Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #1

Is this fully amphibious? Well it does look well protected at elast to the level of patria amv. If it should be sold for export im sure it will sell like hotcakes, not jut the apc but the rest of the boomerang vehicles as well.

I want mine with the larger wheels option and cupholders.

Mindstorm wrote:

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.

What is so horribly wrong with Piranha , Striker design and and what is good about Patria AFV design ?

From memory Afghanistan is for armata and heavy vehicles, while Standard is for medium and light vehicles... and I suspect Boomerang will have Slat armour and NERA, and APS, and a Shtora type defence system and probably a few other things besides...

Ah so Standard would be the standar(npi!) aps against rpgs atgms and maybe he shells.If they make a lot of these we would see cheap rpgs and atgms and rrs being used less and less against vehicles protected by aps(they could certainly try saturating it). ofc. Not everyone can pull off simple tactics like that, so the AT weapons would have to grow in sophistication against the aps which wouldl drive up costs. In short, war becomes even more expensive and rpg-7s striking the back of a tank would become a rarity.

Well on paper ERA should have spelt the end of RPGs effectiveness, yet double charge HEAT warheads have been developed as a counter.

Any APS that is actually deployed and shown to be effective the other side will develop ways and means of countering it.

No military has deployed APS in any significant numbers, and Russia has already developed and put into production the RPG-30. The RPG-30 is a purpose-built anti-APS weapon system.

The Soviet Union put the APS Drozd into limited service for testing on the T-55AM and T-54AM and found that it stopped approximately 70% of targets in actual combat.

The result was Drozd 2 and ARENA.

Claims that in future APSs will be the death of anti armour weapons was like the claims in the 1960s and 70s that manned aircraft were obsolete and that the future will be dominated by guided missiles.

Russia has already developed and put into production the RPG-30. The RPG-30 is a purpose-built anti-APS weapon system.

It is also developing the RPG-32 which is not designed to penetrate APS systems.

The best future anti APS system could simply be a standard rocket with an electromagnetic pulse generating system that accelerates a small core to enormous speeds while at the same time generating an EMP pulse to defeat all sorts of electronics... the Soviets have already displayed such technology...

The best future anti APS system could simply be a standard rocket with an electromagnetic pulse generating system that accelerates a small core to enormous speeds while at the same time generating an EMP pulse to defeat all sorts of electronics... the Soviets have already displayed such technology... wrote:

And which weapon would that be or is it still in development?

Such small relatively compact weapons have already been demonstrated, where an explosion and EMP pulse are generated projecting a penetrator at very high speeds on this forum.

Armor package protects up to 14.5mm rounds, and 8kg of explosive.

Will these lightweight APCs have an additional protection in form of APS?

As Sa'iqa wrote:Will these lightweight APCs have an additional protection in form of APS?

That thing is far from lightweight, and its more of an armored MRAP than an APC replacement.

is that a modification of the typhoon or a independent design? becoue i saw that front in a modifikation of the kamaz typhoon

Will there be an APC based on Armata design?

As Sa'iqa wrote:Will there be an APC based on Armata design?

There might be a heavy APC, it really depends on Army requirements.

They have shown little interest in a MBT-heavy APC, but since the chassis will be used for many vehicles, not just tanks, you can bet at least some test examples will be made.


@ NationalRus:

It is part of the Typhoon Kamaz family, though I am not sure what % commonality we are looking at.


EDIT: Mind you guys this is a work in progress. We have seen already several modification of the 6x6 armored Typhoon trucks.

The back should have some firing slots. But other than that the design looks very promising.

I want to see the 8x8 version of this. I would also like to see a 30mm autocannon on top.

Do you know if the suspension can be raised and lowered?

I believe the height is adjustable.

We are getting to an interesting point where lines between APC and MRAP and mixed.
There are definitely things the army will not like for a "line" APC - those glass windows, the huge profile, the lack of amphibious qualities, etc.

Ok , i have a bit of time so will attempt to briefly respond to an important question.

Austin wrote:What is so horribly wrong with Piranha , Striker design and and what is good about Patria AFV design ?

Well briefly :  


1) Patria is designed from scratch for modularity for all of its main functions , while  Piranha (LAV/ Striker) NOT.

2) Patria is designed and constructed over an under-frame basis structure allowing not only to enormously reduce mechanical/electrical incapacitation and damage transference to key vehicle's elements for effect of enemy direct and indirect fire (blast overpressure and thermal shock included) but also to greatly ease repair and replacement of single components . mounted over it, Piranha (LAV/ Striker) NOT.

3) Patria arrangement and internal volume's organization is conceived for compartmentalization of the operative and working functions ( Engine/Transmission , Command/Control/Communication, Fighting, Transport "modules" )  so to lower the cost of and prevent that local penetration/deformation of the vehicles would hinder several crucial functions rendering it totally unserviceable on the battlefield ; Piranha (LAV/ Striker) NOT. .

