Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

So a going away from the unmanned turret craze?

No, likely testing the manned turret Berezhok on the Kurganets platform... I suspect the turret was automated and connected to the hull positions for the crew so the crew could operate it from the hull positions.

I rather doubt in this form this turret would be selected but some features might have been tested.

Even for export the Berezhok turret would not really be suitable for the Kurganets as the latter is designed with all the troops and crew to be in the hull.

GarryB wrote:A 57mm grenade launcher would make more sense, or perhaps a 23mm cannon in the form of a KPB with the light 23 x 115mm ammo... low velocity, low recoil, compact ammo able to be carried in large numbers and fired in bursts to cover an area in HE shells rapidly... in fact instead of a KPB I would use the GSh-23 from the Hind for its high rate of fire and accuracy.

Hi GarryB
How about the 23/152 one barrel as a coaxial gun for the 57mm? it has higher velocity, lower rate of fire IMO only 800 RPM. so it will not waste so much ammo. I know its a bigger round but it has some advanyage too. On the turett I will put RWS with 23mm gun has the one in the turret and 7.62 as a coaxial gun.

You want each weapon you add to give you a new capability.

Some might look at the Berezhuk turret where there is a 30 x 165mm gun as standard and they add a 30mm grenade launcher... it seems redundant.

It is a totally different weapon however despite being the same calibre.

The 30mm 2A42 is a high velocity autocannon... it can fire HE shells so a 30mm grenade launcher seems a waste.... just carry more HE rounds for the main gun.

the difference however is that the 30mm grenade launcher has a much lower muzzle velocity and the ammo is much much smaller, so not only can you lob shells over cover your 30mm cannon shells would just splatter against you can also carry more rounds.

The high velocity small calibre weapon is effective against a wide range of targets, but lower velocity weapons with heavier payloads are also effective against other targets the high velocity small rounds are not effective against.

Case in point the heavy slow 73mm rounds of the BMP-1 pack more HE power than the high velocity 30mm cannon shells of the BMP-2.

Sometimes 30mm cannon shells are better, like shooting at light armoured and unarmoured vehicles, and other times the extra HE power of the bigger rounds are more effective... like light bunkers with rocks and logs and sandbags, or the rooms of buildings a sniper is firing from.

The BMP-3 has a 30mm cannon and a 100mm gun designed to fire HE shells... which is why it is rifled and not smooth bore.

The problem is that the 30mm cannon is a bit light to defeat enemy IFVs now and is of little use against tanks.

The 57mm high velocity gun is to replace the 30mm calibre gun against enemy IFVs with APFSDS rounds and against small fast air targets like UAVs with guided shells and air burst shells.

The 57mm gun can pack enough HE to be effective against bunkers and other harder targets, but the shells are large and not so many can be carried, so my suggestion of the 23 x 115mm round to be added (or indeed the new 40mm Balkan grenade launcher for that matter) is a lower velocity round that delivers a good HE payload.

The 23 x 152mm HE round has a good HE payload too... it is the same projectile launched at a higher muzzle velocity by the larger shell case and more propellent.

But against most targets the higher velocity means nothing except more size and weight of the rounds, more recoil and muzzle flash, and all just to get the rounds to target slightly faster.

With the smaller rounds a lighter weapon can be used and much more ammo carried, and the target wont know the difference.

The 40mm Balkan would be smaller and lighter and deliver much heavier and more powerful HE rounds to target.

There is a 57mm grenade launcher being developed too that reportedly fires HE rounds with the power of 76.2mm guns which would make it even more attractive.

If you need a high velocity round to shoot down aircraft or penetrate armour then the 57mm gun is the best choice... lobbing a low velocity heavy shell onto the target however would be better performed with a grenade launcher type weapon or low velocity cannon. (23 x 115mm rounds have a muzzle velocity of about 700m/s so faster than most grenade launcher grenades but low enough recoil to allow very very high rates of fire.

