BTR-80/82A and variants: News

This new iteration of the BTR-82 is all good but I hope it doesn't lead to the cancellation of the Bumerang, the latter is a new generation of armored vehicles in Russia while the BTR+ series is from Soviet times.


Edit: Is this version still amphibious after some weight distribution changes due to modifications?

Looks like it is not amphibious at all. I have mixed feelings. It is a very good looking upgrade and frankly Russia needs to focus on quantity as well as quality. That said I agree that Russia must move forward with new designs that incorporate and institutionalize new materials and methods into their manufacturing. This is why I feel the T-14 is vital. Even if it turns out it isnt massively better than t-90m it incorporates so many new materials and concepts that these all must be institutionalized into their MIC so that they arent just stuck with R&D paper projects. Does this make sense at all?

TMA1 wrote:Looks like it is not amphibious at all.

after Begome's post:

"The APC is capable of moving around rough terrains and overcoming water obstacles afloat"

" />

TMA1 wrote:
I have mixed feelings. It is a very good looking upgrade and frankly Russia needs to focus on quantity as well as quality. That said I agree that Russia must move forward with new designs that incorporate and institutionalize new materials and methods into their manufacturing. This is why I feel the T-14 is vital. Even if it turns out it isnt massively better than t-90m it incorporates so many new materials and concepts that these all must be institutionalized into their MIC so that they arent just stuck with R&D paper projects. Does this make sense at all?

Yet they need more APCs now...Before Biden's administration goes to war to keep power in wartime and Trump out in prison.

Remember not everything designed is for Russian service. It could be for export. Or maybe for border guards, russ-guard, cossacks battalions, volunteer regiments. It's better to have multiple options to suit all budgets and threats

This is true but I suspect the point of the air burst 23mm cannon shells and the optics and sensors and radar are intended for engaging drones and other problem threats.

I would hope a LIDAR might be part of its sensor options as a device that can detect cardboard targets too... a 23mm exploding cannon shell would shred a cardboard plane with a very short burst.

A cheaper bumerang that shares commonality with the BTR series as far as spare parts are concerned. How Russian of them.

A cheaper, less capable wheeled vehicle where an armoured truck is not good enough but a Boomerang is not needed.

Advanced BTR-82A armored personnel carrier with remote-controlled Ballista combat module.

It will likely have a full range of new turrets it can mount... most of which don't have any penetration into the hull so they don't effect troop transport capacity.

This new iteration of the BTR-82 is all good but I hope it doesn't lead to the cancellation of the Bumerang, the latter is a new generation of armored vehicles in Russia while the BTR+ series is from Soviet times.

Boomerang is an entire vehicle family with much better armour levels than this vehicle.

This BTR might get the new turrets from the new vehicle types but they simply don't have the armour protection level of the new vehicles either.

Looks like it is not amphibious at all. I have mixed feelings. It is a very good looking upgrade and frankly Russia needs to focus on quantity as well as quality.

For patrol or convoy support with 23mm cannon for air defence against drones, it would not need to be amphibious... with slat armour and external armour packages and external stowage of water and other things this vehicle should be reasonably well protected in combat.

As that Turkish vehicle sinking in exercises, even an amphibious vehicle can sink... a rear door is a huge advantage... till someone tries to open it while swimming...

TMA1 wrote:Looks like it is not amphibious at all. I have mixed feelings. It is a very good looking upgrade and frankly Russia needs to focus on quantity as well as quality. That said I agree that Russia must move forward with new designs that incorporate and institutionalize new materials and methods into their manufacturing. This is why I feel the T-14 is vital. Even if it turns out it isnt massively better than t-90m it incorporates so many new materials and concepts that these all must be institutionalized into their MIC so that they arent just stuck with R&D paper projects. Does this make sense at all?

Probably for export only.

At least they gave it the Ballista turret, I have heard some bad thing about the 82A turret.

