Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #1

http://www.vestnik-rm.ru/news-4-2129.htm

Some other points:

1. The new light tank based on the "Kurgan-25", equipped with a 125-mm gun will be a substitute for towered antitank gun MT-12 "Rapier".

2. 152-mm self-propelled gun on the basis of KAMAZ will find its place in the medium "wheel" all-arms brigades, and tracked brother - in heavy.

3. Self-propelled mortar-based armored KAMAZ "Typhoon", in the medium brigades also

4. Self-propelled mortar on "Tigr" will appear in the air assault brigades (VDV)

1.I think the Kurganets next to tank is the IFV version because the turret looks smaller than the others after 6th vechile.

A taller turret generally means the gun is designed to elevate over a wider range and usually denotes either air defence vehicles or artillery vehicles.

I rather suspect the vehicle next to the armata vehicle has the 120mm rifled gun fitted to the armata vehicle depicted and is in fact more of an artillery vehicle. The tank is definitely not to the same scale as the other vehicles.

2.The tower and gun in 2nd Boumerang and at the Kurganetz next to it are the same, so THESE ARE the artilliery gun versions.

But the guns are too small to be artillery, and have been identified as either 57mm or 45mm calibre... which are high velocity anti armour calibres that are designed to defeat enemy IFVs. If they were artillery they would be larger calibre. If they were just for anti armour it would be 125mm smoothbores and they would be tanks. What vehicle needs a high velocity gun to penetrate light and medium enemy armour but does not have enough space for a full size tank gun and ammo? IFV.

3.Last Kurganets is either an anti-tank gun or light tank

Agreed... this is the tank of the Kurganets-25 brigade.

4.Another conclusion is that Taifun is clearly a MPAR vechile

Note Taifun and Typhoon are not the same thing.

Armata, kurganets-25, boomerang, and typhoon were four vehicle families but somewhere along the way they realised that it didn't make sense to have two different vehicle families for medium wheeled vehicle and light wheeled vehicle, so Typhoon has been replaced by a shortened lightened Boomerang.

This means there are only three vehicle family types with two variants... the front engined and rear engined armata is one variant and the boomerang-10 will include 4 and 6 wheeled lightened and shortened versions of Boomerang-25 which will be an 8 wheeled vehicle.

Taifun is an MRAP truck made by a different company.

More on 45mm gun

Telescopic case ammo is small and compact and can be stored and handled in automated ammo handling systems for autoloaders.

I don't think weight would be as much as a problem as ammo size. Since the turret on the new unified chassis hold most of the ammo, it's really hard to judge which would be the better gun.

The 57mm gun would not be much bigger than a 45mm gun, but the ammo size difference would be significant with the 45mm round being much more compact and easier to handle too.

The 57mm gun would have greater capacity for heavier projectiles and higher pressure loadings leading to better performance, and more room for guided rounds and other exotic ideas (even a gun launched UAV perhaps).

So what we see from right to left:

AK-130 (152 mm caliber)
More likely A190 as a designation... it is interesting that this weapon is single barrelled too as there would be no issue with turret size or weight for a ship

ACS and the TLV-based Kamaz
The view is not great but I would say that next to the naval turret is a 152mm gun on a tank chassis which makes it Koalition though of course the chassis will be an armata chassis. The next vehicle is a truck with a similar turret on the back which I would agree with TR-1 and say that would be a 152mm calibre upgrade of Bereg coastal artillery system. The next vehicle is a truck with a large box structure on the rear which I would expect is a support vehicle for the Bereg replacement system

"Kurganets-25" with a 125mm gun (like replacing "Octopus")
So it is the MBT vehicle in the Medium tracked brigades.

"Kurganets-25" and "Boomerang" with 57 mm cannon
I would say either 45mm or 57mm as it doesn't seem to have been decided yet. Either way that makes these two vehicles the IFV of the medium tracked and wheeled brigades respectively.

"Boomerang" ACS 120 mm (Nona-SVK??)
Agreed. Mortar carrier for medium wheeled brigades

Self-propelled mortar on the basis of "Typhoon"
Mortar platoon vehicle based on taifun MRAP vehicle

Self-propelled mortar-based "Tiger"
Yes... likely for mountain units where removing the weapon from the vehicle and carrying it to a better firing position the vehicle can't reach would be a huge advantage. Also Tigr would be able to get to more inaccessible places than a heavier larger vehicle.

"Kurganets-25" with 45 mm cannon
The tower like optics/sensor on the roof of this vehicle makes me think it is designed for indirect fire. As I mentioned above the tall turret suggests the ability for high elevation. Of course if they have developed guided shells in 57mm or 45mm then this could be a new anti aircraft gun vehicle that perhaps operates with TOR or Pantsir-S1. It could be the case that they have decided that TOR and Pantsir-S1 are too fragile or too heavy for medium and light brigades

"Armata "
BMPT armata?

3. Self-propelled mortar-based armored KAMAZ "Typhoon", in the medium brigades also

Doesn't make sense as adding a Taifun vehicle to a unit equipped with Kurganets-25s or Boomerangs doesn't fit the philosophy behind the vehicle family idea. Especially when a 120mm mortar version of Boomerang and Kurganets should be just as easy to develop.

152-mm self-propelled gun on the basis of KAMAZ will find its place in the medium "wheel" all-arms brigades, and tracked brother - in heavy.

So there will be truck mounted 152mm gun vehicles in Boomerang-25 brigades as well...

57mm would be way too big for an IFV IMO, combat compartment would be huge, and ammunition count low.

I agree, it would be effective as anti armour and in other roles, but the ammo is just huge...





Just for clarity the 30 x 165mm round at the far right in the top photo is the standard Russian 30mm round used in aircraft, ground vehicles and naval gun mounts.

In the bottom photo the 57 x 347SR round is the 57mm shell we are talking about, which is a high velocity anti aircraft round, which as you can tell from the designation has a 35cm case length which is twice the 16.5cm case length of the current 30mm round.

In practical terms it means a normal load of 80-120 shells for a vehicle with a 57mm gun or 500 shells for a 30mm gun.

Of course if the requirement is to penetrate a 32 ton Bradley from the front at 2,000m then no amount of 30mm shells will do the job.

The telescoped case rounds actually look like very large aluminium cans with a rim at one end with the projectile wrapped in propellent. It means you can load them into what looks like a large revolver cylinder but because of their shape and rimless design you can poke them in the rear of the cylinder and rotate the cylinder till it is aligned with the barrel and bolt and fire the round and then once it is past there and empty you can blow it out forwards or backwards out of the mechanism. Because it is a straight cylinder they stack level and you can get a lot in a magazine.


For more info including similar pictures to those above go here:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WLIP.htm


In fact below the first four photos of vehicles is two photos of rounds... the right hand photo shows the 57mm round in question. Note the left most round in that photo is 35 x 228mm round that is in the extreme right of the left photo and as you can see in that photo that the 35 x 228mm shell case is significantly bigger than the 30 x 165mm shell used in the Russian 30mm cannon... though it is still a powerful and effective round.

Here is an example of a telescoped case round:



Note the new 45mm round the Russians are developing will likely look like the 40 x 255mm or 50 x 330mm rounds where the nose is a sabot that drags the projectile out down the barrel with the propellent around the projectile, with straight case sides so they pack into a tight space and are easily handled in automatic ammo racks.

AFAIK Kurganets, Boomerang and armata will all have unmanned turrets with the crew in front, the turret in the centre, and to the rear in the troop carrying IFVs there will be a troop compartment with a powered rear ramp.

For the IFVs the engines will be in the front in all vehicles, which frees up the rear for troops, and the centre for crew and unmanned turret.

For vehicles with no heavy armament like command vehicles or engineer vehicles then there is less need for an unmanned turret.

When there is a jam or something fail, crew must go outside vehicle to repair it. In manned turret crew could do this inside turret.

A vehicle with a jammed turret or misfiring gun will return to the rear like any tank that has been damaged in combat or has run out of ammo.

If the problem is a fire then the crew will bail and try to make it back to the rear and the engineers will try to recover the vehicle or will set fire to it to keep it from enemy hands.

This is all perfectly normal... lots of things fail in vehicles that the crews can't fix so they have to train for all sorts of things like this... normal.

also a new APS -active protection system - claimed to be effective also against MBT APFSDS !

So Afghanistan is effective against APFSDS rounds! Impressive!

The only true problem created by "Kurganet" and "Boomerang" unified modular vehicles is that ,in theirs wait, Russian MoD has literally blocked any acquisition of today models at any level , a choice that has generated severe tensions in particular with VDV and Navy assault forces believing that the block of acquisition of dedicated armoured vehicles (in particular BMD-4M for VDV) will create a dangerous void of capability for two/two and half years.

That is a bit short sighted... though I guess it is a little like asking what would have happened if WWIII had started when the west had F-15s and F-14s and F-16s and F-18s and the Soviets had Mig-21s and Mig-23s... the answer of course is it didn't.

It is similar to asking what would have happened in WWIII in the late 1980s with Su-27s and Mig-29s all with HMS and high off boresight missiles. (note a lot is said about the R-73, but the R-27T has the same seeker, but the larger missile nose allows a 55 degree off boresight angle of view.) and the answer is the same... it didn't.

Assuming WWIII doesn't break out in the next 3-4 years there should not be a problem.

I do note that the Navy has said it will have a special version of the Kurganets-25 that is designed for rough sea states and with external propellers for operation in the sea.

I think BMD-4M is a good vehical it available and they should buy it , like they say a bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

I agree, and for a few reasons... first the Kurganets-25 will be too heavy to land by parachute. That is OK because not all VDV units are landed by parachute, but the forces that are should get BMD-4Ms, and when the Kurganets-25 comes online the rest of the VDV can get modified Kurganets-25s, and the BMD-4Ms can be upgraded with the new electronics and sensors fitted to all the new vehicles for commonality and ease of use/maintainence.

One alternative is to use the Boomerang-10 as a basis, though these vehicles might be too light for some missions.

Another alternative is to use Kurganets-10... something I just made up, but the same thing they did to the Boomerang-25 to create the Boomerang-10 that is applied to the kurganets-25. You could simply fit the boomerang-10 stuff into the Kurganets-10.

The VDV itself keeps saying it wants the BMD-4M, and I think I trust Shamanov more in this case than the Army Generals. The vehicle is available, in just 2 years they could easily buy ~150 units, and in that way massively increase VDV brigade potential within short order.

I agree. The units can't simply go into limbo... they need to be equipped and ready to do their job.

Another aspect I forgot is production... having a 2-3 year gap in production is not good for the makers either.

I rather suspect that the best solution is to adopt the BMD-4M as the parachute drop standard vehicle for the VDV and buy them for the parachute units. The other units can get upgrades of their BMD-2s like the Berezhok turret upgrade and new communications and sensors and electronics to enable a net centric capability with new navigation and night vision equipment to allow them to train as an all weather day/night fighting force.

In 3-4 years time when the new vehicles are introduced they could get the electronics and weapons of the new vehicles retrofitted to their BMD-4Ms with perhaps armour and NERA and APS additions as well for the parachuting units and Kurganets-25 for the air mobile units. The unified electronics should simplify things too.

In an interview with CEO of MIC it is mentioned that the aim is to have 70 % commonality between Kurganets & Boomerang and modularity which should be good for long term logistics

The Kurganets and 25 ton class boomerang are going to be similar weights, so it makes sense to give them similar engine packs.
Armament and electronics/sensors will likely be the same too. Other than that screens and seats and controls can be standardised, with the seats designed to reduce the damage under floor mines do to the crew and passengers.

What is the commonality achieved between current BMP-3 and BTR-80/82 APC ?

Different weight classes and roles... one is an IFV and the other is an APC.

With Kurgan and Boomerang both are IFVs and APCs and tanks and everything else... and they are in the same weight class (ie medium) so it makes sense to have common engine and transmission... different running gear of course because they are tracked and wheeled, but in terms of weapon systems and electronics and sensors they can use the same stuff.

Good for logistics and training and purchasing economics.

Also it was mentioned that Kurganets will end up having 45/57 mm Gun which when compared to BMP-3 100 mm Gun is a downgrade but then I think the requirenments are not similar they are aiming for guided rounds in anti-aircraft role , so achieving a standardisation might be a priority over firepower.

The primary role of the main gun on the BMP-3 is to penetrate enemy IFVs... the 30mm gun no longer cuts it, and using 100mm guided missiles is expensive and they are for emergency use against tanks anyway... they only have 8.

With a 45/57mm gun they should manage a decent HE charge that is rather more than any 30mm cannon, though it wont be as powerful as a 100mm rifled gun. The armour piercing round for the 45/57mm gun will be able to defeat any non tank IFV from any angle out to 2,000m and with guided shells could perhaps even deal with helicopters and air targets out to as far as they can see them... 6-8km.

In other words not as good at HE as the 100mm, but still a useful HE shell, plus much better penetration and anti air capability than the 30mm gun.

That is not a bad compromise... especially when you keep in mind that several vehicles in the Brigade will have 120mm gun mortars with an even more powerful HE shell than the 100mm rifled weapons on the BMP-3, and heavy guided missiles as well.

The standard pattern was BMP-1 with 73mm gun and BTR-60s with 14.5mm HMG.

Then they introduced the BMP-2 with a 30mm cannon, but it did not replace the BMP-1 because they found the extra HE power of the 73mm gun complimented the 30mm cannon rather than the cannon replacing the 73mm weapon, so they used the 73mm gun with the 30mm cannon and 14.5mm HMG.

With the BMP-3 they replaced the 73mm gun with a 100mm rifled gun and kept the 30mm cannon with new ammo, and they added the BTR-80A with a 30mm cannon and the BTR-80 with the 14.5mm HMG.

I rather suspect that we will see in the new brigades vehicles with 45/57mm guns in the IFV role, but we will also see basic troop carriers (ie APCs or BTRs) with a 30mm cannon or a 14.5mm HMG.

I also suspect to make up for the direct fire HE that is lost with the BMP-3 they will compensate with 120mm rifled gun armed BMPT type vehicles, which together with 120mm Vena type vehicles (similar to the BMPT but without the extra gatling guns and grenade launchers... perhaps with one rifle calibre RWS and more 120mm ammo) which operates as a support vehicle for the unit.

The main difference between the two vehicles apart from the extra armament on the BMPT, is that the Vena type vehicle will mostly fire indirectly at targets it can't see directly, whereas the BMPT will be used as an anti ambush weapon for convoys and tank units... taking on Javelin launch teams and RPG teams whereever they hide... in trees, up cliffs, in tall buildings, etc.

This way they get both standardisation AND firepower.

The new telescoped case rounds seem to be based on APFSDS rounds with nose pulling sabots for the penetrators.

I would expect the rather larger HE shells will take up more internal space, but they will need far less propellent to do their job so that doesn't matter so much.

Here is a page with some info on telescoped case ammo.:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WLIP.htm

Though nothing of course about the new 45mm rounds the Russians are developing, though it does mention the 57mm upgrade of the PT-76 that is in competition with the new 45mm round.

Ive always liked the idea of an IFV armed with a high pressure 76-85mm gun.

The problem there is that a 76-85mm high pressure gun has an enormous propellent case and therefore a decent load of ammo would fill the vehicle leaving no space for troops... which is kinda the whole purpose of an IFV.

Even the 57mm gun mentioned has a huge case which dramatically reduces the number of ready to fire ammo it can carry at any one time.

The PT_76 is a very large vehicle and can carry about 70 rounds of ammo... if you want to carry troops too you would need to reduce the ammo load to maybe 30 rounds which is obviously a problem when the gun spits them out at 2-3 per second.

Would make it have a decent HE power and actually have anti armor performance unlike a low velocity 100mm HE chucker.

You are forgetting we are talking about a troop transport, not a tank killer. The ATGM capability of the BMP series is for defence only. Its other anti armour capability is to engage its equivalent in the enemy forces and any other fire power it might have (MGs and HE) is to support its squad of infantry.

In the 1980s the combination of 30mm cannon which was effective against enemy IFVs and APCs and aircraft, along with a 100mm low velocity HE capability against bunkers and enemy firing positions was ideal.

Now that IFVs are 30-40 tons then it is not good enough... well the 30mm cannon is not good enough, the 100mm is still fine. The thing is that a more powerful anti armour gun for use against IFVs is increasing in calibre to the point where it can be fitted with a decent HE capability so the 100mm gun is becoming redundant.

With the removal of the 100mm gun they can carry rather more ammo for the 45/57mm gun, yet still retain decent HE capability.

Of course the gun barrel would be too narrow for a gun launched ATGM but since the bastion ATGM is hardly decent( only 650mm after ERA thats hardly enough to penetrate a leopard 2A6 or challenger 2) why not just mount a kornet-EM launcher on the roof?

With the removal of the 100mm gun it should be possible to add an ATGM option again, though with net centric C4IR and long range guided missile support from rear area Hermes vehicles it could be possible to call in a Hermes attack from a rear area up to 100km away from the target...

This is what I am talking about in terms of shell weight and size:



As you can see that while a BMP could carry 500 30mm cannon shells it is not going to be able to carry anywhere near that in 57mm shells, and even in terms of ammo handling it will be a pain inside an IFV.

Telescoped case rounds are much more compact and easy to handle in comparison yet offer similar performance to the much larger ammo rounds.