Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #1

KBP is working on Epoha firing module.

Freaking awesome. Ty medo!

Those renders were pretty accurate haha.

I would say, that Epoha RWS is what BMPT turret should be, specially when it will be placed on Armata tank. I hope it will be main armament station for Boomerang and Kuganets. Long range Kornet ATGM give to it very long hand to deal with any armored vehicle or helicopter.

If they decide to stick with 2A42 (a potent gun even today) then new 30mm APFSDS rounds are imminent as well.

However I still maintain we will see larger caliber weapons in the future on the three "big" chassis types. It is modular after all .

Kornet, with extended range and the cutting-edge optics of the module is a huge upgrade as well.

EDIT: Looks like active defense below the Kornet?

EDIT: Looks like active defense below the Kornet? wrote:

I thought the same, but the little bit odd thing is that it seems only to face forward or maybe the black rectangle on the first picture on the back side of the turret is the APS dispenser for rear sphere.

http://fotki.yandex.ru/users/elberet545/?&p=5

Lots of interesting photos....

TR1 wrote:If they decide to stick with 2A42 (a potent gun even today) then new 30mm APFSDS rounds are imminent as well.

However I still maintain we will see larger caliber weapons in the future on the three "big" chassis types. It is modular after all .

Kornet, with extended range and the cutting-edge optics of the module is a huge upgrade as well.

EDIT: Looks like active defense below the Kornet?

In my opinion for this RWS 30 mm 2A42 gun is still enough. I'm sure all those vehicles will also get larger caliber guns in other versions, but those guns need bigger turrets and stronger stabilisation.

It seems gunner and commander use same EO complex, where gunner's complex is slaved with gun, while commander's one could rotate 360°. With same complexes, it is possible that both gunner and commander could guide Kornet missiles to their own targets, what could mean with this RWS two targets could be engaged simultaneously. It also have elevation to +70° like BTR-82A, so it will be quite effective against low flying aerial targets.

http://twower.livejournal.com/1182413.html?view=67191245

Moar Volk and Medved.

Did MVD receive any Medved vehicle up to now? At the beginning of the year was said, they will receive first vehicles this year.

medo wrote:Did MVD receive any Medved vehicle up to now? At the beginning of the year was said, they will receive first vehicles this year.

I think they pushed back testing 1 year, so not yet. They got the new Federal armored trucks though.

http://tvzvezda.ru/schedule/programs/content/201005061644-evt8.htm/201312161238-6flq.htm

Here is video, where is article about KBP Tula at 28:00.

medo wrote:http://tvzvezda.ru/schedule/programs/content/201005061644-evt8.htm/201312161238-6flq.htm

Here is video, where is article about KBP Tula at 28:00.

Nice, here is the same video, but on youtube (for me the Zvezda site one refuses to skip ahead) :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2XLp4UcPzo

Werewolf wrote:

I thought the same, but the little bit odd thing is that it seems only to face forward or maybe the black rectangle on the first picture on the back side of the turret is the APS dispenser for rear sphere.

smoke poppers?
there is a huge space behind, perhaps for they want turret bustle for 30mm rounds? a hi-low mix with 57mm armed IFVs, perhaps.
also, i know i asked about something like this before but are the expensive bits also in the rotating thingy? panoramic cams are ok i think since they are cheap and easy to replace but thermal imagers are not.

Regular wrote:Can't find video where I've seen it being almost "naked" with open bonnet. But hey tell me what's in the red and blue circles then?

Bigger image

Bigger image

Now look at Oshkosh M-ATV. Not comparing those vehicles, but You can see similarities in hull design. Both of them focus on mine protection while being offload capable. Ofcourse, they might not be like British Foxhound, but armies fight conventional war too, there would be no sense having uber mraps replacing wheeled transport as a whole.
 

Oshkosh M-ATV the last time I heard, is general purpose "jeep"- humwee replacement. It's not a MRAP, and it's never intended to be. This Typhoon, on the other hand, is very specialized vehicle, and given its sheer size, it's not going to weigh less than 12-14 tons, so I wouldn't count on its off-road mobility as well. So, why it's not given a V-hull, which is an ABSOLUTE MUST in every MRAP, is beyond me. Not even mentioning 4 doors, which significantly weakens the structure.
To speculate, maybe KAMAZ haven't done proper research before development.
But the most likely reason, it's not meant for the military in the first place. It's appearance reminds me a bit of T-98 Kombat, which as we know, was jeep for bigshots in "hot" spots. So, Kadyrov would find this KAMAZ product very suitable for his motorcades   .

VDV is very interested in the vehicle, I think that says something.

Plus what Regular was implying is if you look under the running boards, there is clearly v-type curvature for the hull; I suspect much of the constrction is designed to absorb force of impact and detach from crew compartment anwyays. KAMAZ clearly did its research, and this vehicle is the product of military requirements. Not gonna lie, I like this thing more than 90% of Russia's new light vehicles.

TR1 wrote: Not gonna lie, I like this thing more than 90% of Russia's new light vehicles.

So, out of curiosity, which of Russia's new light vehicles you don't like?

etaepsilonk wrote:

TR1 wrote: Not gonna lie, I like this thing more than 90% of Russia's new light vehicles.

So, out of curiosity, which of Russia's new light vehicles you don't like?

Vystrel, BMP-97, whatever you wanna call it. All crap.
Bulat, same.

Tigr I have mixed views about, depending on the role it finds itself in.

Lynx, see above. Against it in principle, but it does what it is designed to do just fine. Problem is its not designed for the roles Russia is putting it in.

Volk has a lot to prove, and while we are at it so does Medved, though I kinda like that one.

UAZ Hunter...nah just kidding. Not even gonna go there .

To TR1:


"Vystrel, BMP-97, whatever you wanna call it. All crap.
Bulat, same."

