Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #1

Erm, no. I was referring to the top, which as far as my rudimentary wikipedia knowledge has told me, is not angled in a way to try to deflect rounds coming from relatively high to near vertical angle of attack.

That would be because a roof angled to deflect things coming down near vertically is a wall.

If targets shot from that angle very few modern armoured vehicles would be safe.

To make the roof of such a vehicle equivalent to the frontal armour of such a vehicle would result in a 50 ton vehicle... which is simply not practical.

GarryB wrote:
That would be because a roof angled to deflect things coming down near vertically is a wall.
If targets shot from that angle very few modern armoured vehicles would be safe.
To make the roof of such a vehicle equivalent to the frontal armour of such a vehicle would result in a 50 ton vehicle... which is simply not practical.

Um, I would like to clarify a bit, I meant HMG rounds attacking the roof, I edited the post anyways to avoid complications. silly me Now that's out, the real problem with the roof with regards to HMG fire is that HMG fire is most likely rapid fire, you can lay down a world of hurt on the poor fellows inside like a mobster emptying his tommy gun through an apartment door. Besides, they can't really bother to protect against larger projectiles from the front anyways so they will have to do with protection against HMG fire only, so by making even the direct top where the heads of the crew is located more angled and reinforced, you protect them further than would a simple flat roof.

GarryB wrote:
That would be because a roof angled to deflect things coming down near vertically is a wall.

BTW, not to sound like an ass , but isn't a that what you call a ceiling?

Now that's out, the real problem with the roof with regards to HMG fire is that HMG fire is most likely rapid fire, you can lay down a world of hurt on the poor fellows inside like a mobster emptying his tommy gun through an apartment door.

Getting a HMG above the vehicle to shoot down at it as you suggest would be the problem... the other being protecting that HMG from the return fire it would likely attract.

Very simply in armour design you can't protect any vehicle 360 degree to the same level unless it is small arms.

In this case we are talking about IFV in a medium weight brigade, which means the front of this vehicle needs to be able to stop penetrators capable of penetrating about 150-200mm of armour.

In other words this vehicle needs to protect from 30-40mm cannon fire.

Very thick front armour and a very steeply angled roof is about the only practical way to do that.

Penetrating the roof from the front is meaningless as the penetrator will not travel low enough in the troop compartment to hit the troops or crew... a bit like firing a round that travels between the roof and the ceiling horizontally.

The roof and sides and floor will all be made of thinner armour but steeply angled to maximise its effect on an incoming penetrator.

Besides, they can't really bother to protect against larger projectiles from the front anyways so they will have to do with protection against HMG fire only, so by making even the direct top where the heads of the crew is located more angled and reinforced, you protect them further than would a simple flat roof.

This is a 25 ton class vehicle... even the 18 ton BMP-3 had frontal protection from standard 30mm rounds, do you really think their brand new next generation medium armoured vehicle has less armour than a BMP?

The BMP-3s turret is 3-4 tons of extra weight too, so the new Kurganets with a HMG turret will have considerably more armour protection than a BMP-3, plus a front mounted engine.

Perhaps the angle of the photo is deceiving you... on level ground the roof of this vehicle will look much smaller and will present a very shallow look at the roof armour. Trying to hit the roof compartment of the troop or crew area near the back of the vehicle would be like trying to skip a flat stone on a river but have it sink on the third skip.

I really don't think they would bother developing new generation vehicles if their new generation medium tracked vehicle has less armour than their BTR-90 design, which is a 20 ton design that will stop standard HMG rounds from most angles.

but isn't a that what you call a ceiling?

If you change the angle of a roof or ceiling to make it optimised to deflect penetrators coming in vertically results in a near vertical roof or ceiling. A near vertical roof or ceiling is still a wall... not wanting to sound like an @$$ either...

I have no idea how thick the roof is on this vehicle... it certainly wont be a few milimetres, but then it is hardly going to be too thick either.

The roof of any armoured vehicle will likely be a vulnerable area... just like the belly and the rear.

I suspect for this weight class of vehicle that the only direction vulnerable to HMG fire would be the belly, so unless the vehicle rolls it will not really be vulnerable to enemy HMG fire.

I would expect the same level of protection for the Wheeled Boomerang-25 too.

GarryB wrote:
Getting a HMG above the vehicle to shoot down at it as you suggest would be the problem... the other being protecting that HMG from the return fire it would likely attract.