4) Patria AFV body shape and that of several of its weapon modules as well are designed for minimal radar observability (in the X and higher radar bands) and as result of advanced terminal ballistic research on medium caliber APFSDS ricochet effect (taking into account obviously its own high-tensile construction steel),  Piranha (LAV/ Striker) desing not only not had foreseen anything of that, but some of its aft bodyframe's elements work as perfect radar reflectors and "shot traps" ! .

5) Patria's true V-shape belly (in conjunction with its under-frame Armox "skeleton") allow it to boast the best mine/IED resilience of any AFV now widely operative worldwide , Piranha (LAV/ Striker) ...well i think that ,on this point, is better to maintain a strict silence for respect to the many dead on the battlefield.

6) Patria AFV retain complete amphibious capabilities in almost its configuration (also in reason of its much modern material employed in its construction and the most recessed placement of its center of weight) ;Piranha (LAV/ Striker) NOT.  

7) Patria AFV boast an effective operative range more than double  than that of  Piranha/LAV/Striker

8)Patria AFV, also in virtue of its innovative differentials inter-axle wheel transmission and huge engine torque's potential, is capable to negotiate with terrain obstacles and gradients completely outside of Piranha LAV/ Striker's possibilities.

9) Patria AFV boast a significantly higher average speed both on and off road in respect to Piranha/LAV/Striker



I leave outside of this list the much higher protection level of Patria AFV in respect to Piranha/LAV/Striker ,because it is mostly due to the employment of new materials unavailable at the time of MOWAG  Piranha's design.



As anyone can notice majority of those huge differences are not merely the product of a more modern design ,but of a SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER one.

Will these lightweight APCs have an additional protection in form of APS?

It is an MRAP, and it will depend on the user as to whether they want to spend the extra money.

is that a modification of the typhoon or a independent design? becoue i saw that front in a modifikation of the kamaz typhoon

AFAIK that is Taifun, not the Typhoon to be developed for the Russian Army.

Will there be an APC based on Armata design?

Every vehicle within a heavy brigade will be armata based... including AD vehicles, artillery, command, engineer, APC, IFV, MBT, etc etc.

GarryB wrote:Every vehicle within a heavy brigade will be armata based... including AD vehicles, artillery, command, engineer, APC, IFV, MBT, etc etc.

GazB do you have a source on this? I haven't been keeping up with the latest developments yet I heard you make this claim before.

It just seems a little wasteful and extreme if every damn combat vehicle in a heavy brigade will be based on the Armata chassis  
I mean how many technicians and support personnel in the US Army follow around each M1 Abrams for each 100km that it runs? How many gallons of fuel does it consume in that time and how much maintenance is required on one on average for each such distance covered?
Can you imagine the logistical nightmare of an entire brigade made up of M1 Abrams equivalents?

The new chassis will be universal, but there is no chance it will be used for all platforms in a brigade. Remember the whole "light medium heavy" brigade process is mostly paper right now, so talking about it becoming reality is a whole separate universe.

I guarantee everyone that Armata MBTs will operate alongside Kurganets IFVs, for example.

flamming_python wrote:

GarryB wrote:Every vehicle within a heavy brigade will be armata based... including AD vehicles, artillery, command, engineer, APC, IFV, MBT, etc etc.

GazB do you have a source on this? I haven't been keeping up with the latest developments yet I heard you make this claim before.

It just seems a little wasteful and extreme if every damn combat vehicle in a heavy brigade will be based on the Armata chassis  
I mean how many technicians and support personnel in the US Army follow around each M1 Abrams for each 100km that it runs? How many gallons of fuel does it consume in that time and how much maintenance is required on one on average for each such distance covered?
Can you imagine the logistical nightmare of an entire brigade made up of M1 Abrams equivalents?

M1 was never intended to be universal platform. Artillery already uses tank chassis, engineering vehicles too.
I imagine it as VW group vehicle that shares same compatibility, technical solutions and parts with AUDI/SEAT/SKODA

Kurganets-25 is completed supposedly, and has been demonstrated to generals.

Hoping for some leaks soon.

Regular wrote:M1 was never intended to be universal platform. Artillery already uses tank chassis, engineering vehicles too.
I imagine it as VW group vehicle that shares same compatibility, technical solutions and parts with AUDI/SEAT/SKODA

That's true, a lot of such vehicles already use tank chassis, and the Armata will likely be more efficient, reliable and certainly a lot lighter than the M1 Abrams series.

But still even just the basic chassis without APS/UAVs/Weapons is a very complex, expensive, next-gen chassis with a protected crew compartment, new diesel engine, optics and cameras for full situational awareness of the crew.

The new generation of air-defense vehicles, artillery systems, etc... probably would not be compatible with older T-72 chassis and would rely on the advanced features of the Armata. So that makes sense.
But still it's a tank chassis, it would require constant maintenance and support - a brigade full of such vehicles would be very demanding.
I suppose that's why they are going for the wheeled and medium-traced brigades mostly, as opposed to the heavy.[/quote]