Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #1

I think he actually supports your position on this TR-1.

The basic shell of the BMP-1 is the same, the difference would be ease of use and simplicity, but in practical terms there is no hugely significant difference.

The Soviet model will survive better in a contaminated environment but its ability to resist enemy fire is not really that much different.

Any exported Typhoon or Boomerang, with their modular armour however off the opportunity of having modules made for export so there is potential for significant differences in protection for the domestic and exported models... when the latter become available.

We are considering Suvorov a reliable source now?

Not ; we have only to consider:

If export BMP-1 had spall liners or not
If export BMP-1 had stabilized main gun or not
If export BMP-1's turret transverse was electro-mechanically driven or not
If the export BMP-1's FCS was the same of Soviet BMP-1 or not ,
And so on......

And i believe that all of us know the responses to the up-cited questions

Leave out the odd historical and geo-political theories of Suvorov (obviously matching and representing its subjective opinions and POV) ,but the great majority of the equipment and organization details was quite accurate.


For some reason it seem that to acknowledge that export versions of Soviet military equipment (even with a wide gamut of substantial differences between simple buyers and close allies) was very different, in capabilities and overall performances, from domestic ones would cause some sort of catastrophe.

In reality it is an open secret that , exactly like in the past, also today domestic versions of a particular equipment (or even of one of its modifications) have completely different basis requirements, since blueprint, in respect to those developed for international market.

That is true even for domestic models or versions not actually accepted or produced and of which ,therefore, was offered an export version on the international market without or before that an internal one was present or accepted ! (Su-30MK series or ,more recently ,T-90MS come to mind).

This is very true and of course very necessary... with one guy getting into power in Venezuela they will buy all the latest Russian technology, with the other guy getting into power all of a sudden the CIA might suddenly get access to all those Russian items... it is obviously important to keep Russian military secrets secret, yet when a potential ally appears you want to offer good materials for them to defend themselves with... not that anything the Russians could sell Venezuela would actually stop a determined US from invading if they really wanted to do that.

The basic shell of the BMP-1 is the same, the difference would be ease of use and simplicity, but in practical terms there is no hugely significant difference.

The Soviet model will survive better in a contaminated environment but its ability to resist enemy fire is not really that much different.

BMP-1 was conceived for offensive Triandafillov/Tukhachevsky type deep operations -deep space saturation- ; in this doctrinal optic high cross-country performances, high strategical mobility and of course volume of fire power was central in obtaining local enemy force's dilution and quick gain of deep space (to be secured by the infantry squads carried) to insulate and "strangle" enemy formations.


Difference in capability to deliver lethal fire ,for unit of time, between domestic and export version would have been enormous and this difference become even more substantial and critical ,at a tactical level, at the grow of unit number involved (numerical overmatch element become a positive magnification factor for the influence of fire power in the enchange ratio function for those type of engagements).

For kind of weapons with very different strategic and/or tactical roles such as tanks, also marked differences in level of armour or sensor suit distinguish domestic from export versions.

What are these vehicles in the background? I first thought they were BMP-2. But I am not sure.
Pictures are from this video clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojfk4RP7stQ&feature=player_embedded

I'm not sure. The finished one looks like a highly modified BMP-2.

The unfinished chassis looks like a cross between a bmp-2 and a bmp-3, is it the same "Kurganets" chassis that was leaked earlier?

First is just BMP-2M with additional armor.

Second is BMD-4M, it just looks weird because of stretched photo.

You're right, it's the BMD.

What's the deal with the BMP-2 though? Has someone purchased that upgrade or is that just a demo model?

They made the upgrade kit and tested it, there are pics of the vehicle type being shot up.
Don't think Russian army has purchased it.
There were the recent news about thousands of BMP-2s being modernized, but for now I chalk that up to media nonsense.

If they get any upgrade it will probably be Berezhok.

From all accounts it seems that the Kurganets are an improvement of the BMP 3 , so it would not be wrong to call it the BMP 4 . We can do names later but the important thing here is that one would have hoped that the Kurganets would have been a revolutionary new idea which unfortunately it is NOT .

It might sport the Kornet E/EM as it's primary anti tank guided missile system apart from a 57 mm gun but that apart it still lacks a coaxial weapon . The weapons suite is not manually operable when damaged and the commander's weapon station does not incorporate a shield .

The Kurganet fails to address the issue of noise reduction by utilizing thermal management and acoustic noise reduction among other measures. Then there is this major flaw of not having an array of hit avoidance systems and an Engagement Detection System. Though not much has been written about it's blast protection level from the initial design it can clearly be seen that blast protection too has not been given any priority . Western IFVs are now incorporating a transparent armor shield that provides protection for the vehicle commander when exposed through the turret.

Cutting edge Network Centric Warfare systems that supports integration with unmanned systems, and dismounted soldiers, providing adaptive access points and connectivity thereby allowing independent decision making as and when necessary is another vital component of modern day IFVs that the designers of Kurganets have not addressed.

