Infantry Mobility Vehicles

Last I remember reading about the subject weren't they interested in the Volk, and the Tiger-M because the earlier model Tigers had US owned Canadian made Cummins diesel engines?

The VPK-233114 Tigr-M and the VPK-3927 Volk both have Russian engines and other improvements.

Of course both are larger and heavier than Iveco and the PVP... but with the Russian military... who knows... they might just buy them all.

Looks like a good vehicle to me...

I would suppose the Military would be more interested in having Russian engines while the production run of Police and Paramilitary organisation would be comfortable with Cummins engine because they must have ordered significant amount of Cummins engines with perhaps local assembly.

Sorry, I wasn't clear... the Army doesn't want a US engine, but police and paramilitary might not care, but the fact is that after 8 8 08 the US company stopped cooperating with Russian companies so an American engined model is not likely unless the US company changes its mind... and even if it did would you go back to working with them under such conditions?

Have read that the ceramic armour of the iveco vehicle is added to the chassis, while the Volk has a built in armour shell that is part of the structure. The Italian approach leaves potential weak spots not covered by armour though it is lighter.
The Volk is also supposedly better cross country and the internal layout is reportedly better with the driver isolated from the crew in the italian vehicle.
They also mentioned that access and seats were better in the Russian vehicle.

Iveco seems to be an economic/political thing.

In very many ways it was the backup to the Tigr.

Another factor is that the company that will make the Iveco vehicles can try to sell them to CIS countries and paramilitary and police units so the scope for sales is good.

AFAIK they have committed to making 10 so after that they can decide if mass production in its current form is worth while and if it isn't then it can certainly be modified to improve it in specific areas like cross country performance and performance in deep snow or mud.

If it is different enough there might be a purpose in mass producing it especially if the retooled and upgraded factory doing the work has nothing else to make right now.

It isn't a rubbish vehicle and has sold to several European countries already.

Can't say I am not happy with this, the Russian vehicle makers just need time to put together a better vehicle with Russian parts or parts Russian can licence produce.

I have read some articles criticising the ceramic armour used how it was added to the chassis rather than part of the vehicle structure which leaves some vulnerable points and offers no protection for the engine at all.

It says alot of Russia if they can't even make their own Armored Infantry Mobility Vehicle.

After 20 years of no funding the Russian military has suddenly decided it wants light mobile armoured vehicles of new design, and within the space of a few years we have seen a large number of indigenous designs shown and they are starting to go into service.

This is not a case of Russia not being able to make a vehicle.

This is a case of a successful Russian company not wanting to be forced to build and Iveco design because the Italian company that makes the vehicle doesn't own the design rights to all the components so if the Russian company makes the vehicle including the foreign components it might be subject to sanctions from the US. It knows the US companies wont cooperate in the manufacture because US companies are subject to US law that can and does get changed overnight by Congress.

This is not Kamaz saying it can't build these vehicles, it is say it doesn't want to put itself in the position of getting sued or embargoed.

It's not rocket science. They've got the Italian ones to look at as well as the Up-Armored American Humvee's to look at.

Uparmoured Humvees are crap... the Humvee was too heavy to start with and the extra armour has made them useless... even the American forces admit that.

Kamaz isn't talking about developing their own vehicle, they are saying they don't want to licence produce this Italian vehicle because Iveco doesn't own the patents and manufacturing licences for all the parts and has no right to sell them to Kamaz.

Half Track is better Armored Car. Especially with world tire production in China....no need for many tires during war.

Halftracks are dead. Their mobility is limited by their wheel component and their tracked component makes them expensive to buy and operate. Fully tracked and fully wheeled vehicles make much more sense.

US Armored Car is only pretty CNN Queen. Very expensive to maintain, poor engine, can't handle weight of the armor.

To paraphrase something I read recently: "It says alot of the US if they can't even make their own Armored Infantry Mobility Vehicle."

Kamaz Chief was right to leave job. Medvedev wants pretty CNN queen military instead of cheaper functional military. Computers on a Diesel engine? Come on...

No man with brains puts a computer on a diesel engine.

Actually the Tiger-M has computerised engine control that manages heat sensors throughout the engine so even in very low temperatures they can safely start the engine without shattering it, or having to built a fire under it...

Isn't Volk vehicle in the same level of protection as vestern counterparts and produces completely from russian parts? On the other hand I think Border guard have better decision to buy french Panhard vehicles. French vehicles have only french components and they could give licence for a whole vehicle.

There is also the BPM-97 at 10 tons is rather heavier than the Iveco, but the Tigr-M and Volk and even Vodnik are in the same weight range.
I think the SPM-3 Medved is in the same 10 ton weight class as the BPM-97.

In many ways any and all these options would be better than the Iveco, but they really don't have anything in the very light PVP range at the moment.

Tracked vehicles are cheaper to build.

You can't say that.

Different vehicles in different roles REQUIRE different levels of mobility.

A tank for instance needs to be able to operate on any terrain so tracks offer the best compromise in mobility and cost. A transport vehicle that operates on good roads tracks would never be considered because wheels are cheaper than any track layer and offer all the mobility needed.

In maintainence alone a track is much harder to keep running than a wheeled vehicle, at to that the wear and tear on roads and increased fuel bill because it spends more time in lower gears than a wheeled vehicle and tracks are several times more expensive than wheels.

The whole point of the BTR series armoured vehicles was a troop transport that was still armoured and amphibious, but it had to be cheap so it was 8 wheeled.
They even made it high maintainence by putting in two engines that were each too underpowered to run the vehicle because it was cheaper than developing a new engine.
The BTR-80 had a more powerful engine available so they used that which simplified the design.

Did you notice there's nobody in the US making tires. All in China now. So if the US went into a lengthy multi-year war with China.....how would they have tires?

Most computer hardware is not made in the US either... even if it is designed by US companies it is made in Taiwan or China or Malaysia or South Korea. China isn't the only country in the world making tires.

A Half Track can easily handle many tons of weight for an armored car. Anything with tires on it can't handle weight of armor and ballistic glass, off road.

A Halftrack has tires.

Some of the heaviest vehicles in the world are actually wheeled.

US Up-Armor Humvee was originally designed for Columbian drug lords. The US Army saw it and liked it so much they wanted some for themselves. The problem is....they can only handle the weight on roads. The minute you try to offroad with it the frame twists into a pretzel. You buy many many many parts....even have to replace frames. So.....half track is cheaper.

Any vehicle designed as a car and then having tons of armour added without strengthening the structure properly will fail... unless the vehicle was over built in the first place.

The real answer is to redesign the vehicle from scratch to allow for enormous weight increases... than means stronger frame and structure and transmission and engine improvements to allow for much more weight.

The original concept of a half track was to develop a vehicle that was as simple to drive as a truck, but with the cross country mobility of a tank. The problem was that it also had the maintainence and running costs of a tank.

The point is that a fully tracked vehicle can have a steering wheel and automatic transmission and be as easy to drive as a truck but with much better mobility.

There is no reason to bother with half tracks now.

As I said, fully loaded with armor a halftrack could easily pass an Up-Armor on the highway....plus outperform off the road.

And cost 5-10 times more in maintainence and operating costs.

Italian armored car is pretty CNN queen. It can't tow anything a military would need. It can't haul anything a military would need. It's a tiny armored coffin..any explosion and your skull will hit the side glass and your head will crack open. You can't be wearing full gear/helmet and even get into the drivers seat of the Italian armored coffin.

These vehicles will not replace APCs... their purpose is not to perform missions of BTRs, their mission is better compared to BRDMs and even light unarmoured light vehicles like UAZ-469s. In many ways the Iveco is just an armoured SUV and that is what was required of it.

In this case however they haven't got the licence production rights to all the components... otherwise it is exactly what they wanted.

This vehicle is not for frontline military use, it is for police and paramilitary units to deploy and operate in. A recon unit might use it... remember the BDRM-2 was bulletproof and that was all but it was expected to operate all over the battlefield.
The new Kornet-M system is based on this sort of light armoured vehicle.

It is not safe from IEDs but then neither are tanks.

Engine Block heater, battery heater for a diesel.....doesn't need computerised tech. These plug in block heaters existed for decades before computerised cars. No diesel engine needs a computer. Without ships full of money the US wouldn't be able to use their over complicated computerised diesels. Hordes of contracted mechanics....

Well the Tigr has a computer to manage the engine and other systems on board the vehicle. Does it need them? Of course not. But it doesn't need a steering wheel either... they could go back to the old fashion levers.
It will work better with a steering wheel and the engine will operate better with fuel flows monitored and temperatures checked.

Go get the armored Italian coffin car and try to tow a Howitzer...offroad.

They were not going to use it to tow weapons... they have plenty of MTLBs that can tow guns of all kinds plus carry crews and a load of ammo inside too.

This Italian vehicle with all its foreign parts is selling well internationally and seems to be popular. It is not a tank nor is it an artillery tractor.

are my english skills betryeing me but what exactly s it now, they "refuse" to obey a goverment order and contract or they "can't" build it becouse of legal issues?

They are refusing to build it because they don't have the licence to build all the necessary components. They can build those components but will be subject to international legal action if they do. If the government makes them build them then they can blame the government and the government can sort it out.

The thing is that Kamaz has a lot of business in the west for its trucks and other vehicles and I rather doubt they want to risk that by making what is basically an Italian vehicle.

AFAIK the Iveco contract was for ten vehicles with an option for large scale production of several thousand.

The BPM-97 is in the 10 ton weight class so it is really too heavy to consider a direct replacement of the Iveco M65, but then the Volk in the 7.5 ton range and the Tigr-M in the 5-6 ton class is much closer in terms of weight and performance.

BTW as the name suggests the BPM-97 is a patrol armoured vehicle rather than an APC replacement for the BTRs.

The Iveco is more of an armoured SUV for use as a light patrol vehicle.

Tigr is pretty much the same and in the Tigr-M version seems to be all Russian.

The vehicle that KBP shows with twin 4 round Kornet-M launchers seems to be a Tigr-M, which would make it a good example of the sort of roles it would perform... the sort of thing the BRDM was used for.

At 5-7 tons that is about right. At 10 tons the BPM-97 is getting close BTR weight of 14 tons, though the new BTRs will be in the 25 ton class (ie Kangaroo family of wheeled vehicles).