Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

PapaDragon wrote:
Guys, it is all media BS.

That company makes APCs for Russian Army. They are not going anywhere, don't care if they are ten times bankrupt. Let's get real here.

Well, as long as it is just a paperwork connected to return stolen corporation form oligarch to state then yes let it bancrupt ASAP.

any news about Boomerang apc..I hope they will release a video like they did on Armata and Kurganet

Bare Boomerang hull

There's been some changes.

Werewolf wrote:Had to smile on this one...

Which non russian tank has image processing build in their TIS?

AFAIK, there isn't a single tank of western that uses image processing, the americans are stuck with their image filteration of two sepctrums to highlight objects in predetermined and prerendered IR spectrum to show up aka BHOT and WHOT, no image processing there. The Leopard 2 has neither image processing, do not know about Leclerc, they have been the among the best when it comes to FLIR/TIS but no info on Leclerc the only tank i can imagine that has image processing that would be Merkawa other than that there is no tank with that technology, hell there is only so far one non russian attack helicopter that has image processing that is the AH-1Z Viper and next one is ARH-129 italian modified with Hoplite 3 FLIR of Rafael.

The T-14 and even the T-90MS catapult themselfs out of any comparision capability for their FCS and image processing, because they have no rivals in that regard.

I was just quote Officer from one of episode "Serving to Russia" where guys which wasn't(i must admit) driving Armata or Kurganec, or Bumerang , but BMP3 and T-90 had such kind of let say ,suggestions,
I know that T-90SM have state of the art hunter killer sight, excellent Night vision and very good thermal vision, but does they systems are fully Russian production in time when UVZ was work on T-90SM they have contract whit two french producers Tales and Sagem, Contract which today aren't valid any more.(at least for a "wider audience" ) that is my problem, or should i say some kind of wondering, Commander of VDV is very satisfied whit all sights on new BMD-M4.... Second , thing it is obvious, that Russian makers of Russian optic-electronic make big step progress,and i think that true leader is KRET corporation, which right now have so many great looking and modern solutions for Avionics and Cockpits screens, about REB gadgets do not need to talk about , because they already shown they high class and ultimate performance and that can be seen, also on BMP Dragoon, which have brand new modules for Optic-electronic sights, On Version whit Gun of 57mm, also is brand new and different looking modules ,  But no body of you can denial quality of Night and Thermal vision which we can see, that produce FLIR on F35, (i do not talk about whole plane but just about his Night and Thermal Sight, And for example same kind of Sights and quality of picture can't produce systems on Mi-28 Night Hunter or Ka-52, OK i can't said , does it those pictures of Bridge whit cars which all can see on you tube like PR material for F-35, does it that pictures have after enhanced sharpness in editing studio etc, but if that are "untouched" and post enhanced during editing, Than i can freely say that such quality of night and Thermal vision, on those distance, i wasn't seen on neither one Russian Plane, Helicopter, armored Vehicle (except Armata, because simply i have no chance to see from proper angle and distance how look picture on Armata monitors, for example is well known fact that whole module on Ka-52 for different kind of sights, wasn't have proper calibration in sense of elevation and azimuth, and that was assemble error (i believe that until know that problem is fixed) but on one of presentation of Navy version of Ka-52 that particular Ka.52 had fully different, much smaller by volume optic-electronic gadget under the nose, they even was said that every Navy variant of Ka-52 will have those module, which, by words of some of engineers have much better resolution,stabilization and contrast of picture, simply because on the sea especially when pilots search for does it target or something else between line of sky and sea,  module which is mounted on BBC version simply aren't capable to make distinction between those two during the heavy clouded sky, and during the any of low visibility condition, which can be extremely dangerous. But after , was started whit making more navy version, but that new Module is simply vanished, and to me very odd, no body was ask what was happened,after very harsh words towards "old" module on sea condition.Does it that Module actually was foreign made in, which now can be buy any more  (O.K that isn't some big number of navy Ka-52, but if Egypt are purchased Ka-52 for now they Mistral, that is Big Number of Highly capable strike helicopter, probably best one buy all capability, except if story is true, BBC variant have limitation on the sea because already mentioned reasons)
Greetings and Long Live to Russia. I'm big fan, but sometimes i'm pissed off because some time simply i can't understand why some parts of Russian Military Industrial Complex , simply aren't Given equal and undertaken task, and then either deliver something that has nothing to do with the requirements of the Army, or delayed for years, and just spend-steal money.