For drone defence I would think a simpler lighter vehicle would make more sense like a Tigr or Typhoon 4x4 or 6x6 vehicle... such vehicles would operate with logistics convoys but also with troops all over the battlefield.

For the front line they would more likely use Terminators with airburst 30mm cannon shells.

Actually a 23mm cannon with airburst shells would be an interesting addition to an MTLB chassis for use together with other MTLBs with SOSNA missiles for anti drone use.

The 2A14 has the advantage of water cooling so a high rate of fire can be achieved and maintained but with air burst shells a burst of 2-3 shells that explode all round the target should be enough most of the time...

Obviously it would depend how cost effective the shells are... if they are too expensive, or not effective then 30mm shells make more sense.

GSH-23-2 would be another option... very high rate of fire so very short bursts would be used but low muzzle velocity would make it less effective against air targets, but then the airburst shell is the same in this gun (23 x 115mm) as it is with the Shilka cannon (23 x 152mm) but the 23 x 115mm would be more compact and could be carried and fired in much larger numbers.

The very high rate of fire means a burst of fire can be very short and would arrive in the target area in a cloud like a shotgun blast, with airbursting shells filling in the gaps between rounds making it quite devastating.

Lower recoil and more compact ammo that can be carried in larger volumes.... and already used on the newer Hind models too.

A very neat, compact little gun.

GarryB wrote:For drone defence I would think a simpler lighter vehicle would make more sense like a Tigr or Typhoon 4x4 or 6x6 vehicle... such vehicles would operate with logistics convoys but also with troops all over the battlefield.
[]

+

Actually a 23mm cannon with airburst shells would be an interesting addition

something like that?

The new version of Typhoon-VDV with an upgraded ZSUshkha will protect against FPV drones



At the Army-2023 forum, a variant armed with a modernized ZU-23 / 30M1 anti-aircraft gun was shown.

[]

This combat vehicle is designed to perform a large number of tasks. For example, with its help it is possible to carry out cover from air attacks, including from small-sized drones of various types used by the enemy, as well as to engage ground targets.

The installed equipment allows this to be done in several modes, including automatic, on the move and at night.

The applied ammunition with a programmable detonation significantly increases the efficiency. If necessary, the operator, equipped with augmented reality glasses, can control the installation using a remote point, moving away from it at a distance of one hundred meters, which will provide the crew with a higher level of safety.

https://rg.ru/2023/08/30/novaia-versiia-tajfun-vdv-s-modernizirovannoj-zushkoj-zashchitit-ot-fpv-dronov.html




Did you notice that new proposed upgrade of BTR-82 (i.e BBTR-22) with ballista module has different 30mm cannon? 2A42 and not 2A72? Difference, 2A42 is heavier, more complex but... has RoF 2x,  600 vs 300 for 2A72.  Looks like it was due to SMO experiences.

I really like this BTR-82 upgrade. It solves most issues of BTR-80 and makes it most ideal for multipurpose use.

Should be rather cheap(er) upgrade that gives it enough advantages over old one without breaking the bank. Still introduce the Kurganets though for more elite groups and just keep a lower rate of production for now (if it even is being produced).

something like that?

Actually no... that has the twin 23mm guns of the ZU-23-2 mounted on it and as the Ukraine conflict and indeed Syrian conflict and Libyan conflict has shown it can deliver serious fire power where needed very quickly and cheaply, so I would use that as a fire support vehicle for ground targets.

For use against air targets using air burst shells you need more sophisticated electronics and sensors but you don't need that level of rate of fire so a single gun or the two gun mounted on the BTR-82 earlier in this thread would be better suited in my opinion.

With EO sensors and VR glasses for controlling this mount remotely it would be useful on a battlefield to deliver suppressive fire safely, but previously shown radar and other sensors look better suited to deal with small aerial targets and deliver airburst shells to the target location to take down the drone.