Why?





"Lynx, see above. Against it in principle, but it does what it is designed to do just fine. Problem is its not designed for the roles Russia is putting it in."

In what roles is Russia putting it?

Because they are crude 90s Russian level crap, that don't correspond to modern requirements at all. Across the spectrum. The design is archaic in about every sense. Remember, this was when Kamaz was making something like this pile of crap: http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/5314/25744697.4d/0_71867_e7b6d4fd_orig
Their reception by soldiers has been similar. Low mechanical reliability of powertrain, bad view (why did they make that stupid sharply raked front? Could have made less slope but better armor for similar weight), horrible doors on the sides, inadequate interior cooling, exhaust pipe apparently broke a lot during offroading....and as a personal comment, have you seen the thing going on obstacles? Looks like jello on wheels....
Cheap crap basically.


Lynx has several issues, but lets just talk about service.
1.) mobility - compared to Tigr, clearly inferior.
2.) comfort and space inside- much more cramped than Tigr, especially in regards to equipment space in the back of the vehicle. Spetsnaz had to put some equipment even on top of Tigr, can you imagine what they did with the limited space of the Iveco trunk?
Reco guys that gave up Tigr for Lynx were at a loss why the replacement was made, and were not happy with it.

The 30mm is obsolete for an IFV right now let alone in 5 years time.

I suspect those turrets are either the APC model, or they are models from a company that is not involved in the development of either the 45mm gun or the 57mm gun so they are displaying the 30mm gun till the winner of the 45/57mm gun competition is over.

Very simply even today with the best 30mm cannon shell you could possibly make its performance in terms of HE is poor (which is why the BMP-3M has a 100mm rifled gun) and is armour penetration is not good enough to penetrate current let alone future IFVs from the front at any useful range.

A 45mm or 57mm gun however would have excellent potential in terms of HE power and APFSDS performance... the former including laser guided shell options.

GarryB wrote:The 30mm is obsolete for an IFV right now let alone in 5 years time.

I suspect those turrets are either the APC model, or they are models from a company that is not involved in the development of either the 45mm gun or the 57mm gun so they are displaying the 30mm gun till the winner of the 45/57mm gun competition is over.

Very simply even today with the best 30mm cannon shell you could possibly make its performance in terms of HE is poor (which is why the BMP-3M has a 100mm rifled gun) and is armour penetration is not good enough to penetrate current let alone future IFVs from the front at any useful range.

A 45mm or 57mm gun however would have excellent potential in terms of HE power and APFSDS performance... the former including laser guided shell options.

prolly APC model, if that is turret bustle ammo storage.

etaepsilonk wrote:

You haven't answered my question. And guest what M in M-ATV means? Half of MRAPs in A'stan are M-ATVs. Jeez..
Before judging by picture look at the TRENDS in MRAP design and then say stuff about KAMAZ not doing research.
Look at Dingo 2 or Golan MRAPs and tell me they are not good too.
By all I've seen Kamaz has V shaped hull and compartment sits on kinetic "pillow". I'm pretty sure people who designed it knows a lot more about MRAPs then me and You.

Regular wrote:
You haven't answered my question. And guest what M in M-ATV means? Half of MRAPs in A'stan are M-ATVs. Jeez..
Before judging by picture look at the TRENDS in MRAP design and then say stuff about KAMAZ not doing research.
Look at Dingo 2 or Golan MRAPs and tell me they are not good too.
By all I've seen Kamaz has V shaped hull and compartment sits on kinetic "pillow". I'm pretty sure people who designed it knows a lot more about MRAPs then me and You.

Sorry. What was your question again?     

And I'm looking at the trends in MRAP design, and what I'm seeing, are:



V-hull (and by saying that, I mean not just the bottom with sloped edges    , but a lower part with pretty sharp angle, which smoothly integrates with the top part, for efficient energy dissipation). A large horizontal flat bottom surface (which kamaz clearly has) is a big NO-NO for a mrap design.

High clearance (there I can agree).

As less weak zones as possible (usually this relates to doors). And where is impossible to remove the weak zones, those are protected by boxes, fuel tanks, etc. EVEN GAZ Volk (which is not a MRAP, btw), has fuel tanks under the doors. Kamaz typhoon hasn't. And those huge human-height doors of it doesn't add strength AT ALL.

Huge boxes for stuff at the sides. This is done to free up the space inside, and act as additional armor. Not only kamaz typhoon doesn't have the provisions for those, but those large extruding wheel arcs would make mounting them a significantly harder task   . Find any MRAP with large wheel arcs, and I'll retract this statement.


And about your "kinetic pillow". Yes, it helps against shockwave force, but won't do much against cumulative mines, so it works both ways, really.



"I'm pretty sure people who designed it knows a lot more about MRAPs then me and You."

I'm pretty sure people who designed Latvian Maxima, knew a lot more about construction then me and You. Yet, IT still happened    .





Look at the experience of other countries in MRAP design. Currently, one of the most popular is Force Protection Inc. Cougar MRAP. As of now, Medved is A LOT MORE similar to it, than Kamaz Typhoon is. I think, that should say something, shouldn't it?  

prolly APC model, if that is turret bustle ammo storage.

It wont be.

They rejected the Burlak model of the T-72 upgrade because it stored 31 rounds in the turret bustle... putting exposed ammo above a troop compartment is the opposite of what they are trying to do with these new families of vehicles.

GarryB wrote:

prolly APC model, if that is turret bustle ammo storage.

It wont be.

They rejected the Burlak model of the T-72 upgrade because it stored 31 rounds in the turret bustle... putting exposed ammo above a troop compartment is the opposite of what they are trying to do with these new families of vehicles.

For real?  In case you don't know,  BMPT has its ammo stored in the bustle as well.