Ranxerox71 wrote:

I was just quote Officer from one of episode "Serving to Russia" where guys which wasn't(i must admit) driving Armata or Kurganec, or Bumerang , but BMP3 and T-90 had such kind of let say ,suggestions,
I know that T-90SM have state of the art hunter killer sight, excellent Night vision and very good thermal vision, but does they systems are fully Russian production in time when UVZ was work on T-90SM they have contract whit two french producers Tales and Sagem, Contract which today aren't valid any more.(at least for a "wider audience" ) that is my problem, or should i say some kind of wondering, Commander of VDV is very satisfied whit all sights on new BMD-M4.... Second , thing it is obvious, that Russian makers of Russian optic-electronic make big step progress,and i think that true leader is KRET corporation, which right now have so many great looking and modern solutions for Avionics and Cockpits screens, about REB gadgets do not need to talk about , because they already shown they high class and ultimate performance and that can be seen, also on BMP Dragoon, which have brand new modules for Optic-electronic sights, On Version whit Gun of 57mm, also is brand new and different looking modules ,  But no body of you can denial quality of Night and Thermal vision which we can see, that produce FLIR on F35, (i do not talk about whole plane but just about his Night and Thermal Sight, And for example same kind of Sights and quality of picture can't produce systems on Mi-28 Night Hunter or Ka-52, OK i can't said , does it those pictures of Bridge whit cars which all can see on you tube like PR material for F-35, does it that pictures have after enhanced sharpness in editing studio etc, but if that are "untouched" and post enhanced during editing, Than i can freely say that such quality of night and Thermal vision, on those distance, i wasn't seen on neither one Russian Plane, Helicopter, armored Vehicle (except Armata, because simply i have no chance to see from proper angle and distance how look picture on Armata monitors, for example is well known fact that whole module on Ka-52 for different kind of sights, wasn't have proper calibration in sense of elevation and azimuth, and that was assemble error (i believe that until know that problem is fixed) but on one of presentation of Navy version of Ka-52 that particular Ka.52 had fully different, much smaller by volume optic-electronic gadget under the nose, they even was said that every Navy variant of Ka-52 will have those module, which, by words of some of engineers have much better resolution,stabilization and contrast of picture, simply because on the sea especially when pilots search for does it target or something else between line of sky and sea,  module which is mounted on BBC version simply aren't capable to make distinction between those two during the heavy clouded sky, and during the any of low visibility condition, which can be extremely dangerous. But after , was started whit making more navy version, but that new Module is simply vanished, and to me very odd, no body was ask what was happened,after very harsh words towards "old" module on sea condition.Does it that Module actually was foreign made in, which now can be buy any more  (O.K that isn't some big number of navy Ka-52, but if Egypt are purchased Ka-52 for now they Mistral, that is Big Number of Highly capable strike helicopter, probably best one buy all capability, except if story is true, BBC variant have limitation on the sea because already mentioned reasons)
Greetings and Long Live to Russia. I'm big fan, but sometimes i'm pissed off because some time simply i can't understand why some parts of Russian Military Industrial Complex , simply aren't Given equal and undertaken task, and then either deliver something that has nothing to do with the requirements of the Army, or delayed for years, and just spend-steal money.

