Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #1

Generally it resembles patria amv

Most new 8x8 APC's share the same general appearance. Box, wedge front, eight wheels.

I'm kind of disappointed Boomerang doesn't have the classic BTR-70 silhouette and side doors to keep with tradition. However, this layout has proven to be effective, so there's no complaints from me.

Generally it resembles patria amv

Absolutely, you are right.
From Russian DoD's operational models Patria represent, by a very long margin, the best LAV on its class worlwide ; the term more often used for the qualitative edge that Patria has established in the latest years ,in comparison with its competition, is "Norvegian breakthrough" in the sector.

Boomerang overall layout is heavily influenced by it (even if internal configuation,degree of modularity and technological level of the materials employed will ,obviously, differentiate it markedly from Patria)

Check more model of Kurganets and Boomerang

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/379535.html

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/380095.html

Well, we can be sure now what organization the Chinese received technical assistance from when making their latest tracked IFVs .

Austin wrote:Check more model of Kurganets and Boomerang

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/379535.html

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/380095.html

First off, wow.

100m gun + 30mm coaxial. The turret is completely completely unmanned with zero crew hatches on the roof. Although it's probably completely full of ammunition, I'm very interested to see how much is kept below the turret ring, and whether it'll be completely isolated from the crew on the inside. 360° cameras for good situation awareness.





APC version. The simple modular design means it will be cheap and numerous.




Notice the difference in hatch configuration, everything to the rear of the firewall is a drop-in module.



Cutaway. Seats are wall mounted and sit very high off the ground. Excellent mine protection. I think this might be the 100/30 version due to the lack of seating were the turret would be. The APC version would have seats all the way to the front.

Bonus vehicle, bring on the zombies



Another shot of the robot on boomerang.



MG module.





Only seating for two in the back?

The Kurganets models are rejected ones btw - so expect a different combat module.

Care to elaborate?

Zivo wrote:Care to elaborate?

Allow me...

The BMP-3 look alike was apparently a late 90's proposal. Most later accounts say a different version will be built...but who knows

Ah, I see.



The newer models do have a different setup. Thanks for pointing that out. They're very similar, but not the same.

http://www.ausairpower.net/PLA/PLA-AFV-IMG-00-1S.jpg

All but confirmed this is based on Russian assistance.

To be fair, the PLA actually did purchase the rights to manufacture the BMP-3's weapon systems... for once.

Yep I did not mean they stole it.

The combat module was obviously Russian origin from the start- but now its clear the body was also influenced by Kurgan designs.

I'm kind of disappointed Boomerang doesn't have the classic BTR-70 silhouette and side doors to keep with tradition. However, this layout has proven to be effective, so there's no complaints from me.

I agree. In ambush situations most attackers will try to attack from the rear or the side. Having rear doors exposes the entire vehicle to enemy fire when the ramp drops, while an attack from one side means the door on the other side can be used. I would think side and rear doors would be the ideal solution.

I think a 120 mm Motor or 30 mm Cannon

Most dedicated recon vehicles in the Russian military have fairly light armament... their job is to look, not to fight. If engaged by the enemy their first response would be to withdraw. A heavy armament would take up too much internal space. Space that could be better used for control positions for unmanned ground and aerial vehicle operators as well as communications equipment for collecting and transmitting recon data to HQ vehicles.

Generally it resembles patria amv

The difference is that the Patria AMV is not used as a brigade standard vehicle base like Boomerang will. Indeed Boomerang will form the basis for light and medium wheeled brigades in 4-6 wheeled and 8 wheeled versions with unified weapons and sensor suites.

100m gun + 30mm coaxial. The turret is completely completely unmanned with zero crew hatches on the roof. Although it's probably completely full of ammunition, I'm very interested to see how much is kept below the turret ring, and whether it'll be completely isolated from the crew on the inside. 360° cameras for good situation awareness.

Keep in mind that this is just one option, they were working on a new gun for the IFV that used either a 45mm or a 57mm main gun. The standard practice is to separate the ammo from the crew so the turret will be unmanned and the ammo will be stored below the turret ring in all then vehicle families and will be separated from both crew and troops.

Looking at the model of the Boomerang the engine takes up the front while the area between the second and third wheel where the side doors would normally be located has crew positions so it would not make sense to have side doors there.

The newer models do have a different setup. Thanks for pointing that out. They're very similar, but not the same.

Yes, the different armament options are available now including a 45 or 57mm gun as well as likely the 120mm rifled gun/mortar of the Vena could be used as a substitute for the 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3/BMPT to ensure direct HE firepower remains high in new Russian units.

Note there will likely be a BMP or IFV type with a 45/57mm gun with an unmanned turret full of ammo and reduced troop capacity and also an APC/BTR type with light armament that might be a HMG or light cannon (KPVB in 23mm calibre) or perhaps automatic grenade launcher and a larger troop capacity.