Perhaps it won't be after you mount one on a UCAV.
Oh well, you're right. At 25 tons its too big to fail now, compared to its counterparts.
Still, any chance this pic. will translate nicely to metal, they should mount stuff on the roof, stuff like Fiber Optic Guided Missiles(FOGM). Such missiles would enable the crew to soften up hard targets esp. those without effective APS.

Perhaps it won't be after you mount one on a UCAV.

Aircraft are certainly a real threat to armour, but I would suggest that even a UCAV will not dive vertically to engage its targets and near horizontal fire is actually more likely.

Even a helo, like perhaps an Apache or Cobra would not fly directly above an IFV and fire upon it with their cannon... and if they did the close proximity would make even the roof mounted HMG a very dangerous thing for both helos.

At 25 tons its too big to fail now, compared to its counterparts.

They started the design from scratch... a clean sheet of paper design not based on any previous Russian or Soviet vehicle. What do you mean by fail? It will have weak points of course... even the M1A2 Abrams can be penetrated and it is going to be 1/3rd lighter than that vehicle.

Still, any chance this pic. will translate nicely to metal, they should mount stuff on the roof, stuff like Fiber Optic Guided Missiles(FOGM). Such missiles would enable the crew to soften up hard targets esp. those without effective APS.

This particular model is likely to be the APC model, whose purpose is to move troops around a very dangerous battlefield. The IFV model will likely have a 45mm high velocity gun with laser guided shells for use against aircraft and point targets and most probably Kornet-EM ATGMs to engage point targets out to 10km or so.

There is not likely to be any shortage of firepower in any of the brigades in all the weight classes.

GarryB wrote:

Perhaps it won't be after you mount one on a UCAV.

Aircraft are certainly a real threat to armour, but I would suggest that even a UCAV will not dive vertically to engage its targets and near horizontal fire is actually more likely.

I , but "sniper" drones hovering at 10,000 ft. or more in the air armed with HMGs or autocannons could likely exist in the 2020-2025 timeframe. But don't take my word for it, I couldn't remember where from the net I got this one.

GarryB wrote:
They started the design from scratch... a clean sheet of paper design not based on any previous Russian or Soviet vehicle. What do you mean by fail? It will have weak points of course... even the M1A2 Abrams can be penetrated and it is going to be 1/3rd lighter than that vehicle.

Sorry. That meant, nothing, really. You can say its filler on my part. I'm sorry for that.

I dunno , but "sniper" drones hovering at 10,000 ft. or more in the air armed with HMGs or autocannons could likely exist in the 2020-2025 timeframe. But don't take my word for it, I couldn't remember where from the net I got this one.

I wouldn't doubt some UCAV manufacturer out there is working on one. However, against these brigades drones probably wont be too effective. Localized AD radar equipped vehicles would just hand off airborne targets to nearby IFVs and dedicated AD. Beam riding proximity fused 57mm autocannon fire will make short work of any low flying UCAV or gunship.

but "sniper" drones hovering at 10,000 ft. or more in the air armed with HMGs or autocannons could likely exist in the 2020-2025 timeframe. But don't take my word for it, I couldn't remember where from the net I got this one.

Practically you would image to construct ,in future, an UCAV which would represent ,already today, nothing more than a...very costly ...target drone for even only an BMP-3 IFV with its "Arkan" missile or 2A72 30mm guns ; very likely air defense assets assigned to the ground Division wouldn't waste even only one of theirs bullets or missiles to engage a similar low-threat UAV, which would remain well within engagement's envelop ofn practically ALL vehicle's weapons and even several infantry's ones (from gun fired guided missiles present ,already since Cold War era, on virtually all MBT and IFV to the ubiquitous 30 mm autocannons, from the most simple SA-18/24 up to latest Kornet-M).
Let me leave totally out of this argumentation next generation vehicles such as Kurganet or Armata, it would result even offensive.

Already some dozen of years ago in US was conceived an highly optimized CAS/ground attack flying vehicle -A-10 Thunderbolt II - literally designed around an heavy 30 mm autocannon with an aerodynamic design purposdely constructed for maximum manoeuvrability and corner speed at low altitude in turbulence (the aerodynamic layout of today UAVs, designed to achieve LOW COST, in comparison appear as a sort of joke) and to remain stable at the enormous sollicitations of the 30 mm GAU-8 Avenger, with an heavily armoured airframe ,armed with guided missiles and with a very strong suit of ECM countermeasures and even THIS highly optimized would have been not survivable in attacks against typical '80 years Soviet ground divisions (even without accounting devastating effects of Soviet AD assets assigned to theirs defense !!) because them was characterized by high density of 30 mm autocannons, MANPADS and gun launched guided missiles.