What the F-35 has or will have does not matter because that is not how military and army orders work.
Which existing in big numbers and active service Fighters of the US have been upgraded to equal level of TIS? None. The Apaches despite having the technology for 1080p MWIR and LWIR sights they still have not been used except on AH-1Z which is less than 2% of all Cobras in service and Apaches only recieved now an upgrade for the M-TADS/PVNS and that only because it had a weak Laser Designator which was one of the main reasons for this upgrade since the older weak SALH seeker on Hellfires couldn't acquire effectivley the Laser Spot on targets further than 5km under different environmental influences like dust (iraq), error and false alarm by noise of hot regions (iraq and afghanistan) aswell reduced the error in mrad of the old Laser Designator. The other thing that was upgraded and seen as an issue the black/white day sight that have been to blame for often Pilots not understanding the situation of their targets and engaging civilians due to bad picture quality and only grey shades they could see. With day color sight is now better during daylight to get a better awarness of the target and if they are actually armed and maybe the pilots could use more discipline training since they lack that most of all, but rant aside. The other upgrade was from the old 641x512 resolution sights to 720p, which is good but not the best US has actually they can offer a much higher resolution and sharpness and still this M-TADS have no Image processing like TSS AN/AQQ 30 of AH-1Z which enhances the picture quality and also uses better spectrum for longer range detection and identification which is currently the only one in service in this spectrum based on what i could find on the internet even tho the parameters of russian TOR, GOES-520/521/451 are not easily accessable, Zenit closed their page for information about TOR sights over several years ago can't find it on their side anymore, the pdf files that were on the internet are somehow not findable either and overall i don't see specifics about such sights easily anyways.

So to summerize it military orders and upgrades what they see as a necessity. This necessity is usually coming after major complaints and reports from use which russia just started now in Syria a low intense conflict for aviation but will give enough experience to crew and developer what needs to be enhanced and what is already good. That means we can only expect talk about upgrade in next 5 years since the majority of the modern helicopters right now recieve already upgrades this and next year for Mi-28N > Mi-28NM aswell Ka-52K integration. The west has many of such technologies on highest level but does not install them because it is always a cost/necessity problem and the Tiger EC-665 despite having good sights Strix and Osiris are still not the best nor the best at the time they were installed and France still has not considered upgrading them because they are fine.

The other issue that russia has it had disadvantage in such technologies since the throw back of the 90's and admittedly before that by some level, however with the cooperation with Thomson and Thales russia catched up and only needs to expand this technologies by expanding their facilities which they got few right now on that level but they go in that direction.


The other part you talked about of the Ka-52K sights are the old Thomson/Sagem sights from half a decade old deal before the sanctions, before the open and direct hostility PR in the media of US/France versus Russia only after that they started based on the Thales coorperation to have a higher priority on the GOES-451 and other own FLIR's. The Sagem sights are actually old but still not bad and having them now after the sanctions isn't going to be usefull since maintenance under sanctions with spare parts and equipment that you can not acquire anylonger is not the best thing you can do. What probems they actually might have with clouds is doubtful since they are directly based on technologies of the cooperation with Thales and the parameters of both sights should be similiar.

I have a question regarding the KBP Epoch remote controlled turret planned for use on the Boomerang and a number of other vehicles. I figured this was probably the best place to ask. Forgive me if i was mistaken.

I have been searching for some more detail on the equipment integrated into the commander/gunner sights. So far i have not found too much specific information on it, only that both modules contain electro-optical sights, laser range finder and laser guidance for the missiles. Does anybody have more specific info on the actual equipment used, or can point me in the right direction?

Also, something has been on my mind for some time now about the EPOCH turret. I have only seen it in action in 1 or 2 video's, where the target was placed at ground level, in a direct line of sight. But i was wondering how the ballistic modules containing the sights work when the cannon/machine gun have to engage targets on higher elevation levels (such as in urban or mountainous environments). I understand that the gunner sight has the ability to rotate on horizontal axis to some extent, but can it also move on vertical axis? Or do the optics move vertically inside the protected modules?  Do wide angle lenses provide the gunner with a larger field of view? Arbalet-DM for example you can clearly see the sights or on the same "axis" as the weapon station and the sight elevates in parallel with the machine gun. It seems like Arbalet has very good elevation and depression. I just have not seen what the EPOCH is capable of in terms of elevation/depression, and i am curious about its capabilities.