Net centricity as well as guided artillery shells will more than make up for the reduction in fire power and air power and artillery both within the brigade and from add on forces will be much easier to call in and much more accurate and effective.

The hulls are also different. In the new Kurganets model, the driver sits farther front than the commander and gunner. I would guess it's made that way so the same engine can be used with Boomerang, which has an identical configuration.

Since the weapon systems will be drop-in modules, there will probably be the 100/30 combination in service along with the 45 or 57mm guns, whatever gets selected in the end.

Since the weapon systems will be drop-in modules, there will probably be the 100/30 combination in service along with the 45 or 57mm guns, whatever gets selected in the end.

There in lies the question.

If you replace the 100/30 combination with a 45mm or 57mm gun then you get a combination of much better APFSDS capacity, plus with laser guided shells the reduced HE power of the smaller calibre gun could be as effecting against some targets as the 100mm gun because of improved accuracy and ability to hit moving targets like aircraft with a single shot.

The problem or issue then becomes do you keep the 45mm/57mm gun and replace the 100/30mm weapons and remove two calibres from your logistics (well actually one calibre unless your new AD gun vehicles use 45/57mm calibre weapons too). Or do you just add the 45/57mm gun to the mix and keep the other types.

The thing is that currently there are BMP-1, BMP-2 and BMP-3 vehicles with 73mm, 30mm and 100mm and 30mm guns respectively as the IFV component of units, while the APC generally has a single 14.5mm HMG and a 7.62mm calibre MG in the form of the BTR-80. This changed to include a 30mm calibre weapon armed BTR-80A.

In a well equipped unit currently the likely mix would be an IFV with a 100mm and a 30mm cannon plus 30mm grenade launcher and various 7.62mm MGs and an APC with either a 30mm cannon or a 14.5mm HMG.

By replacing all the BMP-3s with 45mm or 57mm guns you would have Kurganets or Boomerangs or Armatas with 45mm or 57mm guns for IFVs and APC models with 30mm cannons or HMGs.

The real question is will that result in a loss of fire power?

With external gun mounts in unmanned turrets then the main guns of the MBT and any BMPT type vehicle they might consider the question of main gun elevation should be solved so the 100mm gun on the BMP-3 could be compensated for with 120mm gun/mortars on BMPTs for high elevation targets, or heavy targets that 30mm cannon shells would just splatter against. A 100mm cannon shell or 120mm mortar or artillery round would blow down log or concrete bunkers much better than a 45mm or 57mm gun could. Of course there is also laser target marking for 152mm shells coming from the rear.

Their might be certain roles where the combination of 100mm and 30mm make more sense as the main advantage of the 45/57mm calibres is penetration capability against heavier vehicles. The 45mm telescopic case ammo will likely also be much more compact allowing easier gun design and simpler ammo handling systems and of course much more ammo to be carried in a specific volume.

Which isn't a problem, because the 100/30 combo sports more firepower than any IFV weapon system out there. On the new Kurganets hull, I'm not even sure the newest NATO 40mm auto cannons will be able to penetrate the front.

Thus once again, the other high end IFVs out their will be at a disadvantage when fighting Kurganets, as they were when the BMP-3 first showed up with 30mm resistance across the frontal arc.

I have a feeling for the first few years of the Kurganets production run, a lot of them are going to be 100/300mm equipped until the 45/57 is more mature with plenty of newly produced ammunition available.

It might turn out that the 45mm or 57mm ammo is expensive and the 100/30m combo is retained till the more powerful ammo is required.

For instance it is like the 152mm gun for the armata... fitted for but until it is needed they can equip it with a cheaper option.

Having said all that I would like to comment on this:

The hulls are also different. In the new Kurganets model, the driver sits farther front than the commander and gunner. I would guess it's made that way so the same engine can be used with Boomerang, which has an identical configuration.

I would suggest that the crew positions of all the new vehicles are unified standard positions that can be used by driver, gunner, or commander.

In the BMP-1 there are two positions in the front hull next to the engine compartment in the front of the vehicle, with the front position the driver position and the seat behind him for the commander. The gunner/loader sitting in the one man turret position.

In combat however it was found that the commander didn't like his visibility and often the commander would make the gunner sit in his hull position and he would sit in the turret with an all round better view from the vehicle.

In the BMP-2 this was corrected with a two man turret, though there are still two seats beside the engine the rear seat is normally taken by a squad member.

I rather suspect that in the new vehicles the commander can sit where they please as all crew positions will have controls to perform any role and with cameras providing the visibility then everyone gets a commanders eye view if they want it.

MOSCOW, November 12 (RIA Novosti) - Russian defense firm Kurganmashzavod is developing a new airborne fighting vehicle, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said on Monday.

“We are ready to continue the work on the new platforms that are currently being developed at Kurganmashzavod. This includes the Kurganets platform for the new airborne fighting vehicle,” Rogozin said.

The General Staff of the Armed Forces will make the final decision on the system to be adopted, he noted.

“The industry may propose a variety of technical options to the Defense Ministry but it may not act as the contracting authority,” Rogozin said.

Ground Forces commander Col. Gen. Vladimir Chirkin earlier said that the military will take delivery of new armored vehicles some time after 2015.

http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20121112/177395894.html

Russian Patriot wrote:MOSCOW, November 12 (RIA Novosti) - Russian defense firm Kurganmashzavod is developing a new airborne fighting vehicle, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said on Monday.

“We are ready to continue the work on the new platforms that are currently being developed at Kurganmashzavod. This includes the Kurganets platform for the new airborne fighting vehicle,” Rogozin said.

The General Staff of the Armed Forces will make the final decision on the system to be adopted, he noted.

“The industry may propose a variety of technical options to the Defense Ministry but it may not act as the contracting authority,” Rogozin said.

Ground Forces commander Col. Gen. Vladimir Chirkin earlier said that the military will take delivery of new armored vehicles some time after 2015.

http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20121112/177395894.html

Actually in the original interview (the link to which i had added in the Russian Airborne section) Rogozin specify that BDM-4M is, by the accounts of any official , a very good air deliverable vehicle with unmatched fire power but with inherent limits in the protection department.

From this information and the decision to procede with an airborne fighting vehicle of Kurkanet version (instead of the much easily foreseeable Boomerang-10) is possible to infer that the percentage of the latest TISNUM-developed nano-materials and alloys in Kurganets structure will be significantly higher than expected.

By the way, the early claims of unmatched level of protection for Kuganet -for vehicles in its class- is the product of the integration of those new materials.

Yes, they did mention exotic new materials that were not exactly cheap, but I would suspect any protection they offered would be further enhanced with an APS system like "Afghanistan" or "Standard", which add another layer of defence without adding large amounts of armour weight.

Russian 'Combat Vehicle of Future’ to Be Ready by 2015

BRONNITSY, November 15 (RIA Novosti) – Russia’s Defense Ministry has announced a decision to develop "a combat vehicle of the future" and begin supplying it to the Armed Forces by 2015, a senior military official said.

“By 2015 the Armed Forces must be supplied with a new family of multirole vehicles. The decision to create the new vehicle was taken last week,” Maj. Gen. Alexander Shevchenko, the head of the ministry's Main Autotransport Directorate, said on Thursday.

The first vehicles will be produced in Russia and demonstrated to the defense minister by late 2013.

The vehicles are designed for increased mobility, cargo-carrying capacity and safety and must provide “both ballistic and mine protection,” Shevchenko told a scientific forum in Bronnitsy near Moscow.

Domestic manufacturers have already worked out the technical details needed to meet the ministry's specifications, he said.

"We are capable of developing a vehicle that will be just as good as NATO equipment,” Shevchenko told the forum.

Russia signed a deal with Italy’s Iveco company last December on the semi-knocked down assembly of Lynx light multirole armored vehicles for the Russian Ground Forces in the central Russia city of Voronezh.

In addition, Russia is currently working with France on the development of armored vehicles using a French base but equipped with Russian weapons and Russian turrets.

http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20121115/177489505.html

Zivo wrote:
APC version. The simple modular design means it will be cheap and numerous.

Notice the difference in hatch configuration, everything to the rear of the firewall is a drop-in module.

Cool! In a very minimalistic and utilitarian way! I can even have picnic on the spacious top with 10 of my friends, or stage a wrestling match(royal rumble!).

Unfortunately, the flat and spacious top just invites HMG fire- Who knows one of these days how many soldiers can carry one once they wore an exosuit, like this guy:

Unfortunately, the flat and spacious top just invites HMG fire- Who knows one of these days how many soldiers can carry one once they wore an exosuit, like this guy:

Hahahahaha.... well Duh... if someone wants to fire their HMG at the front armour of this vehicle then the design has worked perfectly as that is the thickest strongest armour on the vehicle, plus a front mounted engine to penetrate before their rounds get to the crew or troops in the back.

GarryB wrote:
Hahahahaha.... well Duh... if someone wants to fire their HMG at the front armour of this vehicle then the design has worked perfectly as that is the thickest strongest armour on the vehicle, plus a front mounted engine to penetrate before their rounds get to the crew or troops in the back.

Erm, no. I was referring to the top, which as far as my rudimentary wikipedia knowledge has told me, is not angled in a way to try to deflect HMG rounds coming from relatively high to near vertical angle of attack. If the HMG guy and this vehicle were to meet, I foresee this jackass would try to go on top of the vehicle, spray a few rounds where the soldiers are sitting and just go on until a fire is started. If he is lucky, he would have ran farther like this guy: