Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #1

Are you saying the Russians wont be able to come up with a reliable autoloader in this configuration?

Almost all of the problems with situational awareness regarding crew placement can be corrected by the use of cheap, small, HD, panoramic digital cameras, a technology that was rather non-existent a decade ago.

Not bad, but I would suspect mounted on the top with full 360 degree capacity will likely be optics and a MG like a PKT for the commander.

Obviously it will also likely have all sorts of munition launchers and likely a radiation/IR suppressing skin like a built in Nakidka... but overall this is very likely to be the MBT Armata's shape with a very low frontal profile turret.

The 120mm gun carrying Armata however I think will be the BMPT and might have a larger turret for more weapons... have a look at this photo:



Note the 5th vehicle (it is a kurganets but it is the MBT Kurganets which will have similar armament and sensors and electronics to the other MBT types) in the row from the left? ie MRAP, Boomerang mortar carrier, Boomerang IFV?, Kurganets IFV?, then Kurganets MBT.

In comparison the Armata BMPT was shown as this:



Assuming the weapons are the main gun is a 120mm rifled gun/mortar, long barrel 40mm grenade launcher (perhaps based on the Balkan grenade), and a gatling gun.

The 120mm rifled gun mortar was mentioned in the article the photo came from and the 40mm grenade launcher is my assumption based on the new 40mm grenade launcher called Balkan that has been revealed. (it has huge new grenades that are without shell cases like the 40mm grenades from Soviet/Russian 40mm underbarrel grenade launchers, which should simplify its integration into armoured vehicles as empty shell cases don't need to be ejected.) The gatling gun in my opinion would be a bit of a waste if it is 12.7mm or 14.5mm because of their small relatively light high velocity rounds make them flat shooting while the ammo takes up more room than 30 cal it is effective out to 2km or so but the HE payload is poor even with very advanced rounds. My hope is that these gatlings are 23 x 115mm calibre which is a relatively medium velocity round (700m/s) but with a heavy HE payload per round. The round is based on the 14.5 x 114mm cartridge so it takes up about the same space as a HMG round but the projectile it delivers has a much more powerful charge.

In many ways it would be like a more flat shooting much higher rate of fire grenade launcher that could lob shells out to 3-4km effectively.

The gatling design is ideal for very high rates of fire but ground vehicles rarely need such high rates except shooting at aircraft, but when shooting at aircraft high muzzle velocity makes hitting targets easier.

The very high rate of fire and low velocity actually make the GSh-23-6 rather like a shotgun in that a very short burst of 10-20 rounds can be launched in a fraction of a second burst which will arrive almost at once so you get a scattering around the point of aim of 10-20 explosive shells... ideal for aircraft at close range but also very effective against soft ground targets... a bit like a cluster bomb for a mortar shell.

The GSh-23-6 is light and self powered and the ammo is compact.

A shift to 23 x 115mm rounds could also be applied to other light vehicles where the traditional KPV 14.5mm HMG could be replaced with a 23 x 115mm calibre KPVB. With modern stabilised guns and electrooptics with night vision and laser rangefinders you could actually use the larger calibre of the KPVB and develop very potent SLAP rounds for what is a very potentially powerful round.

The larger the calibre the more energy you can push down it.

A SLAP round did not make sense for the BTR-60/70/80 series because its trajectory would be incredibly flat so a mixed belt of SLAP rounds and HE rounds would be terribly inaccurate because of their different trajectories.

A dual feed KPVB where SLAP rounds can be selected or HE rounds can be selected means ammo with very different trajectories can be used and the larger calibre means a SLAP round could be even higher velocity and have a heavier projectile than the 14.5 x 114mm weapon... which would have been a very potent round (it would only make sense for such a round in a rifle or a dual feed gun with an electronic FCS).

Also very important is that the 23 x 115mm round is used in the new Hinds in a twin barrel chin turret... so SLAP rounds in that gun could be devastating too.

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

Those vehicles have direct fire anti-tank weapons.

This thing is a Kurganets with a mortar like gun. Totally different.

Are you saying the Russians wont be able to come up with a reliable autoloader in this configuration?

The Russians have plenty of experience with autoloaders for tanks... the T-95 had one for a 152mm gun and was pretty much ready for service when it was cancelled.

Almost all of the problems with situational awareness regarding crew placement can be corrected by the use of cheap, small, HD, panoramic digital cameras, a technology that was rather non-existent a decade ago.

Again they developed the T-95 to deal with the problems of SA, which presumably includes onboard sensors as well as UAVs and other sources.

The problem was back in the 80's and 90's when the unmanned turrets were first seriously looked into, they didn't have the technology to reliably maintain SA.

Object-195 was the first MBT that conquered the problems of the crew-less turret. Armata, Kurganets, and Boomerang are the result of that research.

Here's a higher quality image of the official model.

Better photo... thanks.

It is clear that this vehicle is front engined and therefore the Kurganets model as the MBT Armata will have a rear mounted engine.

The only front engined models of armata will be the troop transport (IFV/APC) and other models where that layout is suitable.

I like it.

Are there any details on that remote weapons station?

Nice photo.

I am guessing this new vehicle is the MRAP variant of the truck on the right?

Some how I dont like the looks , the BTR-90 looked more kickass.

Yeah, BTR-90 looked like a beast, but still I like this design. Looks allot like Piranha family especially Piranha V from the front. But hey, there is no point in reinventing bicycle when it comes to design of IFV

That's just another rendering, not the actual product design.

However, you can bet it will look pretty similar.
Apparently mine protection was increased by requirement recently.
BTR-90 had fuck-all when it came to mine protection.

Not a fan of the small Stryker sized wheels, but such is the look of pretty much all new APCs.

The official designs that have been shown haven't been much different from what is shown in this rendering.

It seems all modular APCs need to have the same boxy lines these days.

It's an artists interpenetration as to what Boomerang may look like based on publicly revealed models like this one.

I am very interested to see how tall this thing ends up being.

Yep very lifeless design , The BTR design atleast looked it had life in it.

But hopefully it has better protection for crew , more crew comfort , decent firepower , better tactical/cross country mobility and maintenance , standardisation and TCO wise much better then any BTR vehicle till date.

Not exactly exciting but then these images all show fairly standard armament... 30mm cannon and what are likely Kornet-EM missiles.

This might be a scout version of Boomerang.

When we see a formation of all wheeled vehicles with MBTs, IFVs, Air Defence vehicles, engineer vehicles, artillery vehicles... then it will be something to look at.

Can you hear that off in the distance?






Strykerski...

But then Stryker is just a BTR-60 with a few minor modifications anyway...  

And it is Canadian Eh?

Reminds me of the Mid 1980s playing a game called M1 Tank Platoon where the manual stated that a useless vehicle like the BTR-60 could only exist in a country with no Congress to boot it out of service.

The irony is that while the Soviet troops were being transported around in BTR-60s the western equivalent troops were moved in unarmoured, unarmed, nonamphibious trucks that were probably not that much less expensive.

I wish they put APS on all the new vehicles, esp. The light brigades. They dont need to protect against Apfsds, just slower moving shells, missiles and rpgs. I also think that this vehicle is suited for coinops, it looks mine resistant to an extent, and aps can defend against normal insurgency anti-rmor weapons

collegeboy16 wrote:I wish they put APS on all the new vehicles, esp. The light brigades. They dont need to protect against Apfsds, just slower moving shells, missiles and rpgs. I also think that this vehicle is suited for coinops, it looks mine resistant to an extent, and aps can defend against normal insurgency anti-rmor weapons

They could always just throw on some slat armor.  

IIRC there are two APS being developed, "Afghanistan" and "Standard". Not much has been said about either one, but I'm assuming "Standard" will be just that, and will actually be fielded in noteworthy amounts.

Can you hear that off in the distance?






Strykerski...

The new family of light unified modular vehicles, codename "Boomerang", show surely a common root, in its main design's concepts, with an existing AFV family.....but surely NOT related with the horribly wronged and inefficient concept at the basis of Mowag Piranha AFV (and all its secondary family's branch such as Canadian "LAV" and US "Striker" )  .


"Boomerang",instead, show surely some basis similarities with Patria AFV which represent ,by a very long margin, the most efficient AFV design now operative Worldwide.