Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #1

It is not really about weak or strong rounds... they could go for a high velocity 90mm round if they wanted a powerful gun, but at the end of the day they want the weapon to perform a specific task... this weapon doesn't need to penetrate tanks at 2km from the front... it is for use against non-tank targets like IFVs and other vehicles, and also light aircraft.

I rather suspect that if there is a 45mm round and a 57mm round in the running then for there to actually be a competition they both need to be able to do the job. The question then comes down to what added features do they add, and I suspect the 57mm round is hyping its guided shells, while I suspect the 45mm is hyping that it is a modern powerful compact round that can operate in a short compact gun mechanism, yet with potent HE and APFSDS rounds that will do the job.

It is completely possible that both weapons might enter service with the 45mm gun on lighter vehicles and the 57mm gun on medium vehicles.

It is also possible that they might decide the larger calibre is useful and to invest in a 57mm telescoped case round to be designed that combines the compact ammo and projectile capacity with the power and accuracy of a modern design plus the simple loading mechanism.

In fact they might design a gun that can fire either a 57mm or a 45mm telescoped case round and use both...or they could go for a 60mm high velocity round and use neither.

Oook.....why does it look like a Stryker/Patria??

Well they could have put the wheels on the roof... just to be different, but wheels in the lower hull is a tradition in Soviet and Russian armoured vehicles.

A stated goal was ramp rear door, unmanned turret... that kinda demands engine in the front and it is tradition to have the driver and commander beside the engine (BMP-1), so presumably the gunner postion is just behind the engine with the turret behind him and then at the rear the troop compartment.

BTW it might look like a Stryker/Patria, but do either of those vehicles operate in a medium weight brigade of only Stryker/Patria based vehicles and is there a 4 and 6 wheeled version of them that is used in light brigades?

Lack of side doors is the one thing I lament.

I agree, but I remember looking at internal cross sections of the vehicles and the point between the 2nd and 3rd wheels where it is ideal to put the doors is the third crew position which the troops can't access anyway as there is an unmanned turret between there and the troop compartment.

Btr-90 looked huge compared to BTR-80. Wonder where the Boomerang will fit in.

Hard to say but the extra weight means extra volume to keep it all bouyant so I don't think it will be smaller.

Looking at these models:

http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6503/94845085.b5/0_88877_6423a98a_XL.jpg

Mainly the tracked models in the back ground presumably of the Kurganets the engine is clearly further forward and there are two hatches behind and one directly behind the engine compartment.

In the same image however the engine on the wheeled version is clearly mounted further back which suggests it might be possible that there are three crew positions beside the engine or perhaps even one in front of the engine and two to the side.

There would be no crew or troop access to the turret compartment, and with no crew in the turret it would largely be a column of ammo and ammo handling structures below the turret ring.

If the engine is in the front and unattended turret is almost at the rear where does the crew sit then ?

First of all don't confuse the size of this turret with the size of the turret ring as there will likely be a lot of turret overhang in the IFV model.

The model with the largest turret ring will be the MBT and likely artillery models and they don't need rear troop compartments.

Second the crew sit beside the engine under the frontal armour.

Is there enough isolation between crew and ammo or the crew will be just next to the ammo risking in case of hit ?

There is the frontal hull armour and the engine between the enemy and the turret ammo... if the enemy can reach the ammo from there then no where in the vehicle is safe anyway... a penetrator that reaches the ammo will likely continue through the troop compartment and out the rear.

Would it be possible that this isn't the IFV configuration at all, but the APC version?

It looks to me to be a Berezhok BMP-2 upgrade with something on the rear turret that might be an optimised optronic sight.

Since the turret is unmanned why is it so large, why doesn't it just have the 30mm on a swivel mount with the ATGM's stuck on the side? I think the AP/HE ammo is stored on two separate bins on either side of the gun, completely separate from everything else.

I think you have answered your own question... if this was an APC the turret would probably be much smaller with perhaps a 14.5mm HMG and a grenade launcher or 30mm cannon mount, and likely an extended chassis to increase the size of the troop compartment.