With a short burst of 10-20 rounds they would arrive on target like a shotgun blast so even a moving target will be showered with fragments of shells exploding all around them all at once.. no time to evade.

The poles with much poorer stock soviet  technology managed to test an IFV with a 57-60mm gun, BWP2000, in the 90s. What's taking so long for Russia to replace the 30mm cannons on the kurganets? If the delay is the shells themselves, why not just use S-68 57mm AP shells. Russians never really cared for sabots on their autocannons anyway.

And the chinese could slap a 57mm gun on an M113 chassis and be better than the Americans at making IFVs too?

Come on...

There is a significant difference between this vehicle and Boomerang... and if all they were doing was fitting S-60 57mm guns to Boomerang it would already be ready.

The fact is that they have developed a new gun that requires all new production ammo to be effective in the IFV because the original S-60 cannon was for shooting down aircraft so it did not have a very big HE shell and it did not penetrate all that much armour.... it was for shooting down aircraft and didn't need enormous armour penetration or the ability to blow down buildings.

The new rounds being developed include HVAPFSDS rounds and guided HEI rounds and likely air burst rounds too.

Of course with the mini Bulat missiles for dealing with enemy IFVs and a couple of heavy ATGMs for dealing with tanks all they really need are decent HE rounds.... so for an IFV a 57mm grenade launcher might be good enough as long as it has decent range and accuracy.

I think the most challenging and the reason for delaying is to design a remotely controled 57mm gun turret that totally seat above instead of a half inside the hull. This is not only for safety reason but also for more troops to be carried inside.

I have something in mind since sometime about the Kurganets platform.

Russia is working seriously on Arctic addapted material for their armed forces.

With the new platforms, at this point I would expect the following scheme.

BMD-4M: Light tracked platform. Addapted to Airborne service.
Bumerang: Wheeled platform. Addapted to Amphibious service.
Kurgantest: Medium tracked platform. Addapted to Arctic service (?).
Armata: Heavy tracked platform. Main platform.

It would make sense some work on the Kurganets platform to addapt its main design to the requirements of a platform well addapted to the Arctic conditions.

Interesting... from the bit where he is in the front and moves to the back past the engine compartment in the rear there are 8 seats for soldiers and the interviewer sits in another seat and the cameraman sits in another seat opposite... this suggests to me 9-10 troops capacity... it just depends on the number of seats up front for the crew... are there two seats or three... if there is three and there should be enough room for three with the full width of the vehicle then the 10 seats in the rear are available for troops.
If there are only two seats up front, which I doubt, one of the front seats with the screens might be for the gunner, but as I said I suspect the full width should allow all three crew in the front.

A naval variant that is salt water proofed would be an interesting all terrain recreational vehicle... tons of room for sleeping and storing food and equipment like skis and fishing poles and rifles... and being fully amphibious you could go places others could not.

Change from armoured for war to protected from the environment and it would be a good hurricane chasing vehicle too...

Reducing the weight and you could get away with a smaller engine that was more fuel efficient and cheaper to operate.

GarryB wrote:Interesting... from the bit where he is in the front and moves to the back past the engine compartment in the rear there are 8 seats for soldiers and the interviewer sits in another seat and the cameraman sits in another seat opposite... this suggests to me 9-10 troops capacity... it just depends on the number of seats up front for the crew... are there two seats or three... if there is three and there should be enough room for three with the full width of the vehicle then the 10 seats in the rear are available for troops.
If there are only two seats up front, which I doubt, one of the front seats with the screens might be for the gunner, but as I said I suspect the full width should allow all three crew in the front.

A naval variant that is salt water proofed would be an interesting all terrain recreational vehicle... tons of room for sleeping and storing food and equipment like skis and fishing poles and rifles... and being fully amphibious you could go places others could not.

Change from armoured for war to protected from the environment and it would be a good hurricane chasing vehicle too...  

Reducing the weight and you could get away with a smaller engine that was more fuel efficient and cheaper to operate.

He says there is place for "8 fully equiped soldiers" plus two in front, commander and driver.

From the video:

- Driver only in the first compartment
- Gunner and Commander in second compartment
- 8 fully equipped soldiers in 3rd compartment

TOTAL of 11 people.

In between these compartments, there is also a corridor that you can crawl through.

TheArmenian wrote:From the video:

- Driver only in the first compartment
- Gunner and Commander in second compartment
- 8 fully equipped soldiers in 3rd compartment

TOTAL of 11 people.

In between these compartments, there is also a corridor that you can crawl through.

and general manager was mentioning about preparation of "wheeled tank on basis of Bumerang with large caliber gun, about which they can tell soon"

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

TheArmenian wrote:From the video:

- Driver only in the first compartment
- Gunner and Commander in second compartment
- 8 fully equipped soldiers in 3rd compartment

TOTAL of 11 people.

In between these compartments, there is also a corridor that you can crawl through.

and general manager was mentioning about preparation of "wheeled tank on basis of Bumerang with large caliber gun, about which they can tell soon"

That would be great for saying look our 125 is bigger than your 105 to stryker crews but in actual really it would probably be better to have a low pressure gun as all you will ever really fire is HE and HEAT.

Althout that said the marines might find more purpose in it.

The standard 125 mm gun would be likely too much for a wheeled vehicles.

But I never believed in low pressure cannons for armored vehicles, they have too much limitations both on precision in direct fire at long distances and in engaging moving targets.

The first question to answer should be what role for a large caliber, direct fire gun on a Bumerang hull.

If it would be for antitank missions, yes they could prove useful, but just in a tank destroyer role: hitting by surprise from covered positions to retreat just minutes after the engagement started, in order to avoid enemy's reaction.

In such role, they would provide to the bulk of the Bumerang's force only limited protection against enemy's armored forces, aimed to gain time and break contact.

But if that is the mission, I suspect a ATGMs armed tank destroyer would work just the same, with far less mechanical hurdles than those required to mount a powerful, large caliber gun meant for far heavier tanks.

If it would be for real direct fire support, i.e. to take out from safe distance and overlooking positions any enemy's pillbox, IFV or fortified building, just a different gun, still high pressure, could be easier to mount and being less demanding on the chassis.

Like a modernized D30 to be employed almost exclusively on direct fire mode, without the elevation required for classical howitzwer's arc shooting.

It is fairly light weight, has excellent HE shells rivaling those available in 125 mm caliber, and against anything else than an MBT its HEAT shells should prove to be still very effective, at least before taking APS into the game.

No, it wont have a D30 122mm gun... the Sprut uses a 125mm long recoil gun that fires all the standard ammo the other 125mm guns fire and the Sprut is about 18 tons compared with the Boomerangs 20-25 tons.

I find the positioning of the crew a little strange though... the commander and gunner positions just in front of the troop compartment is a bit odd... the narrow tunnel to the front is because the engine is to the side there, but I would have thought there would be enough room at the front for three crew rather than just one...

I suspect this also means any vehicle with requirements for under hull equipment or ammo like a 125mm gun or 57mm gun would need a turret at the rear that fills the troop compartment... so the IFV and APC will have turrets with no hull penetration for ammo... otherwise there will be a serious reduction in troops numbers.

GarryB wrote:

I find the positioning of the crew a little strange though... the commander and gunner positions just in front of the troop compartment is a bit odd... the narrow tunnel to the front is because the engine is to the side there, but I would have thought there would be enough room at the front for three crew rather than just one...

I suspect this also means any vehicle with requirements for under hull equipment or ammo like a 125mm gun or 57mm gun would need a turret at the rear that fills the troop compartment... so the IFV and APC will have turrets with no hull penetration for ammo... otherwise there will be a serious reduction in troops numbers.

I was thinking this already when i saw the first footage of the Bumerang with Berezhok turret. The Berezhok variant should also be able to fit the same number of dismounts in the rear compartment. Bigger modules such as Bachka-U could result in the loss of 2 dismount spaces, reducing it to 6, provided they use the manned turret. As we have seen in the BMP-3 Dragoon vehicle, the unmanned Bachka-U (at least for now), takes up a lot of space inside the crew compartment, possibly even taking up the area normally used by the gunner and commander completely. For bigger weapon systems such as the 57mm and 125mm, this will the same problem.

One solution is to design an even longer variant, similar to what Patria did with the AMV to accommodate the Bachka-u for the vehicles of the UAE. Downside is that this makes the vehicle even longer and heavier.

Another solution is (like you said) to design turrets which are bigger but do not penetrate into the crew compartment, which also have downsides such as presenting a bigger target while somewhat limiting the ammunition carried.
I think they have such a turret already in the works for the 57mm, though we recently saw more details about a manned version as well? I am sure its already in this thread somewhere.

Peŕrier wrote:The standard 125 mm gun would be likely too much for a wheeled vehicles.

Sprut is saying hello

GarryB wrote:No, it wont have a D30 122mm gun... the Sprut uses a 125mm long recoil gun that fires all the standard ammo the other 125mm guns fire and the Sprut is about 18 tons compared with the Boomerangs 20-25 tons.

Russians dont  have so much choice: either 57mm AA gun or 125 one. 67 mm is hard to describe as large diameter thus..125 remains. No new caliber development was announced so far.

GarryB wrote: I suspect this also means any vehicle with requirements for under hull equipment or ammo like a 125mm gun or 57mm gun would need a turret at the rear that fills the troop compartment... so the IFV and APC will have turrets with no hull penetration for ammo... otherwise there will be a serious reduction in troops numbers.

Or perhaps this strange "empty compartment" is foreseen to unmanned module installation - if turret and gun is heavy then better put is around center of mass isnt it?

GarryB wrote:No, it wont have a D30 122mm gun... the Sprut uses a 125mm long recoil gun that fires all the standard ammo the other 125mm guns fire and the Sprut is about 18 tons compared with the Boomerangs 20-25 tons.
Snipped...
...
.

In the video it is mentioned that Boomerang is 30 Tons.

Here is another trailer video:

The Berezhok variant should also be able to fit the same number of dismounts in the rear compartment. Bigger modules such as Bachka-U could result in the loss of 2 dismount spaces, reducing it to 6, provided they use the manned turret. As we have seen in the BMP-3 Dragoon vehicle, the unmanned Bachka-U (at least for now), takes up a lot of space inside the crew compartment, possibly even taking up the area normally used by the gunner and commander completely.

Exactly, but the problem is that if there is only space up front for the driver... the large area behind him with the crawl space beside it is the engine... which can't be moved or have a turret base fitted on, so the next part back is the space where the gunner and commander sit, with the troop compartment behind.

The other problem is that any turret with its base inside the vehicle needs to be separated from the crew and troops so you lose the crawl space and the driver becomes isolated and the area behind the engine will have the turret but will need to be walled off front and back to firewall the ammo from the troops and crew... or is the engine and crawl space left as it is and the commander and gunner left where they are and the crawl space left in place but the firewall is behind the gunner and commander then the turret and then another firewall and then perhaps 4-6 troops in the rear...

The obvious problem with that would be you would be limiting the driver and commander and gunner to roof hatch access and taking away rear door access.

Of course you could go for narrow firewall around the turret with space either side for the crew to crawl past to escape out the rear like the driver can crawl past the engine to escape out the rear in case of an emergency.

Should be interesting to see as more information is revealed...

I think they have such a turret already in the works for the 57mm, though we recently saw more details about a manned version as well? I am sure its already in this thread somewhere.

Technically there should be an APC model and an IFV model with the IFV model traditionally having less troops... the APC model with heavy and light guided missiles and a 30mm cannon and possibly a 40mm grenade launcher without hull penetration could have 8 troops, while a vehicle with a 57mm gun and missiles that penetrates the hull could squeese perhaps 4-5 troops in the rear behind the turret could be the IFV.

In practical terms the APC drops the troops off and then moves away, while the IFV drops off the troops and offers fire support from a distance... so the latter is basically the MG fire team for the troops and also direct fire artillery with the 57mm gun and also ATGM team for the troops, so they are not really at a huge disadvantage... though the APC troops also have MG and 30mm cannon support and ATGMs... they just don't have heavy direct fire cannon to support them... though they should all be able to call in artillery and tank fire anyway.

Russians dont have so much choice: either 57mm AA gun or 125 one. 67 mm is hard to describe as large diameter thus..125 remains. No new caliber development was announced so far.

It makes no sense to keep old calibres when their performance is not really that much different... I would say the recoil of the 122mm gun is not really that much different from the recoil of the 125mm. They are getting new 57mm guns in high velocity and grenade launcher, but if it is HE power they want then they always have the 100mm rifled 2A70 gun of the BMP-3. The turret bin of the BMP-3 has room for 40 rounds of 100mm ammo... it is small and compact and not with enormous recoil but hits hard.

BTW thanks for the vids... interesting...

Originally the armata family of vehicles was supposed to be 50-65 tons... with the heaviest being the artillery model (coalition). The Kurganets and Boomerang were supposed to be 25 ton class vehicles and the Typhoon 10-15 tons depending on the model.

There were variations... the Armata included rear engined tank models and front engined APC and IFV models but the other three vehicles were front engined.

The Typhoon was supposed to include light four wheel models and medium weight 6 wheeled models, but I suspect they might all be 6 wheeled models... just for mobility...

Will be interesting over the next few years as we see all the new models and variants appear...

So if i understand correctly, they say even the platforms with heavier weapons will retain the possibility of carrying 8 dismouts?

Expert: the wheeled tank on the platform "Boomerang" can get a gun from the "Sprut-SDM"

MOSCOW, March 4. / TASS /. The Russian wheeled tank, which is planned to be built on the Boomerang platform, can receive a 125-mm gun from the self-propelled anti-tank cannon "Sprut-SDM" for the Airborne Troops, the editor-in-chief of the journal Arsenal of the Fatherland , Victor Murakhovsky.

Earlier, in an interview with the program "Military Acceptance" on the Zvezda television channel, the general director of the Military Industrial Company, Alexander Krasovitsky, said that the company plans to make a wheeled tank on the Boomerang platform with a large-caliber cannon in the near future.

"I think we are referring to the combat compartment used on the floating self-propelled anti-tank cannon" Sprut-SDM ", which is made for the Airborne Forces, a combat compartment with a 125mm gun, the mass-dimensional parameters of this combat compartment make it possible to install it on the" Boomerang " "-" Sprut "and" Boomerang "are approximately in one weight category," TASS Murakhovsky said.

The expert added that "the experimental and design work on the integration of this fighting department into" Boomerang "can be accomplished in two or three years." Speaking about the classification of the machine on this platform in case of equipping with a gun of 125 mm caliber, he noted that "the car can be called an easy wheeled tank."

The expert specified that according to the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe of 1990 (Russia suspended it since 2007), wheeled vehicles fall under the definition of a tank if the following criteria are met: the machine gun should be caliber over 75 mm, the mass must exceed 16, 5 tons, and the tower should rotate 360 ​​degrees. He added that according to this definition, "Sprut-SDM" with a mass of 18 tons is an easy tank, and "Boomerang" with a new fighting compartment will fall under it, but for the Russian classification it will be unofficial.


Speaking about the advantages and disadvantages of wheeled and crawler platforms, Murakhovsky noted that wheelbases of such a mass have a greater overhaul life and lower operating costs, are largely compatible with civil aggregates and, as a rule, are created by floating units. The caterpillar technique is more expensive in operation, it has significantly less than the overhaul mileage, on the other hand, it has better off-road ability, is heavier in class and has better security.

Platform "Boomerang"
The infantry fighting vehicles on the wheelbase "Boomerang" produced by the "Military Industrial Company" were first presented to the public on May 9, 2015 on the Victory Parade. According to open sources, the combat mass of the car is more than 20 tons, it is armed with a 30-mm cannon and anti-tank missiles "Cornet", has a large compartment for infantrymen and is floating.

Подробнее на ТАСС:
http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5006657

And here some graphics how it could look like.

https://nampuom-pycu.livejournal.com/105736.html









Looks like our finding gets official

GarryB wrote:No, it wont have a D30 122mm gun... the Sprut uses a 125mm long recoil gun that fires all the standard ammo the other 125mm guns fire and the Sprut is about 18 tons compared with the Boomerangs 20-25 tons.

I find the positioning of the crew a little strange though... the commander and gunner positions just in front of the troop compartment is a bit odd... the narrow tunnel to the front is because the engine is to the side there, but I would have thought there would be enough room at the front for three crew rather than just one...

I suspect this also means any vehicle with requirements for under hull equipment or ammo like a 125mm gun or 57mm gun would need a turret at the rear that fills the troop compartment... so the IFV and APC will have turrets with no hull penetration for ammo... otherwise there will be a serious reduction in troops numbers.

The D30 was cited by me just as an example of alternative type of main armament, I wasn't implying that D30 could actually be then gun to choose.

The point is that until now, high pressure long recoil guns have given mixed results when employed in wheeled AFVs.

It is partially but not exclusively related to the hull mass: the Stryker MGS fire support version suffers heavily from having a powerful gun mounted in a relatively small and light hull, with mixed to bad results in terms of stability and ability to fire the gun when traversed.

But even a far larger and heavier AFV, like the italian Centauro 2 weighting around 30 tons, has had issues with its 120 mm long recoil gun, both in terms of stability when firing the gun traversed and in terms of tear and wear suffered from suspensions, even if the hull in itself is way heavier than a Stryker, and was designed from day one as a specialized tank destroyer.

It is also worth noting the former Centauro 1, employing a long recoil 105 mm and weighting around 24 tons, did not suffer from the same problems.

It seems as if wheeled vehicles have some inherent problem when employing real large guns, unless in turn they get really large, somehow larger than similar tracked vehicles.

It should of course possible to overcome such problems, but the point is the driver behind the choices to made: if the main requirement is direct fire support, a high velocity, mainly antitank large gun could just not be the preferred choice, because it could require more efforts to get the whole thing work seamlessly than is deemed desirable. A different king of gun, actually more close to an howitzer than an antitank gun, would provide the same capabilities in terms of direct fire support with less strain posed on the hull and as such requiring less modification to the base hull.

If the main mission, on the other hand, is actually to fight enemy's MBTs, such efforts are more than justified, and a Bumerang with a Sprut-SD derived turret, or even an ad hoc developed turret with the same 2A75 gun employed by the Sprut-SD, would be the logical choice.

But it is depending on the mission envisaged for the weapon system: Sprut-SD is mainly a tank destroyer, a Bumerang armed with a large caliber could be developed as well to provide a tank destroyer to Bumerangs' regiments as it could be intended to perform a fire support platform.

As a last note, if there could be chances that in a foreseeable future the 125 mm gun employed by T-14 and T-90 would no longer be effective enough, it could in turn reduce greatly the viability and effectiveness of a 125 mm armed tank destroyer.

While at least the T-14 could be rearmed with a larger gun, I doubt a wheeled AFV has any chance to get a larger one. 120 - 125 mm seems to be the largest caliber a wheeled AFV, weighting no more than 30 tons could actually employ, and even those calibers are proving troublesome to integrate in wheeled hulls.

So it could be, if military top brass have already took into account the need to rearm the T-14, that they could deem more future-proof to rely on an ATGM armed AFV for the role of tank destroyer.

ATGMs are slow and vulnerable to APSs compared to any APFSDS shot, but they could be quite easily replaced with more effective ones when their penetration capabilities are no longer enough, something not easily doing with a gun.