Did you notice that new proposed upgrade of BTR-82 (i.e BBTR-22) with ballista module has different 30mm cannon? 2A42 and not 2A72? Difference, 2A42 is heavier, more complex but... has RoF 2x, 600 vs 300 for 2A72. Looks like it was due to SMO experiences.

Ironically the reason the 2A72 was developed was because the 2A42 had too high a rate of fire and filled the turret with propellent smoke when fired at the higher rate, so the longer recoilling 2A72 was developed to solve the problem but resulted in a lower rate of fire.

Both are solid dust resistant dual feed weapons.

For a vehicle like the Terminator that makes a lot of sense having two guns with twin ammo feeds because it means for general targets you can have one ammo bin for each gun having APHE rounds, so for troops or other relatively soft targets you can fire both guns firing the same ammo, while for hard targets one gun can fire APFSDS in its other ammo bin and the other gun can have airburst shells... airburst and APFSDS rounds don't require an enormous rate of fire... 500-600rpm is good enough to deal with most targets from each barrel.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

So it is amphibious after all
Retracting my statement that it's perhaps for export only

PhSt wrote:This new iteration of the BTR-82 is all good but I hope it doesn't lead to the cancellation of the Bumerang, the latter is a new generation of armored vehicles in Russia while the BTR+ series is from Soviet times.

The new look BTR-82A is developed on the initiative of the MIC using their own resources; the Russian MoD has no input on the project. Unlike with the Bumerang which is designed based on their very stringent requirements of what a modern troop carrier should look like, requirements that this lighter, less complex, and cheaper vehicle would likely not meet. There is no chance they will cancel the Bumerang in favor of the new BTR-82A.

sepheronx wrote:
I really like this BTR-82 upgrade. It solves most issues of BTR-80 and makes it most ideal for multipurpose use.

Its a BTR-82 with a front mount engine to allow a rear exit. However, ease of egress was never the issue with the BTR-80 because doctrinally you're not supposed to assault mounted with such a thin-skinned vehicle anyway - they dismount and attack on foot. But if the armor was good, then the preference would be to sit inside and only dismount when they are practically on top of their objective which is where a rear ramp would come in handy.

Starts shortly

Looks like a useful and clever upgrade, but it wont replace Boomerang.

Think of it as being exactly the same as the T-90AM... they looked at the basic design and changed everything they could that could be perceived as a fault or problem and fixed it.

That does not mean the T-14 is cancelled.

The point is that the new generation vehicle families have to replace every single vehicle type in a given armoured force, so the Armata is not a tank as such and the Kurganets is not a BMP and the Boomerang is not a BTR and the Typhoon is not a BRDM or BMD.

Armata will be a tank and a BMP and a BTR and a BRDM and an MTLB and an artillery vehicle and everything else in the armoured group including armoured recovery vehicle and antitank missile platform and ambulance and EW vehicle and mine clearing and air defence etc etc etc...

Kurganets will also be all of those too as will Typhoon and Boomerang and the Arctic DT-30 type tractor vehicle series too.

There are going to be other vehicles for other roles and existing vehicles might continue to be used for quite some time, but these new vehicle families will unify logistics and training and support... an Armata division will have Armata tracks and engines and transmissions... though the different vehicles might have different weights and different engine ratings for those different weights, but the same wheels too.

If the Armata division was going to have Kurganets BMP then what is the T-15?

There is an Armata vehicle with a tank turret (T-14) and a BMP turret (likely T-15 with a 57mm grenade/gun launcher and Kornet and Bulat missiles) and a BTR turret (likely T something else with the 30mm Epocha turret with Kornet missiles), and a BRDM version with a Kord turret, and of course the BREM recovery vehicle version (T-16) etc etc etc.

The Boomerang will have a gun platform version... either with a T-14 turret or perhaps a 2S25 turret instead that is modified to be unmanned and fully automated, while the BMP and BTR models will have the same turrets the Kurganets and Armata BMP and BTR models have.

Boomerang and Kurganets will have the same engine and be similar weight with similar protection levels but obviously different levels of mobility with wheels and tracks...

There is always going to be room for lighter vehicles like the current BTR-82s and its improvements.

GarryB wrote:

something like that?

Actually no... that has the twin 23mm guns of the ZU-23-2 mounted on it and as the Ukraine conflict and indeed Syrian conflict and Libyan conflict has shown it can deliver serious fire power where needed very quickly and cheaply, so I would use that as a fire support vehicle for ground targets.

For use against air targets using air burst shells you need more sophisticated electronics and sensors but you don't need that level of rate of fire so a single gun or the two gun mounted on the BTR-82 earlier in this thread would be better suited in my opinion.

With EO sensors and VR glasses for controlling this mount remotely it would be useful on a battlefield to deliver suppressive fire safely, but previously shown radar and other sensors look better suited to deal with small aerial targets and deliver airburst shells to the target location to take down the drone.

wait so gun is ok but you would like to see the same stuff on BTR-82? so what's the difference? platform only? you dont need to sustain fire for long time so no water cooling is ok for anti air usage, airburst with couple of shots only. It can be parachuted too unlike BTR

GarryB wrote:

Armata will be a tank and a BMP and a BTR and a BRDM and an MTLB and an artillery vehicle and everything else in the armoured group including armoured recovery vehicle and antitank missile platform and ambulance and EW vehicle and mine clearing and air defence etc etc etc...

mtlb was as definition to be an artillery tractor and APC. Pretty much waste for Armata carriage...

There is always going to be room for lighter vehicles like the current BTR-82s and its improvements.

BTR-22 is for here and now. There are thousands of old BTRs, BRDMs of even MTLBs in use to be replaced and imho this is the idea.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
mtlb was as definition to be an artillery  tractor and APC.  Pretty much waste for Armata carriage...

The enemy makes no such distinction. A target is a target and as its spotted it will get hit. And besides, artillery sets the conditions that makes armored assaults successful and infantry keeps the ground the tanks gain. Why should they be protected any less than the MBTs?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
BTR-22 is for here and now. There are thousands of old BTRs, BRDMs  of even MTLBs in use to be replaced and imho this is the idea.

Except the Russian MoD is very strict about their latest toys and besides, the Russian taxpayer isn't paying - we are, at the pump.

wait so gun is ok but you would like to see the same stuff on BTR-82? so what's the difference? platform only? scratch scratch you dont need to sustain fire for long time so no water cooling is ok for anti air usage, airburst with couple of shots only. It can be parachuted too unlike BTR

Sorry I wasn't clear.

The ZU-23-2 has 2A7 barrels that fire at about 1,000 rpm each so the two guns fire 2,000rpm which is about 16 rounds per second per gun so the two guns firing with full 50 round belts will run out of ammo after just over 3 seconds and then a half minute to load new belts and get back to firing another just over 3 seconds.

More likely the bursts will be shorter and aimed and probably six or more bursts will be fired to suppress the target before reloading is needed.

The gun can use cheap old 23mm cannon ammo.

For use as an AA gun against drones it makes more sense to have a gun with a much lower rate of fire that uses air burst rounds that send shards and fragments at the drone by detonating the rounds just before they are about to hit the target.

The airburst rounds will be relatively cheap but wont be super cheap. Firing 3 or 5 shells at each target with airburst rounds will be rather more effective than firing 50 conventional old rounds and not hitting anything. The 50 shells will cost about the same as 3-5 air burst shells but the airburst shells are more likely to get a kill.

Against ground targets the cheap impact rounds make more sense most of the time.

The main difference is that the BTR model has a radar and water cooled barrels and the 2A14 barrels it uses has the same high rate of fire but is also water cooled so large numbers of drone targets wont be a problem... it could fire all day.

mtlb was as definition to be an artillery tractor and APC. Pretty much waste for Armata carriage...

It was also the vehicle that carries Shturm missiles and the new SOSNA missile carrier that may or may not replace it.

An Armata division might need a tractor to tow items if needed too.

BTR-22 is for here and now. There are thousands of old BTRs, BRDMs of even MTLBs in use to be replaced and imho this is the idea.

But that is part of the problem... the partial use of families made things worse rather than better.

There are plenty of different versions of BTRs and BRDMs and BMDs and MTLBs and BMPs, so instead of simplification it just added complication because an armoured division might have 100 BMPs in various roles, but the BMP version might be a BMP-3 while the various other BMP types doing other roles might be a mix of BMP-2 and BMP-1 with different wheels and different engines and different tracks and different tranmissions etc etc and the same for the MTLB and BTR and BRDM and other vehicle types.

It is a mess.

Upgrading older vehicles to use new vehicle types makes sense but what they are also doing is creating turret based systems that have equipment suites that can be used on different platforms... so for Urban combat or combat with first line HATO countries well equipped with new ATGMs then the T-14 will be your tank and T-16 your recovery vehicle and T-15 your BMP etc etc.

If the threats are not so great but terrain is rather bad then Kurganets based vehicles with a Kurganets tank using a T-14 turret and a Kurganets BMP with the T-15 turret etc etc, while for combat in places with an excellent road system then Boomerang based vehicles might be used with a Boomerang with a T-14 turret for a gun platform etc etc. For operations in Arctic regions then DT-30 based vehicles where the gun platform will have the T-14 turret etc etc etc.

For VDV light forces the Typhoon vehicle seems to be their vehicle of choice being light and mobile and with a T-14 turret or perhaps a 2S25 turret or maybe even a 2S38 turret with a 57mm gun instead depending on what the enemy have...

lyle6 wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
mtlb was as definition to be an artillery  tractor and APC.  Pretty much waste for Armata carriage...

The enemy makes no such distinction. A target is a target and as its spotted it will get hit. And besides, artillery sets the conditions that makes armored assaults successful and infantry keeps the ground the tanks gain. Why should they be protected any less than the MBTs?

because APC is not to fight on th efirst line and because Armata is all but cheap , that was the reason for mtlb and btr just to replace unarmored trucks.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
BTR-22 is for here and now. There are thousands of old BTRs, BRDMs  of even MTLBs in use to be replaced and imho this is the idea.

Except the Russian MoD is very strict about their latest toys and besides, the Russian taxpayer isn't paying - we are, at the pump.

they are are strict? recovering hundreds of damaged old btrs and brdms? ekhm doesn't sound like it is. What is gonna to replace odl models surely not Armata nor bumerangs

GarryB wrote:

wait so gun is ok but you would like to see the same stuff on BTR-82? so what's the difference? platform only? scratch scratch you dont need to sustain fire for long time so no water cooling is ok for anti air usage, airburst with couple of shots only. It can be parachuted too unlike BTR

The main difference is that the BTR model has a radar and water cooled barrels and the 2A14 barrels it uses has the same high rate of fire but is also water cooled so large numbers of drone targets wont be a problem... it could fire all day.

not sure about the radar but besides water cooling there is no real difference same ammo, same rof. Im not sure why guns need to fire all the time? unless during l zombie invasion

mtlb was as definition to be an artillery tractor and APC. Pretty much waste for Armata carriage...

It was also the vehicle that carries Shturm missiles and the new SOSNA missile carrier that may or may not replace it.

An Armata division might need a tractor to tow items if needed too.

its like Is-2 division used turretless IS-2 to such tasks. Cam Russians do it? yep, however costly, very costly...

Upgrading older vehicles to use new vehicle types makes sense but what they are also doing is creating turret based systems that have equipment suites that can be used on different platforms... so for Urban combat or combat with first line HATO countries well equipped with new ATGMs then the T-14 will be your tank and T-16 your recovery vehicle and T-15 your BMP etc etc.

Neither Armata nor Kruganets are not to replace BTRs .