Moreover this "UCAV" should be....remotely controlled or with an AI independent control ?
Because, do you know, the former would become literally a flying piece of scrap metal the first second your enemy's jamming systems (enjoying an advantage even in the order of the ten of thousand of times in average radiated energy in respect to the satellite or networked remote signal ) sever theirs control link , while the latter - with an AI capable to take independetly tactical decisions and react accordingly to mutated environmental and engagement's factors - would have a price tag likely wastly superior to that of a today manned aircraft.

The simple reality is that the armed UAV we see flying today are intended for very low intensity conflicts ; the advantage those light UAV offer ,in respect to manned aircraft, is only in their relatively high loitering times at average costs for flying-hour much lower than that of a typical tactical aicraft , a quality rendering them the perfect assets for reconaissance or to "hunt" areas for dozen of hours elusive targets in COIN missions.

I dunno , but "sniper" drones hovering at 10,000 ft. or more in the air armed with HMGs or autocannons could likely exist in the 2020-2025 timeframe. But don't take my word for it, I couldn't remember where from the net I got this one.

Actually from 10,000ft a metal rod 2m long and 50mm thick that weighed about 10-15kgs with a nose mounted laser homing kit and guidance fins would make rather more sense than a sniper 50 cal rifle.

50 cal bullets are relatively short and fat and relatively light and their terminal velocity will be much lower than their muzzle velocity so firing it from 10,000ft will mean by the time it hits the ground it will actually be travelling much slower than if it had been fired at a lower altitude.

A very long metal rod on the other hand is very heavy with very low drag and would accelerate to much higher speeds than a 50 cal round so when it got to ground level would have much much more energy.

BTW such a weapon would be devastating to even an M1 Abrams, because it hasn't got heavy roof armour either... no vehicle has.

Sorry

No need to apologise... we are just chatting... we aren't curing cancer...

I don't know who had this toughts here about equiping an tank with kind of "gatling" gun to counter small-sized air-to-surface weapons, but when someone realy wants to head on an uncommon way
to protect tanks than he should think more about practicability and effecience in logistical terms.
Than he should think about the german Oerlikon 35mm rounds (how this rounds work), wich are programmed via induction programming when they pass the end of the barrel for the detonation range wich is measured and set up by an rangefinder from EO device. The rounds explode a few meters infront of its target and spread a bounded fragmentation segment into targets direction, a little spread of the fragments increase the possibility of interception and increase the damage when the bounded-fragments rip through the object.

The EO device with an high effective and precise FCS for an AA canon on tanks would be possible, surley not in a 35mm dimension but in .50cal -14,5mm wich still are doubtfull for that type of rounds.

And it would bring big flaws and only few advantages.The EO device would be a high cost equipment and had to be very advanced to do this job,also it would be to big and unarmored and to easy to disable.Also the .50cal - 14.5mm AA rounds with the Oerlikon type like rounds would be maybe to underpowered through the low capicity they can contain for the fragmens.
Also the FCS would be unnecassary to high cost equipment for a thread that could be dealed cheaper and more effecient via more sophisticated all 360° coverage APS systemes.


But back to the UCAV weaponary discussion here.

An UCAV equipped with .50 cal is pretty useless especially against tanks, not enough energy also the capability of an 100% hit is reduced through its low weight and high air-drag and of course moving targets.

But the idea to equip an UCAV with an cannon isn't that unrealistic.



The german stukas for example used the 37mm HE-shells, with an hardened top and detonation delay they have enough energy to crack the roof armour of all existing tanks. And even when they miss its target the HE charge could damage optical devices or kill/damage soldiers/material wich surrounding the target.Also like what we have seen from Grozny when RPG and SPG rounds hit T-72s covered with K5, the explosion was high enough to push the other K5 boxes from their adjusted position that left a bigger uncovered armour.

I don't know who had this toughts here about equiping an tank with kind of "gatling" gun to counter small-sized air-to-surface weapons, but when someone realy wants to head on an uncommon way
to protect tanks than he should think more about practicability and effecience in logistical terms.

