was cancelled in 1997.
In recent years, the U.S. Army has displayed some level of interest in resurrecting an armored capability for its airborne troops under the Mobile Protected Firepower effort. The Pentagon requested money for the new vehicle in the fiscal year 2017 budget, but the program’s future is uncertain.
Combat tracked amphibious vehicles BMD-4M © Vladimir Astapkovich / Sputnik
Ivan sure knows how to make tactical AA systems. The US has never developed a comparable system, see Sgt. York fiasco.
I have a feeling the US relies on a different strategy like air superiority to protect ground troops.
Hrmmm the missile can only lock-on higher than 5,000 meters... Not sure how that helps you fight off an A-10 straffing.
The last 10 years of my contracting career was on armored vehicles. I venture to say that it is nearly impossible for the military/industrial/political complex to produce a design that will be efficient on the battlefield. Congress tries to send big pieces to their preferred companies and thus divide the contract so that huge compromises must be made on all aspects of the design. To get enough votes companies have to pool their pocket-Congressmen. Then, the military finally gets a shot at a new vehicle and every command wants that vehicle go be one they can use with no modifications. They fight over their needs and you end up with a race horse designed by a committee. Then Congress ladles on its green agenda, gay agenda, diversity agenda, consulting stuff for supporters, small business requirements, etc. By the time the contract is let it is essentially doomed to failure, like the Future Combat Systems vehicle. If I cancelled a meeting on that project I’d get angry emails and calls telling me I had to hold it because they had “charge numbers they had to burn.”
The process is so broken it amazes me the military gets anything it needs. (Incidentally, everybody involved knows what the issues are. But nobody has the power to overcome them.)
.....If they can keep costs in control.
Reminds me of the ZSU-23 (the “Gun” in VN) or the 2S6 later update except it’s on a truck body.
Added missiles to replace the guns for the +30K altitude shots. Guns for low altitude.
Kinda like a cross between the 2S6 and a SA-15
They have other systems to handle CAS aircraft. The Strela-10, for example.
Ivan sure knows how to make tactical AA systems. The US has never developed a comparable system, see Sgt. York fiasco.
Not really. They just know how to deploy them against weaker opposition. This would be junkyard scrap in 5 minutes against a competently equipped foe.
That is usually provided by air support
A 19 mile range is not going to cut it. Hunk of burning steel in the real world battlefield.
A nuclear strike on the airbase would take care of that.
True. Very true.
As much for the Air Farce (nowdays) as for the Army. Army missiles, army weapons, army uniforms, army vehicles.
The Navy? Similar: The designs are based on assumed “computer modeling of assumed battles.” The ships can be destroyed in harbors by mines laid overnight by pleasure boats, and torpedoes shot from fishing boats and trawlers.
Back in the ‘80’s, I was a member of the first PATRIOT battalion the army formed. We did the final acceptance testing for the system out at Ft. Bliss. When those familiar with the ability of other AD systems to be air-dropped would ask us if the PATRIOT could be air-dropped, we would tell them, “Sure... once.” :)
more about strela-10 from Wikipedia:
“Each 9M37 missile is 2.2 m (7.2 ft) long, weighs 40 kg (88 pounds) and carries a 3.5 kg (7-15 pound) warhead. The maximum speed of the missile is near Mach 2, engagement range is from 500...800 to 5000 m (0.3–3 miles) and engagement altitude is between 10 and 3500 m (33-11,500 ft). (The ranges define the zone of target intercept, minimum and maximum launch distances are longer for approaching and shorter for receding targets, depending on the target’s speed, altitude and flight direction.)”
sounds to me like the A10 and AH64 were the intended targets of this system.
Probably, along with the Apache and some of the older attack aircraft. Without going back and looking, my guess would be that the -10 evolved from older systems that had to be able to target the various Wild Weasel aircraft, and some of those were real fast-movers.
Ok, I went and looked anyway, and I was sort of right. The -10 doesn’t really have a predecessor, but the -10 is also old enough that it was contemporary with the old F-111B and F4 WildWeasel aircraft, which would have been harder to hit than the slower A-10.
Yes it does they are busy getting ready with the All Female and Transgender Lightfooted Infantry Brigades - absolutely fearsome to behold in their flaming pink uniforms ... The are able to airdrop lactation stations and transgender restrooms on a moments notice.
The vile Ruskies will pay the price if they have to face these wonder warriors.
Gosh I hope Trump reverses that nonsense his first day as president.
Reverse it? Why those Brigades are light years ahead of anything the Ruskies have ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.