China's Airborne Dragon

[SBD-3]

October 13, 2009: The Soviet Union pioneered Airborne Infantry Fighting Vehicles, back in 1969, with their BMD-1. They stuck with this concept, and now use the BMD-4. The Russians continue to be the largest user of this type of vehicle, designed as a lightweight paratroop carrier with a modest armament. Other countries, particularly the U.S., have never expressed much interest in this small category of which the different types of models can be counted on one hand.

Enter China’s ZLC2000. Once believed to be a modified copy of the BMD, the tracked ZLC2000 is in fact an entirely domestic design with limited Russian influence. It first appeared in public in 2005 and its presence testifies to the growing offensive power of the Chinese Army.

Featuring a box shaped hull with a centrally positioned angular turret, the vehicle is operated by a crew of 3, a gunner in the turret, commander in the hull and a driver in front of him to the left of the engine. In the turret, a 25mm cannon is mounted along with a .30 caliber machine gun. Outside the turret, an Anti-Tank Guided Missile launcher is affixed as well as smoke dischargers.

Back in the hull, there are positions for 4 paratroopers in the rear with observation windows and firing ports (3 right, 2 left and 1 rearward). Entry and exit is provided by top mounted hatches or a rear door.

Armor is thin to keep the weight at a parachute friendly 8 tons. During the drop the vehicles tracks are retracted to minimize impact. Unlike BMD crews, the Chinese crews are dropped separately, along with the other paratroopers.

Speed of the vehicle is 68 kilometers per hour, with ability of fording lakes and streams at a speed of 6 kilometers per hour. In this environment, the turning of the tracks provides propulsion.

Physical dimensions of the vehicle are a 23 foot length, 7 foot width and 7 foot height. Unit cost is 2.2 million dollars.

Comparable vehicles are the Russian BMD series with the latest version, the BMD-4 being the closest in capability. It has heavier armament with a 100mm gun mated to a 30mm cannon. It carries a crew of 3 along with 4 paratroopers. Weight is 11 tons. Its dimensions feature a 25 foot length, 10 foot width and 7 foot height. Unit cost is 2.5 million dollars. -- Mike Perry

 

[aimarraul]

 

[applesauce]

just my opinion but i feel like dropping crews separately is a bad idea

 

[592257001]

just my opinion but i feel like dropping crews separately is a bad idea

it is a pretty bad idea, however only the russians/soviets have the technology and the guts to land the vehicle and the soilders together.

 

[sathruvinasakh]

it is a pretty bad idea, however only the russians/soviets have the technology and the guts to land the vehicle and the soilders together.

It only highlights that the Soviets prachutes tech is incredible.

 

[Beast]

just my opinion but i feel like dropping crews separately is a bad idea

Seperate crew dropping with vehicles has its own advantage of reducing casualty. The design of the Airborne vehicle will not be too limted due to vehicle when design needs to consider the impact of the landing with crews.

Not airborne drop will be happen without hicups. Have you consider your airborne vehicle flip when land? If that happen, most of the crew inside will be dead. When this happen for China, crew will still most likely safe and they can continue fighting except they will do without the vehicles. And even you ariborne crew together with vehicle, you cannot immediately start fighting once landed. Crew is still need to alight from vehicle to unhook the rope tied onto the vehicle on the landing pallet and get rid of the parachute. In the end, its back to square one.

It's not about China not having the technology. Its the Chinese prefer to do the airborne this way. If you look at Russian BMD-4, you can see how bloody clamp it is for their crew and passengers.

Btw, the passenger cannot alight from behind the vehicle. THey do it on top which makes it dangerous and not possible to evacuate any casualty.

While for China ZLC2000, it just operate like a normal IFV except its smaller weight and size, there's a door hatch behind it which allows passenger safe alights and possible casualty evacuation.

 

[ptldM3]

Seperate crew dropping with vehicles has its own advantage of reducing casualty. The design of the Airborne vehicle will not be too limted due to vehicle when design needs to consider the impact of the landing with crews.

And how is that? Airborne troops are droped behind enemy lines and protected by armor, so how will dispersing troops and isolating them from rapidly using heavy caliber weapons reduce casualties?

The VDV have 70+ years of airborne experience, there is a good reason why they chose to have the paratroopers droped with the vehicle. Dropping Paratroopers in their vehicles gives a higher concentration of troops in the intended drop zone as apposed to having them spread over a wide area. The more paratroopers that are spread out, the longer it will take to link up with their superiors and the longer it will take to get to their vehicles; the longer it takes to get to their vehicles the longer it takes to accomplish their mission (airborne troops are meant to be a fast strike force). The longer it takes for commanders, gunners, and drivers to find and prep their vehicles the more vulnerable everyone becomes.

Not airborne drop will be happen without hicups. Have you consider your airborne vehicle flip when land? If that happen, most of the crew inside will be dead. When this happen for China, crew will still most likely safe and they can continue fighting except they will do without the vehicles. And even you ariborne crew together with vehicle, you cannot immediately start fighting once landed. Crew is still need to alight from vehicle to unhook the rope tied onto the vehicle on the landing pallet and get rid of the parachute. In the end, its back to square one.

Why would an airborne vehicle flip and what makes you believe that everyone in a none Chinese airborne vehicle will die while the Chinese will be fine?

FYI, roof mounted hatches still open incase of a rollover or flip due to the turret.

It's not about China not having the technology. Its the Chinese prefer to do the airborne this way. If you look at Russian BMD-4, you can see how bloody clamp it is for their crew and passengers.


Btw, the passenger cannot alight from behind the vehicle. THey do it on top which makes it dangerous and not possible to evacuate any casualty.

The BDM-4 allows all of the troops to quickly evacuate the vehicle because the roof essentially opens which also provides extra side armor when the hatches are flipped open. The BDM-4 also has a hydromatic suspension which makes it easier to load people or cargo. Moreover, the suspension allows the BDM to shoot above obstacles or reduce it's silhouette and use the surroundings (hills, debris, ect) to not only blend in/hid but use those surroundings as a barrier of protection.

 

[Beast]

And how is that? Airborne troops are droped behind enemy lines and protected by armor, so how will dispersing troops and isolating them from rapidly using heavy caliber weapons reduce casualties?

Did you even bother to read my post? If parachute mulfunction or a rough landing. The vehicle and crew will all perished. While a seperate system reduces the chances by 50% Since both vehicle and crew has their own parachute system and they are seperated.

The VDV have 70+ years of airborne experience, there is a good reason why they chose to have the paratroopers droped with the vehicle. Dropping Paratroopers in their vehicles gives a higher concentration of troops in the intended drop zone as apposed to having them spread over a wide area. The more paratroopers that are spread out, the longer it will take to link up with their superiors and the longer it will take to get to their vehicles; the longer it takes to get to their vehicles the longer it takes to accomplish their mission (airborne troops are meant to be a fast strike force). The longer it takes for commanders, gunners, and drivers to find and prep their vehicles the more vulnerable everyone becomes.

I agree with your case. Definitely dropping together with crew did has the advantage. But PLA , I believe has a different doctrine which makes them they will do it another way. PLA probably require their airborne unit to have a longer operation and endurance, therefore crew comfort and not rapid reaction is higher priority.

Why would an airborne vehicle flip and what makes you believe that everyone in a none Chinese airborne vehicle will die while the Chinese will be fine?

FYI, roof mounted hatches still open incase of a rollover or flip due to the turret.

Mishap do happen. Nobody can gurantee 100% success, right? As for China IFV, same too that a flip and back door hatch can still open.

The BDM-4 allows all of the troops to quickly evacuate the vehicle because the roof essentially opens which also provides extra side armor when the hatches are flipped open. The BDM-4 also has a hydromatic suspension which makes it easier to load people or cargo. Moreover, the suspension allows the BDM to shoot above obstacles or reduce it's silhouette and use the surroundings (hills, debris, ect) to not only blend in/hid but use those surroundings as a barrier of protection.

I think we do not need a rocket science to tell us top hatch unload is better or back hatch unload is better. Bullets flying around and I wouldn't want be the one to unload from top. Trying to use skretcher to evacuate casualty from top proves impossible. And BMD-4 compartment is too cramp.