Any information on the subject is welcome, and i thank you in advance.

I understand that the gunner sight has the ability to rotate on horizontal axis to some extent, but can it also move on vertical axis?

On the face of it that seemed self evident but then I started looking for images that show the elevation & totally failed to find any on the vehicles 
Plenty with the gun elevated but not the sights.
The original of your avatar image shows both traversed but not elevated.

I did find a couple of the turret on a stand with the gun sight elevated though

And this display poster which presumably shows max elevation.


Boomerang & Kurganets really do look awesome with this turret & I hope we'll see some with the 57mm turret (Baikal?) we've seen on a BMP3.

hoom wrote:

I did find a couple of the turret on a stand with the gun sight elevated though

And this display poster which presumably shows max elevation.

I had found an image of the display poster on the left with identification of the basic subsystems in English. The display poster in Russian however, seems to go into greater detail.
The display poster on the right hand side had apparently eluded me. But it definitely answers my question about elevation capabilities. Thanks for the info !

I guess we will see more of the RWS capabilities in the months to come.

Could anyone who can read Russian help me translate this image?
I can make out such obvious systems such as as 2A42, 7.62 MG, Kornet-EM and laser irradiation sensors. Im more interested in some of the other systems.

I tried running the picture trough an image translation website, but i cant get it to work properly. I figured the easiest was just to have somebody here translate for me.
In particular i am interested in numbers : 3 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 12* - 13* - 14

* I assume these are the meteorological sensor and radio antennae. But if anyone has more detail about them feel free to share

Also, there seems to be a lack of conventional smoke grenade launchers from what i have seen so far, both in this schematic and on the modules seen on parade and in promotional movies.
I figure the protection system may include launchers for aerosol screen which i assume are the forward mounted launchers which are colored green in the schematic above? Any plans to integrate conventional smoke grenade launchers?

Thanks for the effort.

You don't actually need Russian to understand...

3. Coaxial MG
8. Gunner TIS
9. Commander Panoramic TIS
10. System SPZ (APS).

KoTeMoRe wrote:You don't actually need Russian to understand...

3. Coaxial MG  
8. Gunner TIS
9. Commander Panoramic TIS
10. System SPZ (APS).

Thanks for the effort.

Perhaps i should have taken more time to ask more specific questions, rather than ask for a general translation. As you point out, i already know what most if not all the subsystems are, regardless of my knowledge of Russian.
I merely asked to see if the description in Russian gave more specific info than what i already know. I assume now, it doesn't.

Like i pointed out in my previous post, most of my interest is going out to the turret mounted APS and its different subsystems, and i was hoping the description in the schematic went into further detail. All information that i have found so far gives general description of the basic subsystems, so i was hoping that this schematic used some detailed terminology.  
I was genuinely unable to deduct if it did, just from looking at the text in the description.

The description is fairly succint and forthcoming.

They describe simply what the systems are...I gave you a translation.

For more info you slice what you need translated and i'm sure you'll have it done in no time.

Cheers.

Does anyone know what sort of protection level there is in the turret?
It looks like not very much, like only small-arms rather than 30mm range like the hulls but maybe thats deceptive.

It is unmanned.. what sort of armour level are you hoping for?

the sensors and systems will be protected and duplicated where possible, but at the end of the day there is no point in giving it heavy armour protection when there is no one inside to protect.

GarryB wrote:It is unmanned.. what sort of armour level are you hoping for?

The sensors and systems will be protected and duplicated where possible, but at the end of the day there is no point in giving it heavy armour protection when there is no one inside to protect.

Aside from the fact it is unmanned, there is also the fact that it has relative low surface area and very low profile, making it less of a target to engage in the first place.