When you have already BTR factories and all manufacturing lines are here and running, The new upgrade is not a quantum leap so people dont need re-training from scratch. Not to mention field workshops. Economy of war, you got BTR with much better armor, much better survivability yet fairly cost effective and mass produced. Boomerangs were made in couple of experimental examples. How many years Russian army can wait until Boomerang is produced at pace of BTR? with no major defects because all is new?

2-years? 3years? there is no time IMHO for this. But we'll live and see.

For VDV light forces the Typhoon vehicle seems to be their vehicle of choice being light and mobile and with a T-14 turret or perhaps a 2S25 turret or maybe even a 2S38 turret with a 57mm gun instead depending on what the enemy have...

but first of all can be parachuted

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
because APC is not to fight on th efirst line and because Armata is all but cheap , that was the reason for mtlb and btr just to replace unarmored trucks.

But there is no front line - that is the point. If you're in range you are going to be targeted as soon as you are detected. You just run into more eyes and ears the closer you get to the line of contact but you're never safe in the "rear".

they are are strict?  recovering hundreds of damaged old btrs and brdms?  ekhm doesn't sound like it is. What is gonna to replace odl models surely not Armata nor bumerangs

Don't be obtuse. They're at war - you take what you can get. But the conflict will not drag on forever and the Russian Army will have much greater conflicts to prepare for over the coming decades. Time enough for their bleeding edge stuff to finally come online.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
Neither Armata nor Kruganets are not to replace BTRs .

When you have already BTR factories and all manufacturing lines are here and running, The new upgrade is not a quantum leap so people dont need re-training from scratch. Not to mention field workshops. Economy of war, you got BTR with much better armor, much better survivability yet fairly cost effective and mass produced. Boomerangs were made in couple of experimental examples. How many years Russian army can wait until Boomerang is produced at pace of BTR? with no major defects because all is new?

2-years? 3years? there is no time IMHO for this. But we'll live and see.

So? They are investing and retooling and retraining the production and supply chains to manufacture Armatas, Kurganets, and Bumerangs instead. They did the same thing last time when they transferred over to civilian trucks to MTLBs, BTRs, BRDMS, etc. Why would it be a problem this time around?

[quote="lyle6"]

they are are strict?  recovering hundreds of damaged old btrs and brdms?  ekhm doesn't sound like it is. What is gonna to replace odl models surely not Armata nor bumerangs

Don't be obtuse. They're at war - you take what you can get. But the conflict will not drag on forever and the Russian Army will have much greater conflicts to prepare for over the coming decades. Time enough for their bleeding edge stuff to finally come online.
[./quote]
+

So? They are investing and retooling and retraining the production and supply chains to manufacture Armatas, Kurganets, and Bumerangs instead. They did the same thing last time when they transferred over to civilian trucks to MTLBs, BTRs, BRDMS, etc. Why would it be a problem this time around?

You have the right to believe in whatever you wish. We are not talking about some abstract decades ahead. You need to live till then first. We are talking about now. There is a major war against Russia. The real world evidence shows Russian MoD is ramping up production of BTR-82s, BMP-3s and t-90s none of Armata Bumerangs and Kruganets. Same was during the WW2 - Soviets didn't release better newer tanks but kept making/upgrading T-34 for a reason Improved T-44 was released in a relatively short series by end of the war and not even took part in any of battles.

Conclusions are yours enjoy

NATO is nowhere near ready and they would get their face smashed in if they try. It will take at least a decade to buildup their military potential to something that is not a halfway embarassment against Russia so, relax.

because APC is not to fight on th efirst line and because Armata is all but cheap , that was the reason for mtlb and btr just to replace unarmored trucks.

The MTLB and BTR were used at a time when everyone riding in a BMP was simple not affordable and not everyone is going to be travelling by BMP either their role or location would not require or justify it.

The entire Russian Army is not going to be Armata based... that would simple not be practical or affordable.

MTLB are still widely used because of their low ground pressure and excellent mobility in deep snow and deep mud and they are cheap relatively speaking compared with more sophisticated alternatives like BMP-3s or BMP-2s.

they are are strict? recovering hundreds of damaged old btrs and brdms? ekhm doesn't sound like it is. What is gonna to replace odl models surely not Armata nor bumerangs

Recovering old vehicles denies their use by the enemy, and you can either upgrade them with new parts and new turrets or you can just use them as spare parts for the other older vehicles you happen to be using.

It will likely take a decade to get all the vehicles into proper service so to start with an Armata brigade or division will have T-14 as the tank, so it will need the T-16 BREM armoured recovery vehicle to recover it if needed and if that unit needs T-14 tanks then it will also need T-15 BMPs.

As new vehicles in the Armata family are developed and complete testing they will enter the divisions with T-14 tanks and T-16s and T-15s and eventually that division will be all Armata based vehicles.

Equally there will be divisions that don't get T-14s... but they might get the B-15 with the same weapons and turret as the T-15... which means eventually it might get a Kurganets chassis with at T-14 turret that might be called the B-14 and would essentially be a main battle tank, and as all the other vehicle types in a Russian armoured division are developed with new turrets and equipment those turrets can be attached to any and all of the five vehicle families... Armata, Kurganets, Boomerang, Typhoon, and the Arctic tractor DT-30 family.

A division in the far north or far east might get all DT-30 vehicles for mobility in harsh conditions, while in European Russia they might use Boomerang based forces to maximise mobility on the better road systems.

The point is that there is plenty of scope in other units to use light vehicles and older upgraded types till the new family types are ready or are somehow not practical.

not sure about the radar but besides water cooling there is no real difference same ammo, same rof. Im not sure why guns need to fire all the time?

For shooting nazis in trenches the radar serves no purpose, but for use against tiny drones something that can automatically scan 360 degrees 24/7 in any weather and find targets before they are visible to the naked eye is a good thing for air defence.

Despite the fact that they do have a very high rate of fire in very very short bursts that means the airburst rounds will arrive at the interception area in clusters which would make dodging rounds impossible, but the water cooling means you can load them with continuous belts of ammo of several thousand rounds and not worry about overheating the barrels.

Air defence guns that stop firing are sitting ducks and would be highly attractive targets to enemy forces who will want to take out your air defence systems first.

The point is that firing very short 2-5 round bursts of air burst shells at drones would be very effective and would allow rapid engagement of multiple targets.

Some sort of LIDAR would be ideal so cardboard targets can be detected and engaged too.

LIDAR has very limited range and would likely not be detectable at extended ranges like a continuously operating radar would which is another advantage... a more powerful laser could be used to engage lighter drones by destroying them or burning out their optics or just blinding them at extended ranges.

its like Is-2 division used turretless IS-2 to such tasks. Cam Russians do it? yep, however costly, very costly...

The point of an Armata division is that every vehicle has the same level of protection and mobility but also that it has the same engine and transmission and wheels and tracks and suspension etc etc so the logistics tail for the division carries a reduced number of different parts for essentially one vehicle type.

Armata divisions will be reserved for the very hardest fighting against the toughest enemies in the most difficult terrain... ie urban or forest as an example.

The vast majority of divisions will be Boomerang and Kurganets most likely.

Vehicle families is the direction the Russian military wants to head for the future.

Right now the Boomerang and Kurganets and even Armata are not ready for mass serial production so likely for current divisions not much is going to change.

Current divisions are motor rifle or tank divisions and I suspect they will keep those division types but just as the difference between a tank division and a motor rifle division is the number of tank regiments and the number of BMP regiments, but also a motor rifle regiment as added anti tank forces in the form of ATGM vehicles and mine units and their number of towed anti tank guns, the new divisions will be distinct too.

Right now a tank division will have upgraded T-72s or T-80s or T-90s as their MBT, well the units that will be used for urban warfare against top level enemies will likely get their MBTs replaced with T-14s, which means they will also need T-16 recovery vehicles because existing recovery BREMs wont handle the increased weight of the T-14. It is also likely that that unit will also have their current BMP-3s replaced with T-15s when they are ready too.

Over time that division will have each vehicle replaced with an Armata version specifically created to perform that role.

In another division that might be lower echelon in a different location with different likely enemies they might keep their T-72s and get Boomerang based BTRs and BMPs and eventually in a few years time a Boomerang vehicle with a T-14 turret is adopted to replace the upgraded T-72s they were using.

There will be units held in reserve that keep old vehicles and forces that don't need army level gear, like FSB and MVD forces, or the navy might have different preferences.

2-years? 3years? there is no time IMHO for this. But we'll live and see.

The vast majority of vehicle types is not ready for serial production yet and current production factories are building mature upgraded systems, but these new upgrades of old platforms wont cause the cancellation of the new programmes, but if they are good enough they could allow it to be delayed a little while the designs are perfected and properly tested.

If the Su-35 and Su-30 were rubbish the Su-57 would need to be a bit more rushed, but fortunately they are rather good.

but first of all can be parachuted

I suspect that is the reason for being for the Typhoon family, otherwise it is redundant.

Armata has the best armour but would not be affordable to have your entire force be Armata based, so the Kurganets is designed which has lighter armour and is more affordable and can be built in numbers, but with special armour and ERA and APS and C4ISTAR it should be rather good. The Boomerang is an equivalent with the same engine and similar armour levels but wheeled. Boomerang is better armoured than the BMP-3, but is too heavy to be paradropped, so Typhoon offers a light mobile vehicle that is wheeled (fast and low operational and maintenance but with new armour and guns and sensors and equipment...)

The DT-30 series offers extreme mobility in extreme cold and deep mud or deep snow in a vehicle that can climb out of water hazards including back on to floating ice if it falls into the water.

You have the right to believe in whatever you wish. We are not talking about some abstract decades ahead. You need to live till then first. We are talking about now. There is a major war against Russia. The real world evidence shows Russian MoD is ramping up production of BTR-82s, BMP-3s and t-90s none of Armata Bumerangs and Kruganets.

The west has sent all its armour and ammo to Ukraine and is a vastly worse position for a conventional WWIII fight against Russia or China... Russia could defeat HATO with BTRs and BMPs and T-90s and upgraded T-72s because HATO doesn't make tanks any more and if they did and there was a war on Russia could destroy the vehicle and ammo and fuel stores right across HATO using Kinzhal and Zircon and other missile types.

More importantly the risk that HATO would use nukes to destroy Russian nukes or capacity to use their own nukes would require Russia use its nukes as quickly as they can.

Makes Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang sound a bit redundant for the next few years.

Same was during the WW2 - Soviets didn't release better newer tanks but kept making/upgrading T-34 for a reason Improved T-44 was released in a relatively short series by end of the war and not even took part in any of battles.

Actually WW2 caught the Soviets in the middle of an upgrade where the most numerous Soviet tank was the T-26 light tank and the most numerous fighter aircraft was the I-16 Polikarpov... meaning although they probably had more tanks and more aircraft than the rest of the world combined it was all obsolete old crap.

The enormous losses at the start of the war went a long way to fixing the problem but lots of competent tank crews were killed in obsolete pieces of crap that mostly didn't have the right types of ammo ready for use.

If the war had started 5 years earlier in 1936 the Soviet equipment would have been state of the art and could have dominated... if it had happened 5 years later then they would have had T-34s and KV-1s and Yak-1s and La-5FNs in production with the older types relegated to backwater roles or converted to something useful like troop transports or ammo carriers etc etc.

The point is that their upgraded old stuff is still very good compared with the best the west can produce and their next gen stuff is a while away from full use and full potential, but Russia is further down that road than any western country.... many of which have actually given up.... the next British tank might be a drone. (ie flying)