BMD-4M and BTR-MD Rakushka:

BFM.ru says
Postnikov put the Ground Troops’ modern arms and equipment at only 12
percent of its inventory at present with, again, the goal of 70 percent
in 2020. At the end of this year, the army will get its first brigade
complement of the newest automated C2 (ASU) system [i.e. presumably YeSU
TZ]:
<blockquote>“In November of this year, we plan to conduct research on the newest ASU and hand down our verdict.”</blockquote>
According to BFM.ru, he said NATO and China already have analogous systems:
<blockquote>“But for us it is still the future.”

Without a C2 system then a battle management system doesn't really make sense.Once they start putting C2 systems in vehicles however the other 2 Cs follow as a natural consequence as command and control require communications and of course computers are used to do this.Making small GLONASS receivers is just part of the problem, they need a full constellation of satellites, but most importantly they need accurate fine scale digital maps.The Bakhcha is actually just a turret upgrade that can be fitted as shown in the video to the BMP-2, BMP-3, BMD, and BTR chassis. It is not really intended to add moving map displays for the driver.I would expect the next gen stuff to enter service now will likely have that sort of thing... ie BTR-82 and T-90AM etc.
</blockquote>

The problem is not so much the vehicles... if you think in computer terms they already have radios for communication so in many ways they are like laptops with wireless connections... the problem is that they haven't decided on which network type they want to use and what software to pick to manage it all.

Obviously it needs to be relatively soldier proof with a bit of training and it of course needs to do the job and be secure and have growth capacity.

As assets are tied in to the network new features and requirements will come up.

Right now the C2 is rubbish and is verbal.

The Chinese really do have a better setup than the Russian Army in this regard.

The point is that a few computers and high speed communications links will get their net down to vehicle level.

The purpose of future combat suits like Felin is to extend that network down to the individual soldier so everyone shares information and resources and firepower can be used where needed when needed etc etc.

Felin is expensive and will likely start equipping special forces only or a few elite units while cheaper simpler less capable Russian models have already been experimented with and improved a couple of times already. The good stuff that works from Felin will likely end up as part of the Russian kits and anything not working or not needed will be removed and hopefully more and more soldiers will be networked into the system.

The Russians have bought some large scale training simulators from Germany that allow training of soldiers from individuals right up to entire brigades which should help with learning how to operate in a net centric force, and also improve interoperability with NATO.

Indeed they do, and the PVO also had done a lot of work on datalinks.

I would expect sides and rear to be 50 cal proof, with the front stopping 30mm cannon shells from 500m or so.

The VDV will generally operate well behind enemy lines where the opposition will be fairly disorganised, and will try to deal with them from a distance using artillery or air power.

People who claim the BMD is too weak to be effective should perhaps think about the range rovers the SAS used in the Desert in WWII, and the modern dune buggy type vehicles the western special forces use now that wouldn't even stop pistol ammo.

For certain missions something lighter like the Typhoon light vehicle of the light brigades might be suitable as it will be designed to deal with IEDs and Mines... not that there is a vehicle on the planet that can withstand anything... it can certainly be resistant.

Well I think if they plan to operate on front lines... like they also did in Afghanistan, they can swap their vehicles for heavier models as they wont be airdropped over a front line... that would just be suicide.

In Afghanistan they often operated BMP-2s with extra armour fitted... apart from the uniforms the only real indication was the parachute emblem on their vehicles...

I believe there was a discussion about this on mp.net some time ago; the gist of it was that para-dropping even behind enemy lines is very dangerous with the presence of modern anti-aircraft missile systems (although there are situations under which it can be performed).

except the world is split into the haves and the havenots, and it is no great surprise that if Russia is fighting a Have they will likely be part of NATO and paratroopers will not be required... RS-24s will be.

As shown in operations in Afghanistan in 1979 they are a mobile well equipped force that does not have to use parachutes, yet are trained to use them if need be. In Afghanistan they landed one aircraft at an airfield and used that aircraft to take control of the terminal building and land the rest of the airborne force.

If that was not an option then they would have had the choice of parachuting in and then moving to the target, or pushing ground forces in via the border.

In my view, if the landing at Kabul airport was not possible then simply landing forces in some open area nearby would not have resulted in the entire force being shot down. The force has far more mobility that its western equivalents like the 82 airborne who are not even fully motorised.

The fact that they are motorised means they can be dropped 50-100km from the target and can drive to and engage the target rapidly. How many countries they are likely to send troops into will have air defence networks fully operational by the time they send in the paratroops?

AFAIK the logic is that an upgraded BMD-2 can have a high percentage of advantages and features of the BMD-4M at a fraction of the cost while a more permanent solution can be developed from the new vehicles families.

There will be a navalised Kurganets-25, and I assume that a airborne version of This vehicle family plus the wheeled Boomerang-25 and Boomerang-10... the latter would be ideal for para dropping because of its low weight, while the heavier versions and the tracked Kurganets-25 could be used where paradropping is not necessary.

In operations in Afghanistan during the 1980s VDV units often replaced their light BMDs with BMP-2s for the extra protection and better firepower and structural integrity. (The BMD-1s were so light that even rough driving tended to damage them... cracking hulls etc.