Russian Ground Forces: News #1

Zivo wrote:

It looks like I was wrong about Epoch-lite having BMP-2 type magazine, it's all bustle storage.

The turret is designed to occupy minimal internal volume of the vehicle while still maintaining a low profile silhouette on the exterior. This could easily be the weapon station for the next gen BTR on the Boomerang, Kurganets-25, Armata, and even the typhoon chassis. It's a very impressive design, I'm not disappointed.

This little tidbit of info shows just how much the Russian arms industry has improved over the last few decades. Just think what else we'll we see in the coming months as the vehicles start taking shape.


I wonder if the bustle on the KBTM BMPT Armata model uses the bustle as ammo storage for the GSh-6-23 in a similar manner?

Also I shudder to think how some reserve base conscripts will handle such delicate and complex hardware.

Typhoon? I thought they scrapped plans for a typhoon chassis for a Boomerang-10 chassis for the sake of logistical convenience and comparability?

Also I could see the turret design pictured above for the BTR with the Boomerang-10 chassis, but would they scale up the power in the heavier chassis classes? I know that BTR's were never heavily armed vehicles, but I could see the Boomerang-25, Kurganets-25 version of BTR's with a main armament being a 45mm autocannon, and the Armata BTR chassis having a 57mm autocannon.

Zivo wrote:It's going to take me a long time to get used to Kurganets-25. That is one ugly vehicle.

Werewolf wrote:

Zivo wrote:It's going to take me a long time to get used to Kurganets-25. That is one ugly vehicle.

I followed this thread for a while without saying much, but am i the only one that is bothered by the design?

What i mean is and stop me if i'm wrong, russia cooperates on the chassis with sweden on the kurganets, but such similiar designes and other cooperations from more two parties or more on one vehicle have often ended in a mediocre design and sometimes such designes were sold to a foreign country without using it domestically.
For instance Stryker an absolute horrible design, incompetent plattform made to a waste of resources and soldiers are often praying never get into any unit where they have to relly on this disaster on wheels.

It has almost no positive aspects the stryker but still was used and is still used for many different units.

I have maybe not followed every cooperation from several countries to produce one plattform that was supposed to please all parties but that has not been achieved with the Eurocopter Tiger Principe for no country, the already mentioned Stryker, NH-90 multipurpose cargo helicopter that shows big flaws and especially structual weak points and low quality of wiring and there were several cooperations/joint ventures for ground vehicles that went out bad.

So, i think i can't be the only one that often thinks that countries, specially countries like russia with a big military complex and the already high know-how should waste time and money to cooperate with countries who can't compete on technological level and might end up with designs such as this that haven't shown till this date to have much of practial use.

Such designs are most common in europe but not for russia and a similiar design at least from appereance is the Stryker.

I mean i really hope i'm wrong and we don't end up with crap like this.

Werewolf wrote:

Zivo wrote:It's going to take me a long time to get used to Kurganets-25. That is one ugly vehicle.

I followed this thread for a while without saying much, but am i the only one that is bothered by the design?

What i mean is and stop me if i'm wrong, russia cooperates on the chassis with sweden on the kurganets, but such similiar designes and other cooperations from more two parties or more on one vehicle have often ended in a mediocre design and sometimes such designes were sold to a foreign country without using it domestically.
For instance Stryker an absolute horrible design, incompetent plattform made to a waste of resources and soldiers are often praying never get into any unit where they have to relly on this disaster on wheels.

It has almost no positive aspects the stryker but still was used and is still used for many different units.

I have maybe not followed every cooperation from several countries to produce one plattform that was supposed to please all parties but that has not been achieved with the Eurocopter Tiger Principe for no country, the already mentioned Stryker, NH-90 multipurpose cargo helicopter that shows big flaws and especially structual weak points and low quality of wiring and there were several cooperations/joint ventures for ground vehicles that went out bad.

So, i think i can't be the only one that often thinks that countries, specially countries like russia with a big military complex and the already high know-how should waste time and money to cooperate with countries who can't compete on technological level and might end up with designs such as this that haven't shown till this date to have much of practial use.

Such designs are most common in europe but not for russia and a similiar design at least from appereance is the Stryker.

I mean i really hope i'm wrong and we don't end up with crap like this.

Zivo wrote:
First and foremost, Kurganets-25 is a Russian vehicle built for the Russian Army's needs.

Since we know very little about the details, I'm not going to speculate about Kurganets-25's capabilities yet. It wont be much longer until more info is released, then we can start really discussing the design.

Anyways, my biggest fear with the design is that it will end up exceeding the intended weight limit of the vehicle.

Hell of a sight:

All channels needed. TV, Thermal imager, laser range finder, IR missile locator, laser missile guiding channel.

I wonder if the bustle on the KBTM BMPT Armata model uses the bustle as ammo storage for the GSh-6-23 in a similar manner?

Typhoon?I thought they scrapped plans for a typhoon chassis for a Boomerang-10 chassis for the sake of logistical convenience and comparability?

Also I could see the turret design pictured above for the BTR with the Boomerang-10 chassis, but would they scale up the power in the heavier chassis classes? I know that BTR's were never heavily armed vehicles, but I could see the Boomerang-25, Kurganets-25 version of BTR's with a main armament being a 45mm autocannon, and the Armata BTR chassis having a 57mm autocannon.

Kamaz is developing a whole family of vehicles on a modular chassis. Typhoon will likely be for logistics and interior forces.

The new Russian army structure is based on light, medium, and heavy brigades.

In the light brigades, they will have BTRs, BMPs, MBTs, etc. vehicles based on Boomerang. The medium brigades will have BMPs, BTRs, MBTs etc. based on Kurganets-25, and the heavy brigades will have BMP's BTR's MBT's BMPT's etc. based on Armata.

What i mean is and stop me if i'm wrong, russia cooperates on the chassis with sweden on the kurganets, but such similiar designes and other cooperations from more two parties or more on one vehicle have often ended in a mediocre design and sometimes such designes were sold to a foreign country without using it domestically.

Anyways, my biggest fear with the design is that it will end up exceeding the intended weight limit of the vehicle.

collegeboy16 wrote:

Zivo wrote:
First and foremost, Kurganets-25 is a Russian vehicle built for the Russian Army's needs.

Since we know very little about the details, I'm not going to speculate about Kurganets-25's capabilities yet. It wont be much longer until more info is released, then we can start really discussing the design.

Anyways, my biggest fear with the design is that it will end up exceeding the intended weight limit of the vehicle.

X2, tho can someone here explain why 25 tons is teh limit?

And fully duplicated for gunner and commander...

the tracked brigades will be Kurganets and the wheeled medium brigades will be boomerang based.

AFAIK that is a different family of vehicles that is not related... often called Taifun.

25 tons is not a weight limit... it is a weight class. The armata is supposed to be a 55 ton weight class vehicle but the Coalition is likely to weigh 65 tons.

They're different, take a look at TR1's image of the actual turret. It looks like the commander might be getting a bit more capability.

Taifun = Typhoon. Whether or not it was "The Typhoon"... Fourth model back on the lineup of next gen vehicles. As a gambling man, I would say yes.

If I recall, Kamaz had trouble bringing Typhoon down to a 4x4 while retaining armor, it was too heavy and the design was halted. That could be one of the reasons why Boomerang-10 was suggested.

Boomerang and Kurganets are supposed to have 70% commonality between each other. I have a hard time believing Boomerang can be reduced enough to become a sensible light vehicle given that the original supposedly will have so much in common with a BMP.

Once you start climbing above 25 tons you're getting into the M2A2 weight class.

No... the Taifun was a Kamaz truck for interior ministry and other para military forces.

The models shown are proposals from one company and are not certain.

The light vehicles are actually very important because they will make up the majority of Russian Army forces (being cheap to mass produce and highly mobile and likely with heavy firepower they should get into service and operational very fast).

Keep in mind that the armour will be modular and that being the same weight class they will need similar engines and transmissions and gearing... and the same vehicles will have the same armament and same controls and seats etc etc... the main difference will be the wheels/tracks.

I rather suspect the medium brigade 152mm artillery vehicle is the truck based Coalition already shown

I still think the wheeled Koalition is stupid. Especially on that chassis, doesn't even look it can handle such a serious turret. Praying the actual vehicle is very different from the renders.

RIA Novosti wrote:The United States and a number of European countries have asked to participate in Russia’s international tank biathlon, President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday.

“They filed a request with the Defense Ministry to participate. We will be happy [to have them],” Putin said while fielding questions from students at a Moscow university.

Russia invited the US to participate back in August at a meeting of defense officials.The first tank biathlon was held in the Moscow suburb of Alabino in August last year. This year’s competition is planned to run from July 26 to August 10.

The tank biathlon is analogous to the Olympic event. Tank crews must navigate a 20-kilometer (12.5-mile) course that includes obstacles such as a slalom run, water crossings, bridges and steep climbs.The tanks must also accurately shoot a set of targets at distances of up to 2.2 kilometers (1.4 miles) that simulate other tanks and low-flying helicopters.

The Defense Ministry said in a statement Wednesday that more than 40 countries had expressed interest in participating.
Putin said the event helps promote the nation’s defense industry, noting that Russia is second only to the US in terms of the volume of arms exports.

Rossiyskaya Gazeta wrote:A year ago, Russia set up the Fund for Perspective Research (FPR), an organization designed for boosting research and serial production of unique military technology for the future. This body with substantial state funding would analyse potential  security challenges, threats  to Russia’s national interests, seek bold non-conventional ideas running ahead of time and support scientific research  and designing in defence that would facilitate production of breakthrough defence and dual use technology, Vladimir President Putin said in a meeting of the body held in Tula.

The FPR is expected to be a technological lift for facilitating innovations in order to achieve qualitative results in the defence and socio-economic domains and ensure their quick application and production. President Putin stressed that the Russian army and navy have to be equipped with weapon-systems of tomorrow that would correspond to the requirements of future military conflicts and strengthen the country’s security in a fast changing world. The Russian president called on scientists to think and act head of time, creating the most developed arsenal for the Russian armed forces.

In the course of the past one year, FPR received 1100 proposals  out of which 77 have been approved while work has started on 12 projects  that include “Defender of the Future,” “Air Start”  and “Command 112.” While the first project is designed to replace soldiers with robots in the battlefield, implementation of the second project would facilitate launching of space objects from the AN-225 super heavy aircrafts, otherwise known as Mriya. The third project would help in providing early emergency warnings. The realisation period varies from project to project; while the Air Start project might take 7 years to produce a concrete result, other projects could be realized much faster.
The FPR is not supposed to repeat the components   of the massive and long-term state arms programme. While the State Arms Programme has to deal exclusively with the development of military technology, FPR would be engaged in development of dual-use technologies, capable of bolstering the industrial and economic development of the country.

Encouraging scientists to take financial risks connected with research, whose result could be unpredictable at the outset, President Putin urged Russian researchers to select projects that would by no means repeat designs developed in foreign countries as investment of resources in projects already completed by others is ineffective.      
         
The fund is to work in close cooperation with prominent research centres, educational institutes and industrial complexes of the country and ensure the leading position for Russia when it comes to innovation.  Huge tasks have been put before the FPR- to strengthen research infrastructure and to use new methods of organization and scientific research in the country. The fund has already taken initiatives to create special well-equipped and modern laboratories in leading organizations of the Military Industrial Complex, technical universities and research institutes of the Academy of Sciences of Russia. Most qualified specialists from across the country would be recruited to these laboratories that provide the most favourable conditions for conducting research.

Nearly half a million Russian scientists fled the country in the decade following Soviet disintegration as scientific research was relegated to the back seat in the Yeltsin years. Hundreds of research centres, institutes, construction bureaus were closed  throwing thousands of scientists to the streets and delivering a heavy blow to the national economy, particularly to its military industrial complex .

President Yeltsin and his prime minister Igor Gaidar ignored the fact that the military industrial complex formed the backbone of Russia’s economy and constituted the power house of cutting–edge technologies of the future. Russia’s current leadership, aware of this fact, plans to accelerate socio-economic development in the country by revamping the military-industrial complex. In its attempt to rebuild the economy, the Russian leadership is pursuing a strategy based on scientific-innovation. Revamping the defence industry complex would usher in economic development in the coming years. President Putin has promised to create 25 million high tech jobs under this strategy and the newly created Fund for Perspective Research is a well-conceived step in this direction.  

flamming_python wrote:So Russia invented not just a new sport, but a whole new branch of sports
I think other related competitions can get added on in the coming years to the main event; a military olympics of sorts.