For the 2A42 and 2A72 there is a dual feed mechanism that could be loaded with two different ammo types.

That would free up the area directly below the turret for the commander and gunner stations and the magazine is completely removed the the hull. More soldiers could be carried.

Why remove the ammo from the Hull?

The Russian military have already rejected the RWS on the Lynx and the upgrade of the T-90 that included a turret mounted ammo bustle because they don't like external ammo storage because of its vulnerability to enemy fire.

The turret ring would not need to be huge for the light armament of the IFV and could be even smaller for the APC model... only the MBT models and artillery models will need large turret rings.

Yes... the primary role of APCs is to protect their troops with armour and make them mobile around the battlefield so they can keep up with tanks, but that is all. The purpose of IFVs is to do the same but also provide fire support for those troops and to engage light vehicles the enemy is using.

In early model BMP-3s they had problems with the turret ring cracking under the assymetrical recoil of the 100mm gun which was not centred in the turret.

The BTR-80/82 is a good example of an APC in that its armament is restricted to a single 30mm cannon or 14.5mm HMG and coaxial 7.62mm MG depending on the model.

In comparison the IFV tend to also have ATGM capability, and in the Soviet and Russian armed forces more HE fire power to better engage a wider range of enemy targets.

Normally, APC's are limited in firepower due to the required size of the crew cabin. IFV turrets are rather large. The magazine, gunner, and commander seats take up a lot of room. However, if the magazine is up-top, and the turret is unmanned, it will have almost no substructure. Therefore extra seats would be fitted below the turret. All it would need is a LCD screen and joystick for the gunner. The interior would still have the same space as if it had a Kord RWS on the roof.

Except that a penetrating hit on the turret could start a fire because the ammo is in the line of sight... a better solution would be to use a very small turret ring with a narrow column for ammo storage and weapon and sensors only in the turret. To make the troop compartment more spacious just make the hull slightly longer.

Modern squads will be much better armed and better equipped so smaller groups will be required anyway.

Previous generations of APC's were little more than taxis to bring troops to the front then fall back and get more, equipped only with HMG's for defense. In contrast IFV's stay with the troops, and provide more firepower. Front lines have definitely blurred since these rolls were defined, and I wonder if this model represents that? Having more firepower to deal with a more fluid enemy's ambushes.

There is probably good reasons to use both IFVs and APCs, in many cases an IFV... especially if it has decent armour and decent HE fire power could substitute for a MBT in some low intensity roles, certainly a BMPT type vehicle could also be adapted for the role too.

Or that speculation could be all wrong and the turrets unnecessarily large superstructure is just air. Maybe it's not so dissimilar from Berezhok, featuring a manned turret. If the magazine was in the hull, I would expect the turret to look more like Kliver, or maybe the BPPU.

I rather suspect that the model depicted is merely a Berezhok turret with the optics altered slightly fitted to a Boomerang chassis with the roof hatches removed.

I rather doubt they will release images of the successful final vehicles before they show images of the prototypes... and like the PAK FA I rather doubt even the first prototypes will be set in stone. There will be an enormous range of Boomerangs with all sorts of equipment and turrets and weapons fitted to it... there will likely even be a turretless UAV launcher vehicle with roof mounted catapults and internal cabin space for three crew and 4-6 operators and various raisable antenna to communicate with the in air birds housed in boxes on the roof like pidgeons from WWI.

I would expect an APC model with just a HMG and perhaps the new 40mm Balkan grenade launcher could be the width of the commanders cupola on a T-90 which would allow 360 degree rotation independent of the vehicle and a the space needed for perhaps 500 HMG rounds, 2,000 7.62mm rounds and 400-500 40mm grenades, or a 30mm cannon with 500 rounds, or indeed a 23mm KPVB cannon with 1,000 rounds.

Man HOW MANY damn different versions/renders of the Kurganets/Bumerang/Armata are we gonna be presented with!?

Russian military intelligence disinformation department at work and in overdrive. This is all way too confusing.


And this. WTF is this? I'm not saying it doesn't look good, but there are already at least 4-5 concurrent light-vehicle projects in the pipe or ready already. Pick one already, geez.