Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #1

To be honest my first thought about pic number three above was that it looked Israeli, but in regard to lots of comments on other forums where these pictures have been posted the comments about these vehicles looking "western" are very amusing... so many seem to think that rear access doors and front mounted engines is a western design concept, yet the BMP-1 had a front mounted engine and rear doors.

If anything can be claimed to be western it would be the ramp rear door and these models don't seem to have them... though in the case of the Taifun truck it has a standard door in the centre of a ramp door so troops can either open the door manually and get out or lower the ramp and exit.

I would actually not be surprised if the Russian vehicles designed for rear troop transport had half ramp doors split in half with the lower half folding down and the upper half folding up or sideways like the side doors on the BTR-80s. It gives a bit of flexibility in that you can leave the lower part up and shoot over it with the upper part open and by splitting it in half it should be able to be made lighter and faster opening than a large single piece door.

Seriously, the whole Western argument is hilarious.

The BMP-2 is the same damn thing, just older and much lighter.

You are referring to AIG on mp.net right Gary? THat guy is an idiot.

I don't think it looks "western" but it sure doesn't look like it's from the BMP lineage. The newest CG models somewhat resemble the older BMPs, but the physical models, not so much.

I actually like the BMP-2's lines and proportions, same with the BTR-82 and 90. They just look sleeker and more aggressive than their NATO counterparts. It's kind of sad to see that style disappearing.

Zivo wrote:I actually like the BMP-2's lines and proportions, same with the BTR-82 and 90. They just look sleeker and more aggressive than their NATO counterparts. It's kind of sad to see that style disappearing.

Agreed

Is there a reason why the kurganets will have a much higher profile and that it looks so much like NATO IFVs like the warrior and CV90? And is it possible for the boomerang to outperform the patria AMV when it enters service?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Is there a reason why the kurganets will have a much higher profile and that it looks so much like NATO IFVs like the warrior and CV90? And is it possible for the boomerang to outperform the patria AMV when it enters service?

Thing is we're not sure whether these are official or fan art.

Unless your talking about the earlier post on page 9, that i have also expressed my concern.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Is there a reason why the kurganets will have a much higher profile and that it looks so much like NATO IFVs like the warrior and CV90? And is it possible for the boomerang to outperform the patria AMV when it enters service?

Same reason why BTR-90 was much larger than BTR-80.

Why wouldn't Boomerang be able to outperform Patria?

The BMP and BTR had the serious restriction of being relatively light weight and also being amphibious while not being large targets.

It seems that with the Kurganets and Boomerang the focus is on crew and troop protection with rather heavier armour and armament, so yes, I think these vehicles will out perform western vehicles...

GarryB wrote:The BMP and BTR had the serious restriction of being relatively light weight and also being amphibious while not being large targets.

It seems that with the Kurganets and Boomerang the focus is on crew and troop protection with rather heavier armour and armament, so yes, I think these vehicles will out perform western vehicles...

The only important thing, that will make one unit better than the other, is the ADS/APS. The one that will have a better unit will be the winner.

Zivo wrote:

45/57 and maybe APS.

Were did you see these models? Are they official or fan art?

I guess 57mm for the IFV and 45mm for the APC. Do we have any info about the ADS? Is it the new system?

The only important thing, that will make one unit better than the other, is the ADS/APS. The one that will have a better unit will be the winner.

For every measure there is a countermeasure.

Relying on an APS to make your vehicle safe is very risky... what happens if someone develops a cheap and simple way to defeat your APS?

A laser jammer or dazzler, or decoy system or whatever... all of a sudden you are vulnerable again.

The other thing is that all of the new vehicles will likely get a standardised APS system... and that includes older models still in use no doubt, so suggesting that the new vehicles will be better than the old ones because of their new APS systems seems a bit moot.

At the end of the day an APS is just one extra layer of self defence that adds to the protection of the vehicle and its crew.

The lighter vehicles will rely more on APS than the heavier vehicles so that they can be lighter and more mobile so they will likely be more important on the Kurg and Boomerang than the armata.

I guess 57mm for the IFV and 45mm for the APC. Do we have any info about the ADS? Is it the new system?

I very much doubt they will adopt both new calibres... too expensive... and no obvious pay off. It would be like the US adopting a 30mm cannon and a 25mm cannon for its Bradleys and Strykers.

A 57mm or a 45mm would be suitable for an IFV that needs to be able to hit air and ground targets that are either soft or hard. Both have the velocity and rate of fire advantages of a 30mm but with more HE power and therefore could be used to replace it with a margin of improvement in terms of range and penetration.

The addition of Kornet-EM missiles would further improve the armament package and allow a range of targets to be engaged at extended distances.

An APC just delivers troops and might provide fire support but is not really optimised for engaging the enemy equivalent vehicle type except perhaps with missiles like Kornet-EM. As such the APC can get away with HMG or light cannon armament (I would go for either the 14.5mm KPV or 23mm KPB as a compact but still powerful weapon for use against ground targets) and Kornet-EM for range and use against hard ground and also aerial targets.

An IFV needs to fight enemy light and medium armour and defend itself from enemy heavy armour so a 57mm or 45mm gun plus Kornet-EM would be an ideal weapon combination.

Very interesting photos. Especially the last one. Notice, there's 4 seats not 3. The not so obvious one is beside the engine, with the large single LCD screen. His chair is peaking over the screens on the rear left crew station. It looks like it might also have x4 Kornets.

Questions. Why is the driver seat off center with the hatch? Which crew station is which? What roll could this version serve, why doesn't it have rear seats for dismounts? What gun is that?

Sorry, I only see three crew positions in each vehicle.

The positions will each be standardised, so the commander, gunner, and driver could be seated in any of the three positions and perform their job... in fact crew could swap jobs without moving from their seats.

The guns in the photos you posted seem to be Kord 12.7mm hmgs, so I would suspect these vehicles are APCs.

The vehicle that is cross sectioned does not appear to be fitted out for anything in particular.

Brown chair like the other stations and its own hatch. It appears to have the largest LCD in the vehicle.

That is the seat for the "driver position", with a MFD in front. Note there is no seat of MFDs in front of the position you have marked in red.. just that one and the two behind the rear line of the engine.

Sorry... did this in a hurry:



The red bits are the actual seats... there are three. In blue I have highlighted the two screens for the rear two seats and the bigger main screen and a possible side screen for the front seat.

I actually expect all three seats to actually have 2 or 3 large screens to be honest... and foot and hand controls so they can all direct the gun in the turret or the vehicle depending on their role at the time.

The very front hull hatch probably contains optics that can be delivered to the vision blocks of all the crew and any troops in the rear to give good situational awareness.

GarryB wrote:That is the seat for the "driver position", with a MFD in front. Note there is no seat of MFDs in front of the position you have marked in red.. just that one and the two behind the rear line of the engine.

Sorry... did this in a hurry:



The red bits are the actual seats... there are three. In blue I have highlighted the two screens for the rear two seats and the bigger main screen and a possible side screen for the front seat.

I actually expect all three seats to actually have 2 or 3 large screens to be honest... and foot and hand controls so they can all direct the gun in the turret or the vehicle depending on their role at the time.

The very front hull hatch probably contains optics that can be delivered to the vision blocks of all the crew and any troops in the rear to give good situational awareness.

Driver's sit is in front of the first LCD, which is in my opinion vehicle's commander sit. Behind him is a room for stuff, so it seems this is kind of CP vehicle.

Steering wheel in blue.

I'm not sure if that odd middle seat is the commander though.

Hmmmm.. who didn't look carefully...

I would suspect that the cross section model is not showing the APC or for that matter any standard vehicle... the large MFD in front of where we are guessing the commander sits is what I would expect would be in front of all three standard crew positions of all the vehicles standard crew positions (armata, kurganets, boomerang) as situation awareness requires at least two screens... one focusing on the job at hand... ie where the main gun barrel is pointing and a four screen split view front, back, left and right, for the commander or gunner, or the hull front view and front, back, left, and right view for the driver, or for the commander the view of his RWS/panoramic sight and front back left right. Equally all positions need to have controls that are duplicated so anyone in any position can fire the gun or drive or command the vehicle.

Therefore I suspect these are very early and rejected designs showing the wrong crew stations.

Is it just me or does the boomerang look almost like the stryker APC?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Is it just me or does the boomerang look almost like the stryker APC?

Go to page 9 of this thread, GarryB gave a pretty good response.

People should stop caring about looks so much. It's not western look or design trend it looks how according it's needs. It's evolution towards same goals. And Stryker is nothing impressive, just updated design of LAV III with better IED protection. It's not very modular platform as it was intended to be and I personally think it is just a stop-gap for them. To be honest I recently had discussion with American and he was trying to tell me that European APC's and IFV's are not combat proven and are inferior to American ones. I didn't have patience to continue. For example Patria AMV is impressive APC with amazing armour and plus it's amphibious so big plus for countries like Finland or Russia.
https://2img.net/h/i296.photobucket.com/download-albums/mm199/sir_nats/Pasimania/patria-amv-amphibious.jpg
Russians examined Patria AMV before, and they did examine Centauro and I wouldn't be surprised that they checked many more like french ones so there would be no need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to some solutions. Hopefully it will help to come up with even better design.
Can I expect 25/30 mm protection from frontal arc and 14.5 from sides and back? I hope so! By looking inside, I guess soldiers now will stay inside rather than ride on top of this apc, especially when it will have mine protected hull.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Is it just me or does the boomerang look almost like the stryker APC?

And the Stryker looks even close to earlier 8x8s

Pretty much all APCs in past 20+ years have same general hull shape.

Regarding protection almost all have a very basic level- and achieve higher standards through modular packages. I suspect we will see something similar with Boomerang.

Can I expect 25/30 mm protection from frontal arc and 14.5 from sides and back?

I would expect at least that for both Kurganets and Boomerang-25 as a basic armour level with higher levels of protection with add on armour.

The separation of crew and ammo and fuel should mean that even when penetrated that losses will be greatly reduced and the chances of a total vehicle loss reduced as well.

Are we talking about 30mm HE or APSFDS? Will there be a chance that the kurganets will be protected from autocannon APSFDS as well? As far as I know no Russian IFV is protected against them so far.

Why not? Up-armored BMP-3 turret protects from all 30mm auto-cannon rounds.

It isn't rocket science- everyone uses modular packages at this point. The question is how much do you want to sacrifice for protection.
Basic Stryker doesn't protect against 30mm AP anywhere for example.