Bottomline is the Kurganets if judged in terms of evolution over the BMP 3 is unmistakably an improvement BUT it clearly is not a technological breakthrough especially when compare with IFVs that will soon join Western forces like the GCV . Kurganets therefore remain a disappointment in technical terms though financially the manufacturers can break even pretty soon as it can be exported to under developed states in Asia , Africa and Latin America where the technical requirements are not stringent .

You are pulling all of this...from you rear end?

Kurganets has nothing in common with BMP-3, period.

From all accounts it seems that the Kurganets are an improvement of the BMP 3 , so it would not be wrong to call it the BMP 4 . We can do names later but the important thing here is that one would have hoped that the Kurganets would have been a revolutionary new idea which unfortunately it is NOT.

"Revolutionary new idea?" Please do tell, what would you consider a "revolutionary idea"? An 80+ ton Bradley?

It might sport the Kornet E/EM as it's primary anti tank guided missile system apart from a 57 mm gun but that apart it still lacks a coaxial weapon . The weapons suite is not manually operable when damaged and the commander's weapon station does not incorporate a shield

Weapon layouts are speculation at this point. Until we actually see the prototype we will not know. It's absolutely foolish to draw any conclusions right now. Manually operated weapon stations are outdated. High crew protection requires crew isolation from the magazine. Remote operated weaponry is essential to achieve this requirement.

The Kurganet fails to address the issue of noise reduction by utilizing thermal management and acoustic noise reduction among other measures. Then there is this major flaw of not having an array of hit avoidance systems and an Engagement Detection System. Though not much has been written about it's blast protection level from the initial design it can clearly be seen that blast protection too has not been given any priority . Western IFVs are now incorporating a transparent armor shield that provides protection for the vehicle commander when exposed through the turret.

"Thermal management" Ever heard of Nakidka? Thermal, how about radar? Yes it even serves as RAM.



Judging blast protection from a vehicle that hasn't been revealed yet. Making claims that such protection isn't even being considered, what a joke.

"transparent armor shield" AKA, ballistic glass. Band aid solution for lack of effective remote systems. We have 360° panoramic HD cameras now. There is not longer a need for the commander to risk his head to sniper fire.

Cutting edge Network Centric Warfare systems that supports integration with unmanned systems, and dismounted soldiers, providing adaptive access points and connectivity thereby allowing independent decision making as and when necessary is another vital component of modern day IFVs that the designers of Kurganets have not addressed.

It HAS been addressed and is a priority.




Your points are about a decade too late.

Zivo wrote:[
We have 360° panoramic HD cameras now.

Looking forward to the tank version of Russian dashboard cam videos

From all accounts it seems that the Kurganets are an improvement of the BMP 3 , so it would not be wrong to call it the BMP 4 .

The Kurganets-25 is a family of over a dozen different vehicle types... all in the 25 ton range that are tracked. There will be an IFV version that you might want to call BMP-4, but what are you going to call the Boomerang-25 IFV? Or the Typhoon IFV? or the Armata IFV?

We can do names later but the important thing here is that one would have hoped that the Kurganets would have been a revolutionary new idea which unfortunately it is NOT .

An entire brigade with one vehicle family instead of dozens of different vehicle types and a huge logistics tail with spares and tools for each type of vehicle... could almost say that was revolutionary...

It might sport the Kornet E/EM as it's primary anti tank guided missile system apart from a 57 mm gun but that apart it still lacks a coaxial weapon .

What are you talking about? No one has seen a real Kurganets-25 IFV yet, but of course it will have a coaxial MG and probably a 40mm auto grenade launcher too.

The weapons suite is not manually operable when damaged and the commander's weapon station does not incorporate a shield .

The real Kurganets-25 IFV will allow any crewman to fire all the weapons or drive the vehicle from their position, and the commander will be in the hull and will never need a shield for his position.

The Kurganet fails to address the issue of noise reduction by utilizing thermal management and acoustic noise reduction among other measures.

Kurganets has not been revealed yet, so I am not sure where this is coming from, but since when has heat management effected the amount of noise a vehicle makes?

Western IFVs are now incorporating a transparent armor shield that provides protection for the vehicle commander when exposed through the turret.

The turret of the Kurganets-25 IFV and other models has an unmanned turret with total separate of the crew and squad from weapons, ammo, and fuel... for their safety.

Cutting edge Network Centric Warfare systems that supports integration with unmanned systems, and dismounted soldiers, providing adaptive access points and connectivity thereby allowing independent decision making as and when necessary is another vital component of modern day IFVs that the designers of Kurganets have not addressed.

Actually they have addressed such things with full sensor fusion and net centric integration to allow remote operation of vehicles when required.

Kurganets therefore remain a disappointment in technical terms though financially the manufacturers can break even pretty soon as it can be exported to under developed states in Asia , Africa and Latin America where the technical requirements are not stringent .

Kurganets-25 would be rather pointless to a customer that does not have a net centric battle management system in operation... it would make more sense to sell these vehicles to NATO countries that don't make their own armour.

More importantly they will be introducing 4 MBTs, 4 IFVs, and 4 of pretty much everything else including air defence vehicles, artillery, ambulance vehicles, engineer vehicles, TOS, etc etc... the armata based, the kurganets based, the boomerang based, and the Typhoon based... and each brigade will have one vehicle type with one engine family with all standard parts.

More interestingly they will have Nakidka 2, SHTORA-2, and an ARENA replacement called Afghanistan that can stop APFSDS rounds.

judging by the Russian naming system of the BTRs, a good speculation is that the boomerang will be designated as the BTR-100.

judging by the Russian naming system of the BTRs, a good speculation is that the boomerang will be designated as the BTR-100.

ARRGHHH.... I have said several times before and I will say it again... Armata is not a MBT, Kurganets is not a BMP, Boomerang is not a BTR, and Typhoon is not a BRDM-2.

There will be an Armata MBT, there will also be an Armata BMP, and an Armata BMPT, and an Armata BTR, and an Armata BRDM-2.

There will be a tank, an IFV, an APC, a BMPT, and a scout car variant of Armata, Kurganets, Boomerang, and Typhoon.

Armata is not a tank it is a family of vehicles that includes a tank and every other vehicle within a heavy brigade.


Kurganets is not an IFV it is a family of vehicles that includes an IFV and every other vehicle within a medium weight tracked brigade.


Boomerang is not a BTR it is a family of vehicles that includes a BTR and every other vehicle within a medium weight wheeled brigade.

AND

Typhoon is not a light armoured scout car (BRDM-2) it is a family of vehicles that includes an armoured scout car (BRDM-2) and every other vehicle within a light wheeled brigade.

The whole idea of the vehicle families is so that the logistics tail of each brigade only has to cater to one vehicle type with one engine type... though likely different variants of engine for the different weight vehicles.

The result... which IS revolutionary, is that each brigade will have vehicles with similar levels of mobility and similar levels of armour and the smallest possible logistics tail to make them as mobile as possible.

New speculative model of Kurganets-25. More images at link

Source >>> http://otvaga2004.ru/bronya-pehoty/advanced-ifv/3d-kurganec-25/

I think its safe to say that hull will be very very close to what the actual vehicle looks like - barring changes to the applique armor on the sides.

Turret I think will be very different.
And will come in many variants.

The artist went with a more conservative turret design for the model, which is understandable.

I still think it's kind of ugly compared to previous BMPs, but style points don't count in war.

That looks like a BMP model of Kurganets with what appears to be a BMP-2 like turret... the main problem with this is that the BMP models of all the vehicle families will likely have a gun designed to kill the oppositions equivalent vehicle which means it must be able to kill from the front a NATO IFV from about 1.5-2km range. For this purpose the 30mm cannon of the BMP-2 is totally inadequate so a modern 45mm and 57mm gun are being tested... the 45mm gun uses modern telescoped ammo design while the 57mm round uses the standard round of the S-60 air defence gun with a much larger shell but with the space for laser guided shells. Personally I would like to see a modern telescoped 57mm round developed that could later be expanded to a 65mm round as enemy armour improves.

The main problem I have with this speculation on turret design is... why would it be shaped the way it is? On the BMP-2 it needs to accomodate two crew but this turret is not manned. The two crew positions could be filled with ammo for the main gun, the coaxial or perhaps the rear turret mounted 40mm automatic grenade launcher (Balkan), but I would think a better shape design could have been applied to improve protection

I'm thinking the Kurganets 30mm gun system will look more like the BPPU turret.

The real question is will they retain the 30mm calibre?

It was useful as a powerful high rate of fire weapon with more reach and punch than HMG fire, but with guided 57mm shells rate of fire is no longer a priority for hitting moving targets, while in terms of HE capacity and Armour penetration performance a 45mm or 57mm round should easily beat a 30mm calibre weapon. The only advantage is in rate of fire but rate of fire is used to increase the HE potential of HE rounds or to hit small manouvering targets... the extra weight of the 45mm and 57mm shells means high rate of fire is less useful, while small manouvering targets can be engaged with guided shells much more efficiently.

30mm might be replaced with lighter more compact 23 x 115mm rounds and 40mm grenades based on the rounds for the Balkan. The 100mm gun of the BMP-3 could be replaced with a long barrel 120mm rifled gun/mortar weapon.

23mm has a relatively heavy projectile and is very compact so large amounts of ammo can be carried, while the 40mm grenades carry a heavy HE payload and both have good rates of fire.

The 120mm gun/mortar has a wide range of projectiles/shells/missiles it can use including western 120mm mortar rounds and any guided or unguided rounds they can fire too... in addition to 120mm shells and guided rounds like Gran and Kitilov. The 120mm gun/mortar has heavier HE shells and mortar bombs with a longer range and also guided munition options.

Artists interpretation of the 120mm equipped Kurganets chassis.

http://otvaga2004.ru/

The turret looks unsettlingly similar  to the utterly failed teledyne expeditionary tank and stryker MGS:no: