BMPT "Terminator"

Regarding the cutting of the BMPT programme:

With the move to light, medium, and heavy brigades, and the medium being described as BMP level protection I think the Russian military will  face a dilemma with the cancellation of the BMPT programme.

For an APC in the heavy brigades to have tank level protection will require vehicles like the BTR-T which was a tank chassis modified into a heavy APC role.

Because of the weight and design its armament will consist of a 30mm cannon at the most and more likely it will be a 12.7mm heavy machinegun which will mean the firepower of the heavy units will drop considerably over the BMP equipped medium brigades.

I think the decision to drop the BMPT was premature because it is a heavy brigade vehicle that was not an APC... it was a fire support vehicle to compliment tanks that was able to operate where infantry would not survive long in the open.

I have said before and I will say it again, I think that the BMPTs armament is wrong and if they are serious about having such a vehicle they need to rethink the design that has been shown.

I think the corner gun turrets should be replaced with proper turrets with a decent field of fire... perhaps external guns like the gun on the Mi-28N but upside down and with protected ammo belt feed into the vehicle separated by blast walls and blow out roof panels.

I think the ATAKAs on the BMPT should be replaced by the 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3 in an external mount with a turret bustle autoloader with the 100mm shells separate from the crew compartment and protected, and I
think that a faster firing 30mm gun like the GSh-30-2K as fitted to the Hind should be mounted coaxially and given the fire options of single shot, slow burst (about 300 rpm) and fast burst (2,500 rpm) fire options for single targets, ground target suppression, and anti aircraft fire respectively.

The 100mm shells will have more effect on target and on the BMP-3 has elevation limits of -6 degrees up to +60 degrees so an externally mounted 100mm gun with a coaxial twin barrel 30mm gun should be able to do the same or better... perhaps -15 to +75 degrees? For point targets at long range guided missiles with HE warheads can be tube fired... but most targets like enemy ATGM teams a long way away can be engaged by the T-90s main gun with HE armed guided missiles or ANIET fused shells.

The vehicle could carry 20-30 rounds of 100mm ammo and say 1,000 30mm cannon shells of all types, and perhaps 400 30mm grenades for the front turrets or perhaps 2,000 7.62mm rounds per PKT.

This is far more HE power than 4 Atakas that will be cheaper per round, and the external bow guns will be more flexible and able to engage a wider range of targets than the current mounts.

What I am getting at is that the light brigades will likely have wheeled vehicles perhaps with 125mm guns and BMP-3M turrets with 30mm cannons and 100mm rifled guns and therefore plenty of firepower, and the medium brigades will likely have Sprut with 125mm guns, and BMP-3Ms with BMP-3M turrets with 30mm guns and 100mm guns and therefore plenty of firepower, but the heavy brigade at the moment will likely have T-90s with 125mm guns... and BTR-Ts with 12.7mm machineguns.

So what is the future upgrade path of the BMP-3?

Is it going to 57mm or will it go for a mix of 57mm and the current 100mm/30mm mix... the latter being very complimentary with each other, and more importantly will the amphibious capability be retained or will the demands for more armour prevail?
This is important as it will impact on the firepower of all three brigade types as the heaviest calibre the light brigade has might be the BMP level armament if there is no 125mm gun equipped wheeled vehicle.

More armor of course meaning a new engine and improved transmission and running gear etc etc and increased costs in fuel etc and might spell the end of their amphibious capability which will seriously effect mobility in Russia.

I think Garry dream of 57 mm Gun might just be close to reality , check this article.

link

For example, he noted that if installed on BMPT 57-mm cannon with a designed automatic loader for her, her firepower will be greatly enhanced, and the machine itself can be brought in a new capacity. But it requires additional funds, noting that BMPT was established in volunteering at the expense of own funds. As to whether BMPT find its place in the state teams of the new sample Yuri Kovalenko, admitted that this is possible.

I think Garry dream of 57 mm Gun might just be close to reality , check this article.

link

[quote]


Interesting news. So BMPT is neither dead neither canceled, but in redesign. I hope they will soon show the new variant of BMPT.

Interesting news. So BMPT is neither dead neither canceled, but in redesign. I hope they will soon show the new variant of BMPT.

The state doesn't want it any more.

The designers/producers say:

As to whether BMPT find its place in the state teams of the new sample Yuri Kovalenko, admitted that this is possible.

In other words UVZ say that the state might eventually find a use for the vehicle... but clearly at the moment they don't want it in its current form.

I think Garry dream of 57 mm Gun might just be close to reality , check this article.

I have justified the BMPT in the past because the future armour structure cannot be the same as it is now.
Having removed volatile ammo from the crew compartment of their tanks (T-90AM and Armata) it simply doesn't make sense to have a tank based APC (Armata based APC) with BMP like armament as this will have 100mm HE shells inside a troop vehicle which would be akin to the same death sentence of having ammo in the crew compartment of a tank.
The Russians put 100mm guns in the AFVs because tank guns lack the elevation to hit some targets in mountainous country and in cities and they have always liked having direct fire HE power with their armour... the Su-76 and ISU-152 and ISU-122 are examples of HE delivery to hard targets on the front line with the enemy.
The new Armata based heavy brigades will also want that heavy HE firepower but putting that in with the APC only makes the troops more vulnerable if the vehicle is penetrated.
The obvious solution is the BMPT... except the BMPT as it was shown is not good enough... 4 guided missiles and two 30mm cannon is not the HE firepower they need and want.
I suggested an external 100mm 2A70 rifled gun with an external turret bustle autoloader with a coaxial 30mm cannon with its ammo located in the turret bustle too.
By making them external and putting the ammo in the turret bustle there is no longer and issue with gun fumes in the crew compartment or with ammo in the crew compartment.
By raising them up out of the vehicle their angles of elevation should be greatly improved including good depression angles as well as high angles of fire.
An added advantage of the higher main weapons is that this should make space on the front of the hull for two independent turrets with external guns firing grenade or machinegun calibre ammo with much better fields of fire independent of the vehicles hull.
This would be in an Armata chassis and could even be used independently as a fire support vehicle.

The idea of using a 57mm gun instead of a 30mm and 100mm gun is interesting and has a few merits.
With laser guided shells it can be used to hit point targets at extended ranges on the ground and in the air.
With standard ammo it can be used against a wide range of targets.

I do think perhaps completely redesigning the round into a modern telescoped case round to improve handling and storage and to enable an increase in performance for all projectile types would make sense though.