I definitely approve of the lightweight concept.

Well you would generally want to be able to shoot back at an enemy.
Would not want to be mission killed by a spray of AK/machinegun fire breaking the turret mechanisms.

hoom wrote:Well you would generally want to be able to shoot back at an enemy.
Would not want to be mission killed by a spray of AK/machinegun fire breaking the turret mechanisms.

I would think the turret provides atleast STANAG level 2 and, in certain areas, level 3 protection all round (perhaps certain areas boosted up to STANAG 4 as per requirement?).
Anyway i think we might see the turret evolve further as the platforms enter field testing phase. I am sure that any possible flaws will surface, and be adressed accordingly.

If you look at such popular heavy remote weapon turrets like the Samson 30 (first version), you can see that some systems offer less protection, and that this turret here is definitely a step forward from some of the earlier Western designs.

A "cheaper" and easy to replace turret must also count for something in a high intensity conflict. Even the best armored RWS can get mission killed with some accurate heavy sniper fire (if no redundancy is in place). This is a reality of any battlefield, and all factors need to be taken into account. Perhaps in a year or two after evalution has continued, we will see a more "heavy duty" variant beeing developed for such platforms as the T-15.

0nillie0 wrote:

hoom wrote:Well you would generally want to be able to shoot back at an enemy.
Would not want to be mission killed by a spray of AK/machinegun fire breaking the turret mechanisms.

I would think the turret provides atleast STANAG level 2 and, in certain areas, level 3 protection all round (perhaps certain areas boosted up to STANAG 4 as per requirement?).
Anyway i think we might see the turret evolve further as the platforms enter field testing phase. I am sure that any possible flaws will surface, and be adressed accordingly.

If you look at such popular heavy remote weapon turrets like the Samson 30 (first version), you can see that some systems offer less protection, and that this turret here is definitely a step forward from some of the earlier Western designs.

A "cheaper" and easy to replace turret must also count for something in a high intensity conflict. Even the best armored RWS can get mission killed with some accurate heavy sniper fire (if no redundancy is in place). This is a reality of any battlefield, and all factors need to be taken into account. Perhaps in a year or two after evalution has continued, we will see a more "heavy duty" variant beeing developed for such platforms as the T-15.

The turret provides enough protection for mission critical components, bar those impossible to protect like the "glass" and thin sensors. Also if you really can come under fire from small calibre weapons...then you deserve to get hammered.

Nice info:

Preliminary tests of the latest BTR "Boomerang" completed in 2016

Подробнее на ТАСС:
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/3332812&usg=ALkJrhjn5nOKXTnzZiTbCJ-VGQ1LXzEumg

MIC provides finishing armored combat vehicle "Boomerang"

Подробнее на ТАСС:
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/3366459&usg=ALkJrhiDJnN3yFMqQJzfJ6o6zEYy6x59aQ

There was talk of TIS modules being inadequate for 2A42, they're trying to find a way to smooth down recoil. it seems they did. I hope everything has been sorted out as these puppies are a very serious first step in the unknown for KMZ.

Can anyone comment in this list?

http://www.military-today.com/apc/top_10_infantry_fighting_vehicles.htm

In the Top 10 Infantry vehicles they rate Kurganets-25 in the #5 position..
behind many others that were released by NATO some that ever are more than
30 years older .

Vann7 wrote:

Can anyone comment in this list?

http://www.military-today.com/apc/top_10_infantry_fighting_vehicles.htm

In the Top 10 Infantry vehicles they rate Kurganets-25 in the #5 position..  
behind many others that were released by NATO some that ever are more than
30 years older .

It's just their dumb opinion...how many of those vehicles comes standard with APS/PPS? How many of those vehicles have drop in turret capability? How many of those IFV's come standard with ATGM's designed to defeat a MBT's APS, that's also immune to all known PPS, that's capable of defeating all known armor easily, designed with a limited SHORAD capability to defeat helicopters and cruise missiles?