Perhaps the old ammo can be used initially and then replaced later on with a more capable round in a similar calibre later on.

Unfortunately the state seems to be ignoring the fact that when they move to the Armata family that the troop carrier model will have to give up BMP-3 level firepower for internal troop capacity and safety and will likely be armed with nothing more than a Kord, or 2A72 in a BTR-82 like turret.

The potential for a 57mm gun to replace the two 30mm cannon of the BMPT means much more potent HE direct fire fire power along with a significant anti armour capability against anything short of a MBT from the front, as well as with laser guided shells against point targets on the ground or in the air out to a significant range makes it an excellent option.
The lack of raw HE power could be compensated by having a mix of vehicles with 57mm guns and 120mm mortar carrying vehicles.
Similar choices could be made for "firepower support vehicles" in the medium and light brigades, though the BMP-3 armament adapted to external ammo storage could be an option too.

Kazakhstan army buy 10 BMPTs this year and they show them on parade. Kazakhstan was also first customer of Vystrels and than Russian MoD bought them. Maybe Russian army will follow Kazakhstan military and also buy BMPTs, which will be very useful.

The Russian Army rejected the BMPT because its armament is not even as powerful as BMP-3M.

They didn't reject the idea or concept of the fire support vehicle, they rejected the implementation of the BMPT.

What would be best would be if UVZ went back to the drawing board and took the 100mm 2A70 rifled medium pressure gun and developed it into an external gun mount with a turret bustle autoloader with all the ammo in the turret bustle... perhaps even belt fed, or with an automatic ammo rack mount with a coaxial 30mm cannon mounted next to it also with a turret bustle magazine with the dual feed design retained.
On top of the turret at the rear a 40mm Balkan automatic grenade launcher with 300-400 rounds like the 30mm grenade launcher arrangement on the BMP-2M upgrade.
With the external armament and ammo the turret crew can have a flush turret like the BMPT has now, but I would also replace the bow weapon positions with proper turrets with wide angles of fire and perhaps externally mounted weapons. The long narrow PKT could be paired with the fairly narrow small Balkan AGLs in each turret, which if mounted above the tracks could have a field of fire that covers the entire front and sides of the vehicle.

The new Armata family of heavy vehicles will include infantry vehicles but to separate the crews and troops from the danger of exploding ammo they will also need fire support vehicles like the BMPT, so the IFVs will have at most 30mm cannon, but mostly 12.7mm HMGs as armament and to provide direct and indirect HE firepower will be fire support vehicles like the BMPT.

I think Russian army reject BMPT, because it need some improvements. Absolutely it need higher elevation of guns up to 60° or 75° and to have day/night FCS to work to that elevation. They could replace Ataka missiles with Khrizantema or Kornet-EM missiles and integrate BMPT with C4ISR.

I don't think BMPT need 2A70 100mm gun. BMPTs will work inside tank brigades, where tank guns and specially MSTA-S SP guns are far better suited for job of 2A70 gun and there is also TOS for that job. BMPT is created to replace SP AA guns in environments, where high elevation of guns with high rate of fire is needed, because SP AA guns don't have enough armor and are too expensive and too precious to be exposed there. Of course BMPs and BTRs also have such guns and high elevation, but are also weak armored comparing to BMPT.

We will see, what will UVZ develop from BMPT, because Russian army is still interested in it.

It hasn't been rejected but it hasn't been ordered so far either. The vehicle has opponents in the MOD who question the need for such a vehicle

During WWII the west looked at the vehicles the Soviets used and thought they had a lot of tank destroyers like the Su-76 and Su-85 and Su-100 and ISU-122 etc etc.

In reality only the Su-85 and the SU-100 were actually used as tank destroyers... all the rest were direct fire support vehicles that operated on the front line and destroyed enemy hard points.

The BMP-1 primarily had a 73mm gun because there was a requirement to be able to kill tanks in the 500m dead zone where the AT-3 ATGM it carried was pretty useless in. The BMP-1 was tested with 30mm auto cannons... and indeed as a wheeled and as a tracked and as a wheeled and tracked vehicle. The all tracked configuration won because of mobility and the 73mm gun won because it could penetrate an M60 tank from the front at any range it could hit it from.
The BMP-2 however introduced the AT-4 and later AT-4 and AT-5 launcher which had a minimum range of about 50-75m so it was fitted with a 30mm cannon.
The BMP-2 didn't replace the BMP-1 in service because it was found that each armament type complimented the other. For many targets a high velocity high rate of fire 30mm cannon was ideal, but for other tasks the extra HE firepower of the 73mm gun was much more effective.

The replacement BMP-3 combined the HE power of the BMP-1 and the firepower of the 30mm cannon in one vehicle.

Now however there is a dilemma.

They have spend lots of money and time to shift the large calibre ammo out of T-90s crew compartments and into fireproofed safe areas to prevent a penetration killing the entire crew.

It would be pretty stupid to then put infantry troops into a vehicle filled with 30mm cannon ammo and 100mm shells no matter how well armoured.

The point is that in the new heavy brigades there are going to be tanks and there are going to be APCs armed with 12.7mm HMG or perhaps a 14.5mm HMG in a BTR-82 like turret. A 30mm cannons ammo would take up too much internal space... space that is supposed to be for infantry. There is a good chance the heavy APC might have several remote control 7.62mm external machineguns, but it will not have anything like the fire power of a BMP-3.

The same logic applies to the medium and light brigade... you don't want troops packed in with 100mm HE shells.

This means that without a dedicated fire support vehicle that the new brigades will have an enormous loss of fire power previously provided by BMPs (either BMP-1 AND BMP-2, or BMP-3).

Sure the Tank is armed with a 125mm gun, but it has an elevation range of less than 30 degrees and there are a lot of targets they simply cannot engage because of that.

In chechnia in Grozny the chechen rebels were totally familiar with Soviet equipment as most of them were ex conscripts and they knew that a mixed row of tanks and BMPs could be dealt with first by taking out the BMPs with their relatively thin armour and once they are knocked out firing from basements and the 2nd floor of buildings or above as the tanks can't depress their main armament low enough or high enough to engage them.

Put a BMPT in that case and after 4 missile launches all it has is Machine guns and 30mm cannon. What would have been much better was a 100mm gun with HE shells able to target any floor in the building or up a steep nearby slope. Having 34 shells plus 6 missiles all ready to load and fire also makes a difference.

The twin gun arrangement of the BMPT is silly... it increases weight with the only advantage of doubling rate of fire... for ground targets rate of fire is no advantage.

A decent fire support vehicle means that the 30 rounds the T-90AM is carrying around can have a higher number of anti armour rounds... more than 2/3rds of the normal load is HE because most of the targets on a modern battlefield are best dealt with using HE.

A fire support vehicle like BMPT needs to be capable of taking on a range of targets at high and low angles from a range of ranges... two 30mm cannon and expensive ATGMs is the solution they have gone with. The BMP-3s armament of a 100mm rifled gun and a 30mm autocannon is far more flexible and allows much better combat persistence as it has 34 HE shells, plus 6 guided missiles, plus 500 x 30mm cannon shells. In the larger turret of a modified T-90 or Armata chassis there should be space for even more ammo, both internally and in a turret bustle.

Another option could be to replace the 100mm rifled gun for a 120mm gun/mortar which means probably less ready to use ammo, slightly more powerful ammo, and a different tube launched guided weapon, but the direct and indirect firepower will be retained.

I have said several times here that 4 ATAKA missiles is not enough for this sort of vehicle as there are plenty of targets that will require significant HE firepower that tank guns can't reach. A large calibre high elevation gun is ideal. High pressure and high velocity are not needed, we are talking about shell power. Anti armour work can be performed by the Tanks in the unit and they have APFSDS rounds and guided anti armour missiles, so the missiles the BMPT will carry will be HE FRAG warhead equipped and will be used to hit point targets at extended ranges... like TOW teams or MG nests or suspected sniper positions.

For light vehicles with ATGMs mounted on them a single 100mm HE shell will do the job of 10 30mm cannon shells.

Against enemy UAVs or other targets the ATAKAs can be replaced with Kornet EMs.... much more efficient than two 30mm cannon with no where near the reach or HE power.

To conclude my preferred BMPT would have a built up hull structure to allow the bow guns to be replaced with mini turrets with external guns fitted. I would go with two twin mounts on either side of the front hull that had 270 degrees traverse capability so both could completely cover the front of the vehicle and each turret could shoot sideways and to the rear of its side. I would fit a PKT machine gun and a BALKAN 40mm grenade launcher in each turret able to depress at least 20 degrees and elevate up to at least 60 degrees. The PKT should be accurate out to 1,500m and the Balkan can fire its grenades to 2.5km.

In the main turret I would keep the same basic layout of optics but replace the two 30mm cannon with the main gun armament of the BMP-3 in external gun mounts that allowed depression of at least 10 degrees and an elevation of at least 70 degrees. The 100mm gun will be dual feed with a belt of 100mm shells leading back to a bustle mounted ammo store of 40 shells as one option and 8 100mm guided missiles with HE FRAG warheads in the other feed position. The coaxial 30mm cannon can be the 2A42 (external mount means no problems with fumes during high rate firing like in the BMP-2) with its normal dual feed with HE Frag and APDS rounds in two belts with 700-800 rounds stored in the turret bustle.

The positions that currently have ATAKA missiles will accommodate the Kornet-EM missiles mainly for anti UAV use and also for point targets outside the range of the 100mm guided missiles that are tube fired.

I also like the turret rear position of the 30mm grenade launcher on the upgraded BMP-2s and would add a 40mm Balkan grenade launcher with 300-400 grenades in a similar position to round out the armament.

This new BMPT2 will be needed in heavy, medium, and light brigades based on the Armata, Kurganets-25/Boomerang, and Kangaroo chassis.

Because the design might not scale down so well in the light brigade model it might be possible to replace the 100mm gun with the 82mm Vasilek automatic mortar with belt fed bombs together with a 30mm cannon to reduce the weight of the turret on the lighter chassis.

Another alternative could be a 57mm gun to replace both the 30mm and 100mm in the light brigade vehicle, but keep the external remote gun turrets.

For those that think the armament is excessive there will be a wide range of targets and situations in a real combat situation so a wide range of weapons makes sense.

A 30mm cannon shoots high velocity rounds rapidly and is good against light aircraft and light vehicles, but light vehicles behind heavy cover is invulnerable to 30mm cannon fire... a 40mm grenade launcher can be fired directly at a target or indirectly over cover to hit targets behind walls or buildings or small hills and geological features. A 40mm grenade coming down nearly vertically is more efficient in terms of fragments than a high velocity 30mm HE shell coming in nearly horizontally.

I don't think BMPT need 2A70 100mm gun. BMPTs will work inside tank brigades, where tank guns and specially MSTA-S SP guns are far better suited for job of 2A70 gun and there is also TOS for that job.

Artillery like MSTA will not operate anywhere near T series tanks and will try to keep away from the enemies tanks as well. The MSTA can't target anything within 6km anyway, so it will operate in the rear of Russian forces.

The purpose of the BMPT is a fire support vehicle that can operate with tanks and offer direct and indirect HE firepower.

TOS is great if you want to defeat a minefield or level a whole village and get everyone in their basements too.

TOS is not designed to operate with tanks and deal with things infantry would normally deal with like enemy ATGM teams or snipers or MG posts.

Infantry can't do the job because they wouldn't survive long in the open and exposed. The BMPT should survive with its tank like armour. BMPs would not survive even though they have the necessary firepower... they don't have the protection.

The BMPT is a fire support vehicle. An air defence vehicle doesn't operate on the front line with tanks and APCs... and the BMPT simply doesn't have the sensors to operate in an AD role... if it was an AD vehicle they would never have gone with two 2A42 guns... it would have made much more sense to simply fit the vehicle with a single 2A38M gun. Its 2,500rpm rate of fire would be much better than the 1,600rpm it would get from two 2A42 cannon.

Of course BMPs and BTRs also have such guns and high elevation, but are also weak armored comparing to BMPT.

And that is the point... putting BMP firepower into a tank chassis means it can no longer carry infantry as the HE ammo and ammo concentration puts them and the crew at risk.

The solution is a firepower vehicle dedicated to doing all the jobs a BMP did after it dropped off its platoon.

The BMPT is a fire support vehicle. An air defence vehicle doesn't operate on the front line with tanks and APCs... and the BMPT simply doesn't have the sensors to operate in an AD role... if it was an AD vehicle they would never have gone with two 2A42 guns... it would have made much more sense to simply fit the vehicle with a single 2A38M gun. Its 2,500rpm rate of fire would be much better than the 1,600rpm it would get from two 2A42 cannon.

BMPT was not created to replace AD vehicles in their AA role although it could do it in self defense, but to replace AA guns in ground operations. BMPT was build according to war experiences and in wars in Afghanistan, Balkan wars and in Chechnya those armies see the real value of AA guns in ground operations, be it ZSU-32-4, ZU-23-2, V3S Praga 30/2 or BOV 20/3. Their value was incredible and were extremely effective in ground operations, but also vulnerable because of thin armor. For Balkan wars I could say, that infantry didn't fear nothing more than AA guns. No one want to expose in such operations that expensive and value systems as Tunguska or Pantsir, so they create BMPT for that role and that is why it have two 2A42 guns. For ground operations it doesn't need 2A38M gun with that high rate of fire, so the given combination is good compromise, that you don't have neither to low neither too high rate of fire. Maybe BMPT could replace ATAKA missiles with 2A70 100 mm gun with guns launched ATGMs and HE shells, but 30mm guns are the main armament for the role for which BMPT was created.

When they rejected the BMPT the Russian military was quoted as saying the BMP-3 was better armed for the role than the BMPT was.

The simple facts are that the 30mm cannon on the BMP-2 was and is very effective for what it is used for.

The problem is that two just empties the ammo bins faster and will not likely allow it to engage targets it could not engage with one gun.

Fitting a 100mm gun adds a very significant new range of capabilities that a second 30mm cannon cannot.

Lets just say that with two 30mm cannon its effective engagement range is 4km and with ATAKA it can hit 4 point targets at 6km.

With a 100mm rifled gun and a 30mm cannon it can engage all the same targets to 4km, but it can also engage point targets out to about 7km with a significant HE charge. It can also hit up to 8 or so point targets out to 5.5km. With 4 Kornet EM replacing the ATAKA, it gains the ability to engage light aircraft out to 10km and the ability to hit point targets to that range too. A small UAV would be a difficult target for 30mm cannons and to use it against UAVs would expend too much ammo. The 30mm on the other hand would be ideal to engage enemy attack helos that have strayed too close, but Kornet could get them before they can fire their missiles.

The 30mm is much better for use against ground targets and leave the job of engaging aerial targets to missiles and AD vehicles.

If the BMPT just needs 30mm cannons then it would make much more sense to take the GSh-301 as used in Russian fighter aircraft and give it a much heavier stronger barrel that can fire a lot more rounds before needing replacement. It already fires at 1,800 rpm which is more than the two 2A42 cannons can fire combined, yet even a strengthened model would weigh less, and in the Mig-29 it is computer controlled so it could fire from 1 round to hundreds of rounds per burst with the gunner controlling it.

The only likely air threat to tank forces in the near future will be small enemy UAVs simply because the AD forces of the Russian units will be able to deal with pretty much anything else. The small size and signature of even hand held UAVs make them difficult to find and target... the high flying HALEs and MALEs will be Pantsir-S1 fodder, but the smaller lighter lower flying ones might not have enough IR signature to engage with Iglas.

For those I would prefer Kornet EM over 30mm cannon shells.

It's not about why Russian military reject BMPT, because BMP-3 is better armed than BMPT, but I talk about concept of creation of BMPT. BMPT was not created to replace BMPs or BTRs, but to replace SP AA guns in ground fightings. The reason, Russian military give, is somehow absurd.

You have to know, that Soviet and Russian army in Afghanistan and Chechnya have BMP-2 and BMD-2 armed with 2A42 automatic gun with high elevation and AT-3,4,5, also in time of Chechnya army also have BMP-3 in its inventory. In both wars army used Shilkas and in Chechnya also Tunguskas to fight in ground fightings and they did their job better than BMP-3. In Afghanistan army take radar out of Shilka to put inside additional ammo. The same story was in Balkan wars, when they intensively use their Praga and BOV AA guns although they have similar BVP M-80 ICVs. The point is, that AA guns have higher rate of fire than ICVs and this is very important to suppress enemy infantry, be it on the same hight or on higher positions. BMPT is created to replace AA guns in fighting ground battles, because they have thin armor and because they have to do their AD job. Tunguskas and Pantsirs are just too value and expensive to be exposed for such dirty work, although they could be deadly effective.

Armament of BMPs is to support infantry, which it drive in battlefield against harder targets. Role of BMPT is different, it have to support tank against Infantry and their AT teams. Against point targets tank will fight itself with its main gun, but against groups of infantry, high rate of fire guns are better suited than low rate of fire ones. If enemy infantry come that close to rank it could fire on them with 7,62 mm machine gun, than tank is in trouble.BMPT could be in the same line as tanks because of its armor, AA guns have to be behind and give AD protection. Combination of two 2A42 guns is a good compromise to have enough high rate of fire and not too high rate of fire, that you are not too quickly out of ammo. All other weaponry is more for self defense if BMPT comes in troubles.

With introduction of BMPT, BMPs and BTRs roles will not change. They will still have to do the same job.

It's not about why Russian military reject BMPT, because BMP-3 is better armed than BMPT, but I talk about concept of creation of BMPT. BMPT was not created to replace BMPs or BTRs, but to replace SP AA guns in ground fightings. The reason, Russian military give, is somehow absurd.

But that is the point.

Using an AD vehicle against ground targets.

They don't actually need an AD vehicle for that, they just used them because they had the fire power and elevation capacity to deal with targets close in that tanks can only use roof mounted HMGs against.

What they need is a vehicle with heavy fire power capability, with the armour of tanks, but the ability to hit targets tank guns cannot elevate or depress to hit.

It is not a new air defence vehicle they want, they want a fire support vehicle.

During WWII the equivelent was a combination of the SU-76 and soldiers with SMGs hanging on for dear life on the sides of T-34s.

What they found then however was that the SU-76 had very thin armour, and that 10 guys hanging on to the sides of T-34s made a concentrated soft target for the enemy machine guns.

The vehicle they actually want has lots of fire power... like a BMP-3, lots of armour... like a tank, and the ability to raise and lower its weapons to hit targets at close and medium range at very high and very low angles like an AD vehicle can.

The UVZ solution to those requirements was the BMPT and it wasn't useless or terrible, but it was not as good as the BMP-3 turret armament placed in a T-90AM turret on a tank chassis.

Remember this vehicle is not just for WWIII, it is the sort of vehicle that will be quite versatile and for small units in many cases where there is no enemy armour it could replace a tank in the sense that it will have the fire power to engage all sorts of targets on the battlefield with cannon and HE.

In its current form after 4 targets are engaged with Missiles all it has left is 30mm grenades, 7.62mm ammo, and 30mm cannon shells... so it is basically a BMP-2.

A BMP-3 has superior fire power that allows it to engage a much wider variety of targets... the 100mm medium velocity shell will blow apart structures that 30mm HE will just splatter on.

1 100mm HE shell vs 50-60 30mm HE shells?

You have to know, that Soviet and Russian army in Afghanistan and Chechnya have BMP-2 and BMD-2 armed with 2A42 automatic gun with high elevation and AT-3,4,5, also in time of Chechnya army also have BMP-3 in its inventory. In both wars army used Shilkas and in Chechnya also Tunguskas to fight in ground fightings and they did their job better than BMP-3. In Afghanistan army take radar out of Shilka to put inside additional ammo.

There are certainly situations where air defence vehicles have been used in combat... in fact in many ways most Soviet air defence vehicles were dual use systems, especially in "small wars" where the enemy had no air power.

If that is your argument for the BMPT with 2 2A42s, then can I suggest replace the single 2A42 in my suggested BMPT2 with a single twin barrel 2A38M as a coaxial mount with the 100mm main gun... it would more than double the rate of fire of the two 2A42s fitted to the BMPT and add the evaporation cooling system built in to allow a high rate of fire to be maintained.

Role of BMPT is different, it have to support tank against Infantry and their AT teams. Against point targets tank will fight itself with its main gun, but against groups of infantry, high rate of fire guns are better suited than low rate of fire ones.

In urban combat elevation is more important than rate of fire per say.
The BMPT is to fight targets the tanks main gun can't engage. A TOW launcher 3.5km away can be dealt with using tube launched missiles or HE FRAG rounds from tanks unless the launcher is up high on a mountain or in the top floor of a building.

With introduction of BMPT, BMPs and BTRs roles will not change. They will still have to do the same job.

The BMPs had a fire support role after it dropped off its squad. Both the BTR and BMP will still fall back and provide fire support, but they will be armed at most with 14.5mm, 23mm, and or 30mm cannon. The BMPT and tanks will not be at the front either unless the enemy has no anti tank weaponry, they will also provide fire support and eliminate enemy strong points as they are found.

In urban combat however the tanks need to operate further forward with the direct cooperation with infantry. In this case the BMPs and BTRs will operate with the tanks because they will have a similar level of armour, but that extra armour and the requirement to carry troops means their fire power will be greatly reduced compared with current forces.

Current western forces without an IFV with a 100mm gun has to resort to calling in artillery to deal with targets the tanks can't reach... Russian forces use the 100mm gun of the BMP-3 as a direct fire mortar support unit that is always available and ready to fire.

The BMPT is supposed to perform the role infantry on the T-34 performed during WWII, except this time they get their own armour protection and considerably more fire power at their fingertips.

I think we slowly come together regarding BMPT although I think you are not quite understanding my angle of view.

You are correct, army doesn't want another AD vehicle and BMPT is not another AD vehicle although it could do this job in case of self defense. BMPT is created to replace AD vehicles in ground fightings, that AD vehicles could do their primary AD job. Construction of BMPT based on experiences with SP AA guns like Shilka and later Tunguska in wars in Afghanistan and in Chechnya, Balkan wars also confirm their experiences. Shilka have only four 23 mm guns and no ATGMs, no grenade launchers, no mortars, etc, but it was deadly effective and very highly valued in those dirty wars. They have only one weakness and this is weak armor. BMPT is meant to get same capabilities in properly armored platform.

I agree, BMPT is totally new concept and everyone have different idea, what roles it could do and what weaponry it could carry. The current armament it have is a compromise and I still think it is good one or at least a good base to discus about changes.

Considering it is created to replace AA guns in ground battlefield, than we have to consider, that BMPT's main armament are two 2A42 guns. ATGMs and grenade launchers are for self defense, if BMPT come in troubles. I don't see any trouble with replacing ATAKA ATGMs with 2A70 100 mm gun. Maybe constructors have problems to create autoloader for 2A70 in outside configuration. In BMPT main armament is not inside turret, but outside on two pylons. This could be a reason, they decide to have ATGMs in that configuration. I also don't see a problem with replacing two 2A42 guns with 2A38 gun with a little lower rate of fire around 1000 - 1500 rounds/min.Maybe constructors decide for this configuration, because they think if you have a jam in one gun, you could still fire with second one.

BMPT is created on war experiences with exact roles in mind and this construction show that very clearly.I don't have much of complains here, the only thing I think they should improve is to give higher elevation and build FCS which will work with higher elevation both day and night and to integrate it in C4ISR. It is not tank hunter, they have Kornet and Khrizantema for that role. It is not AD system, they have Tunguska, Tor and Pantsir for that role. It is also not replacing BMPs with infantry, they still stay there in formation.

I think we slowly come together regarding BMPT although I think you are not quite understanding my angle of view.

I think half the problem is that the Russian Army and UVZ have not really clearly and precisely explained what this vehicle will be used for...

In "Russias' Arms 2004" its designation... ie BMPT, is translated as Tank Support Combat Vehicle.
The description says:
Intended to enhance combat effectiveness of tank units and decrease their losses by neutralising and defeating the enemy anti armour capable weapons, particularly its close combat assets, as well as by repelling attacks by its helicopters and low flying aircraft.
In addition, the combat vehicle can be successfully used in the composition of combat and march security elements, including peacekeeping and anti terrorist operations.

... it then goes on to describe how it carries lots of ammo for combat persistence.

Seems to me its focus is anti ambush fire power with the ability to engage targets that tanks can't reach. It is intended to operate with tank forces and on its own as convoy security.

I agree, BMPT is totally new concept and everyone have different idea, what roles it could do and what weaponry it could carry. The current armament it have is a compromise and I still think it is good one or at least a good base to discus about changes.

I think if its focus was close range fire power then the 2A42 is a poor choice. It can fire single shots and in two burst modes... low and high. In the low rate it fires between 200 and 300 rpm and in the high rate mode it fires about 500 rpm.

The coaxial 30mm gun on the BMP-3 is the 2A72 which fires at 330 rpm which is probably too low for aerial targets but is ideal for most ground targets as the low rate of fire would improve accuracy.

If fire power is the goal then the twin barrel 2A38M could be the solution, with burst length control to ensure ammo isn't wasted on ground targets.

This could be a reason, they decide to have ATGMs in that configuration. I also don't see a problem with replacing two 2A42 guns with 2A38 gun with a little lower rate of fire around 1000 - 1500 rounds/min.

The GSh-30K is based on the GSh-30.

The GSh-30 is fitted to the Su-25 and is the gun that the 2A38M is based on too.

The GSh-30 has a rate of fire of between 3,000 and 3,500 rpm, while the GSh-30K has longer barrels and is fitted to some Hind models in a fixed position on the side of the aircraft and has the lower rate of fire of 2,000-2,600rpm in the high rate of fire setting and 300-400 rpm in the low rate of fire setting.

This would make the GSh-30K ideal for use in a fire power vehicle used against both ground and air targets.

Considering it is created to replace AA guns in ground battlefield, than we have to consider, that BMPT's main armament are two 2A42 guns. ATGMs and grenade launchers are for self defense, if BMPT come in troubles.

But that is just the point... the threats to the BMPT are things that can destroy targets with tank level armour... and the purpose of the BMPT is to operate with tanks to protect them from threats that can destroy tanks...

Some guy pops out from behind a bush with an AK... a tank can deal with that. A guy on the top of a 10 level building with an RPG on the other hand the tank only has a roof mounted HMG with 300 rounds.

New Russian tanks will have excellent optics and visibility, what they lack is the ability to aim at some target types. BMPs could hit such targets, but they are to weakly armoured to go everywhere tanks go.

The BMPT is to support tanks and protect them from things tanks are not good at dealing with.
Tanks can deal with tanks and other armoured targets even at extended ranges. The main purpose of the ATAKAs seems to me to be to give some anti aircraft capability and the ability to hit point targets at different ranges with HE.

In terms of a fire support vehicle for a patrol on an anti terrorist operation I would think my suggestion of three 40mm grenade launchers in three turrets with three 7.62mm MGs and also a 100mm gun and 30mm cannon offers plenty of fire power potential.

I don't see any trouble with replacing ATAKA ATGMs with 2A70 100 mm gun. Maybe constructors have problems to create autoloader for 2A70 in outside configuration.

The relatively short stubby round used by the gun comes in HE FRAG only, so rather than an automated ammo stowage around the turret ring a different ammo handling arrangement perhaps using a belt feed system from a bustle position ammo storage bin.

There was talk of the T-95 having a 30mm cannon in an external mount... and to be honest if Armata has a rear turret mounted 30mm gun with 400-500 rounds that elevates independently from the main gun up to a reasonable angle you could probably argue that a BMPT type vehicle is no longer needed.

Maybe constructors decide for this configuration, because they think if you have a jam in one gun, you could still fire with second one.

Modern guns are rather reliable and if a round fails to fire most Russian guns have special charges that are built in to the guns design with a shaped charge that blows a hole in the side of the cartridge wall and ignites the powder in a round that fails to fire to fire it and clear the round from the gun. These special charges are called squibs and most guns carry 5-6 squibs per gun that can be reloaded when the gun is reloaded.

It is not tank hunter, they have Kornet and Khrizantema for that role. It is not AD system, they have Tunguska, Tor and Pantsir for that role. It is also not replacing BMPs with infantry, they still stay there in formation.

It is to operate with tanks as its primary role, so it doesn't need to engage tanks, and the air defence unit attached to the tank unit will deal with air based threats.
I don't agree regarding the BMP... a BTR is for troop transport with minor fire support capability for the troops transported. For the BMP this fire support role is increased to become part of its primary function. In heavy brigades the troop transport vehicles will not have the space for BMP level fire power AND troops, so because they are primarily troop transports they will lose most of their fire power. This will greatly reduce the fire power of a tank and motor infantry unit... in fact more so the motor infantry unit as it has more troop transports and so loses more fire power than the tank units lose.

The solution is a tank based fire support vehicle needed in the Heavy Brigades only.
The medium brigades might get away with firepower and troops... or they might just produce wheeled and tracked APCs and fire support vehicles with one vehicle having reduced armament with a normal squad of toops, and the other of the same type with no troops, heavy fire power and an extra load of ammo with a separation between the crew and ammo for safety.

In the light brigades fire power and mobility will be key so troop transports with no toops but full of heavy weapons is a given.

BTW I don't think we disagree too much on this... for a while I thought the armament made sense too, but if you think about the future team of vehicles compared with what they have now the problem becomes clear... right now they could have T-90AM as tank, BMP-3M as troop transport. From a 125mm main gun, plus 7.62mm coaxial and remote control roof mounted MGs they can deal with a range of hard targets and aircraft (with tube fired missiles), plus a 30mm cannon, plus 100mm gun firing HE shells to 7km and missiles to 6km or so, plus MGs and grenade launchers it has plenty of fire power to engage a range of targets.

These are going to be replaced by Armata with probably the same or similar armament as the T-90, and the BTRT probably with an external remote control 12.7mm HMG, or 7.62mm MG and or 30mm or 40mm grenade launcher or some combination... and that is it. BMPT adds a 30mm cannon and ATAKA missiles, but the ATAKAs don't really do anything the 125mm tube launched missiles can't do. The 30mm cannons will elevate higher than the 125mm main gun and they provide punch but there is no powerful indirect fire capability and after 4 missile launches the vehicles ability to take out a whole room out to 3-4km with one shot is gone.

The fragmentation from a 100mm shell is much more effective than the fragmentation from 30mm cannon shells or 30mm or 40mm grenades.

I think the main problem for BMPT is in changes through time. When they start creating BMPT, this concept base on real war experiences in eighties and nineties, specially on effectivenes of Shilka in Afghanistan and Chechnya. Problem with Shilka was in its weak armor, so BMPT have to have the same armor as tanks. Later things start to change and Russian military start to think in more western way. Actually, I think prior 2008 Russian army tested BMPT and it pass tests and Army decide to buy it, but later they reject it. For wars like in Chechnya, BMPT would be excellent choice and army really want to have them but they were not ready in that time. The problem of BMPT become when army start changing their structure from divisions into brigades and creating heavy, medium and light brigades armament. In my opinion that was a moment, when UVZ and army didn't know for what role they could use BMPT and what weapons it could carry and what not.

I think the role of BTRs and BMPs will not change much in new doctrine and structure. BTRs will still be used to transport troops and supply to the rear positions in battlefield, while BMPs will drive troops in battlefield and support them in fightings. I don't think it will be smart to decrease fire power to increase troop carrying capabilities for BMPs. It's better to have more armed vehicle to support lesser number of troops than contrary. If BMP is hit, you will lost lesser number of soldiers and those soldiers will have better fire support. The full formation is only in the beginning of the battle, later you could quickly find yourself alone.

In my opinion BMPT still could have its role in new structures and doctrines, they just need to see on what experiences it was created and for what job. It could not be multi everything vehicle and is not created to replace everything on the battlefield.

I think GSh-30K is a gun used in one of versions to modernize MT-LB. This guns could be good choice too.

Just look at the BMP-3M turret with all those HE shells around the bottom... most importantly they are standing on their bases...

In the T-72/90 series the ammo is horizontal and there is a layer of armour between the ammo storage and the crew compartment.

The HE shells in the BMP are all in the crew compartment.

Now these are normal shells with no cardboard combustible components, so they wont just burst into flames with a spark, but the whole purpose of a troop carrier is to carry troops.

Having a separate fire support vehicle gives flexibility in that the fire support vehicle can support tanks or it can support troop carriers or it can support ground troops. It can be used to support convoys and also to "neutralise" terrorists.

The concept comes and goes... the best comparison I can give is the T-28 fire support tank... it had a HE firing main gun (in this case a short barrel 76.2mm gun) and two independent machine gun turrets.
If it had been used when it was new in 1933 when anti armour weapons were not so widespread it probably would have been pretty effective.

Personally i don't think the problem here is the BMPT.
BMPT would be pretty capable vehicle, sufficient to carry out its mission and the proof of the concept is exactly the army of Kazakhstan.
In Russian defense ministry they seriously lack persons able to manage the projects with adewuate requirements or they are unable to unite on the requirements of such vehicles.
Because normally when military says that they need a vehicle like this, you would have subcontractor developing the hardware and if everything goes well you cannot develop with state funds, the vehicle that will eventually end up not being accepted by the customer (ministry of defense). This just tells me either they didn't know what they wanted, or there was a very poor project management during the development. But as said to me the BMPT already looks as quite a capable vehicle to assist tanks against helicopter, light armoured vehicles, infantry and fortifications.

Now these are normal shells with no cardboard combustible components, so they wont just burst into flames with a spark, but the whole purpose of a troop carrier is to carry troops.

As I know, shells up to cal. 105 mm are made in one peace, while larger cal. have two or more peaces. 155mm ammo have a round and bags with gunpowder.

I agree with you, that purpose for troop carriers is to carry troops. But there is a different between armor personal carrier (APC) and infantry fighting vehicle (IFV). Maybe I'm now behind the time or a little to old school or maybe those new concepts are going in wrong direction. As I know or if you read Guderian, the main advantage of tanks is their speed and maneuers. With using tanks in combat, infantry is there to support tanks and not opposite. When tanks support infantry, they become static and loose their main advantage. Tank units don't need as many infantry soldiers for their support as infantry units need. IFVs are designed to work together with tanks. They carry infantry and when and where they are needed, infantry go out and fight and than return back to IFV, which carry them. So sometimes IFVs have to fight with enemies even when infantry is still inside, because they are too far away, that infantry could go out to fight.It is better to have lesser soldiers inside IFV, because in case it is hit, you have less soldiers dead. If you take heavier armament from IFV and put more infantry inside, you no more have IFV, but APC, which work in rear lines. In that case infantry have to run a long distance, what mean they will be exosted before they come in battle and they will also slow down tanks, which they want to support and this is actually wrong way of thinking.

I know that new trends in western NATO armies is to slowly phased out tanks (they are no more producing them) and more or less create motorized infantry with wheeled APCs, but this is wrong concept, which will have disastrous consequences, when real war with strong enemy appear.

As I know, shells up to cal. 105 mm are made in one peace, while larger cal. have two or more peaces. 155mm ammo have a round and bags with gunpowder.

Not strictly true.

Generally guns use one piece rounds up until the individual rounds are too heavy to be handled by a man and then the rounds are split into the projectile and propellent charge.

Howitzers on the other hand have separate propellent bags that can be varied so that when you are firing at close range targets you can reduce the propellent charge so that the rounds don't go up so high and the time of flight for the projectile is greatly reduced.

This makes it much more accurate at close range because the longer the projectile spends in flight the more it is effected by wind speed and direction.

BTW 115mm tank rounds for the T-62 are one piece and the 130mm shells for the Russian Navy are also one piece rounds.
There is a good chance that the 152mm artillery round for the Coalition that is is unified with a new 152mm round for the Navy might be a one piece round too as it is designed to be handled in an automated ammo rack and loaded with an auto loader.

As I know or if you read Guderian, the main advantage of tanks is their speed and maneuers. With using tanks in combat, infantry is there to support tanks and not opposite. When tanks support infantry, they become static and loose their main advantage.

I quite agree, but the problem occurs when the infantry are supporting the tanks they are vulnerable because the troop transports don't have the same level of armour as the tanks.

The BMPT is supposed to replace the squad of infantry that protect the tanks, but with tank level protection and tank level mobility.

These capabilities can also be applied in escorting other things like convoys and peace keeping patrols where they are not replacing tanks, they are replacing a squad of well trained and equipped infantry that can take on a wide range of targets.

If you take heavier armament from IFV and put more infantry inside, you no more have IFV, but APC, which work in rear lines. In that case infantry have to run a long distance, what mean they will be exosted before they come in battle and they will also slow down tanks, which they want to support and this is actually wrong way of thinking.

I think the idea is to separate the fire power of the BMP from the troop carrying capacity and to have two separate vehicles.
The troop transport with tank level armour and tank level mobility and perhaps several remote machine gun mounts for close in protection can go anywhere a tank can go... it will drop off troops and withdraw 500 to 1,000m and provide fire support with remote 12.7mm HMGs.
The fire support vehicle will stay with the tanks and infantry, or where it is simply too dangerous with lots of snipers and anti armour positions the BMPT and Tanks will operate without infantry support.

As an added advantage you get a fire support vehicle that can be used independently of tanks in missions like convoy escort, or even to protect air defence units from ground forces so they don't end up using up their 30mm ammo for ground targets etc.

I know that new trends in western NATO armies is to slowly phased out tanks (they are no more producing them) and more or less create motorized infantry with wheeled APCs, but this is wrong concept, which will have disastrous consequences, when real war with strong enemy appear.

The BTRs have been very useful vehicles in the past, and the new 25 ton Boomerang should be a well armoured and capable vehicle, but I like the Russian plan for light and medium and heavy brigades. For some roles speed and fire power are the key, but for other roles a good heavy well protected vehicle is better suited. They will have all three.

It will be interesting to see what the VDV and Naval Infantry do with regard to vehicles... will they adopt standard vehicles or adapt their own like BMDs.

But as said to me the BMPT already looks as quite a capable vehicle to assist tanks against helicopter, light armoured vehicles, infantry and fortifications.

I am not suggesting it is a bad vehicle... I just look at some of the choices made and think they did it on the cheap and simple and have missed out an opportunity to make a better product.

If you look at the heavy APC for the Flamethrower units... the BMO-T:



Now it has a raised roof to allow internal volume for troops, but if you put the standard BMPT turret on there and instead of bow mounted grenade launcher positions with fairly limited fields of fire with proper small turrets with external gun mounts that could not only cover the front of the tank but also fire sideways then it would cost more to develop but the result would be better than the current setup... the current setup has two bow mounted weapons that can pretty much only fire forward in the direction the vehicle is facing and the turret mounted weapons all fire in one direction depending on where the turret is facing.
With proper mini turret mounts the bow mounted guns could cover the front and the sides of the vehicle, which would give much better coverage.
The turrets don't need to be huge and for flexibility you would want a grenade launcher and perhaps a PKT 7.62mm machine gun.

The Balkan 40mm grenade launcher is new and is a very compact looking weapon:





And fires caseless ammo of a new type that is larger and more powerful than the current 30mm stuff:



I actually like the layout of the BMPs turret with the weapons mounted externally and the sights positioned for good all round views, but as I have mentioned many times already, I would replace the two 30mm 2A42 cannon with a GSh-30K with a high rate of 2,000-2,500rpm and a low rate of 300-400rpm for aerial and ground targets respectively plus a 100mm externally mounted gun with a turret bustle bin with at least 40 100mm shells, 700-800 rounds of 30mm ammo, and at least 8 100mm guided missiles with HE warheads. I would also replace the ATAKAs with Kornet EMs.
The enlarged internal volume from using the BMO-T as a chassis should allow lots of extra ammo to be carried, but separated from the front crew compartment.
The turret bustle could be palletised so that a complete reload pallet could be carried in the rear deck area with a built in crane to allow swapping an empty ammo pallet for a new full pallet from inside the vehicle with the turret turned sideways.

I quite agree, but the problem occurs when the infantry are supporting the tanks they are vulnerable because the troop transports don't have the same level of armour as the tanks.

The BMPT is supposed to replace the squad of infantry that protect the tanks, but with tank level protection and tank level mobility.

These capabilities can also be applied in escorting other things like convoys and peace keeping patrols where they are not replacing tanks, they are replacing a squad of well trained and equipped infantry that can take on a wide range of targets.

This is why ICVs drive behind tanks, but still with tanks. I don't think BMPT will replace infantry squad with ICV, because they will still be there in the second line to operate when and where they will be needed. BMPT will not change that structure, but for sure will increase fighting structure in first line with tanks with capabilities, which tanks don't have and also could do excellent job in protecting logistics behind the lines. Actually BMPTs could give enough support, that infantry will not be needed that often, what will give tanks and ICVs behind them needed speed, because they don't have to slow down for infantry.

The fire support vehicle will stay with the tanks and infantry, or where it is simply too dangerous with lots of snipers and anti armour positions the BMPT and Tanks will operate without infantry support.

Tanks to be effective need support end escort of infantry, artillery and air protection. They could not go in battle without infantry even protected with BMPTs. Infantry will be in the second line in ICVs. Don't forget, that every tank unit must also have artillery for support to fire on defending line with snipers and anti-tank teams.

If you look at the heavy APC for the Flamethrower units... the BMO-T:

BMO-T is fine vehicle and could be excellent base for heavy APC or IFV to carry infantry with tanks. BMO-T is quite similar to Israeli Namer and to Israeli way of thinking. I agree with you, that it could be modified and equipped with RWS.

If you think about the roles of individual crew members in vehicles... in a tank there is really only the commander with a decent view... the gunner has all weather day night optics but he can basically only see a few degrees around where the turret is pointing. The driver down in the hull gets a relatively poor view of the terrain ahead and will often be directed by the commander to places where depressions in the ground offer cover.

In an IFV it is not hugely different with the commander having the best view and gunner and driver with much more restricted views.

In the BMPT again the commander gets the best all round view, but with remote turrets to two gunners in the front hull get much better views than the other members that are not commanders.
Not only do the hull gunners get a better view but they would control grenade launchers and or machine guns that allow them to do something about what they find straight away and means that unlike a tank or an IFV it can deal with at least 3 targets at one time.

No the BMPT will not completely replace infantry... that would be silly, its role is in its name... tank support combat vehicle. In its standard form the BTR-T will likely have a small turret with an externally mounted 30mm cannon with a PKT coaxial and perhaps a missile launcher. I remember an old picture with an AT-4/5 launcher but current models could have a quad Kornet EM launcher...

Right now I am looking at an old 2004 drawing of the BTR-T variants and one model has two twin barrel 30mm cannon that look like the 2A38M. I would think a vehicle with room for 5 troops in the rear and a crew of 2 could carry a very large amount of 30mm cannon shells if you don't carry those 5 soldiers... it would be the gun equivalent of a Tunguska, but with tank level armour and mobility.

It would not have the variety of weapons the BMPT has, nor the visibility with much more limited optics, but it would reduce the number of vehicle types...

I agree with you.

I remember this BTR-T which was built on T-55, but I don't know if this project is still alive. I think that instead of T-55, they could take T-72 chassis as for BMO-T and build more modern BTR-T. I'm also sure, that new turret for BTR-T now would be more modern than the old one with up to date FCS.

Here are several early model BMPTs:







So it seems they looked at BMP-3 armament and different gun combinations...

I must admit I do like the current turret layout, but as I have said a few times the current bow gun positions lack decent fields of fire and need to be replaced by turrets with externally mounted guns with decent fields of fire.
The increased internal volume of the BMO-T would also be an improvement (along with Relikt ERA).
The GSh-30K gun replacing the two 2A42 guns and perhaps a Vasilek 82mm gun mortar with a belt feed leading back to a turret bustle ammo bin holding a few hundred 82mm mortar bombs in a belt feed ready to fire at the very least... preferably a 100mm gun externally mounted instead of the Vasilek for more HE power and better range... and tube fired missile capability.