The only gatling gun shown was a low velocity 23mm cannon on a BMPT model... which is not an air defence vehicle or a troop transport and its primary targets are ground targets like enemy infantry.

A likely target would be a group of vehicles sitting near some houses and then from some bushes about 1km away a Javelin missile starts its climb... the BMPT would spin around and align its 23mm gun and fire a 30-50 round burst at the ground near where the Javelin came from... two seconds later 30-50 23mm HE shells will land in a cluster around where the Javelin was fired from with a pretty good chance of getting the crew before they leave the area and any other crews thinking of launching a missile too.

The incoming Javelin would likely be first "engaged" with an active jammer that will likely steer an IR laser to dazzle its seeker and make it miss. Failing that smoke grenades will be launched, and when it gets close to the vehicles will launch APS munitions to intercept the incoming missile.

The 23mm gatling will not be used as a CIWS to stop missiles... its muzzle velocity would be too low for its to be effective.

Than he should think about the german Oerlikon 35mm rounds (how this rounds work), wich are programmed via induction programming when they pass the end of the barrel for the detonation range wich is measured and set up by an rangefinder from EO device. The rounds explode a few meters infront of its target and spread a bounded fragmentation segment into targets direction, a little spread of the fragments increase the possibility of interception and increase the damage when the bounded-fragments rip through the object.

Called AHEAD rounds the Russians already use electronic fuses that can be attached to standard 125mm HE Frag shells and that pass through a fuse setting machine as they are loaded to allow for air bursts above targets like trenches or helos hovering behind trees etc.

In this case the cost of the fuses could not really be justified because as I said this gatling will be used against ground targets.

Note that Russian aircraft have used what they call cargo rounds in their 30mm cannon for quite some time... after 1.5-2km of travel the rounds explode and send a directional blast of small fragments against light aerial or ground targets.

And it would bring big flaws and only few advantages.The EO device would be a high cost equipment and had to be very advanced to do this job,also it would be to big and unarmored and to easy to disable.Also the .50cal - 14.5mm AA rounds with the Oerlikon type like rounds would be maybe to underpowered through the low capicity they can contain for the fragmens.
Also the FCS would be unnecassary to high cost equipment for a thread that could be dealed cheaper and more effecient via more sophisticated all 360° coverage APS systemes.

EO FCS systems are getting more sophisticated and capable all the time... look at the Kornet-EM system that can hit point targets at 10km range day or night.

Modern armoured vehicles are pretty much getting more and more like aircraft with incoming threat detection systems to warn of attack and to do something about it too.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7170/6765911953_3a861e3dd2_z.jpg

People were curious why the Boomerangs power plant section was so big- a nice comparison photo.

Glimpse of the Kurganets' corpus (body) in this video clip at 4:30.


http://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201301211327-g0hn.htm

I see that someone at mp.net has already taken screenshots:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=194132&d=1358794439
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=194133&d=1358794461

Compare those conditions to where the BTR-4M and the Lazika are made

On unrelated news, who else hates Lenta's new format?

I like the profile of it, I was afraid it would be really tall. No ring for turret, APC version?

TR1 wrote:On unrelated news, who else hates Lenta's new format?

Count me in , I was surprised and dissapointed to see their new format.

Keep in mind it is elevated in that photo - being on some sort of assembly jig.

It will be taller than BMP-3 though, for certain.

TR1 wrote:Keep in mind it is elevated in that photo - being on some sort of assembly jig.

It will be taller than BMP-3 though, for certain.

I guess it is kind of tall when you look at it along with a known model. The suspension gives it more height than I suspected.

That model turned out to be really accurate.

http://ria.ru/arms/20130122/919239076.html
Kurgan release prototype BMP "Kurganets" in the spring

Unified platform "Kurgan" may be the same for the average tracked combat vehicle type - on the basis of its plan to create infantry fighting vehicles (IFV), command and staff vehicles (CSV), reconnaissance and ambulances, as well as artillery guns with a caliber up to 122 millimeters. When creating a new car included studies for previous projects, "Kurgan" - BMP-1 and BMP-2 and BMP-3. The design weight of the machine of the "Kurganets-25" does not exceed 25 tonnes. Engine and transmission cars are in the front of the machine. They will be shifted to the right in order to improve the layout and improve the survivability of the machine. Marines fighting machine leaves behind. The maximum number of Marines - eight in full gear.

Austin wrote:http://ria.ru/arms/20130122/919239076.html
Kurgan release prototype BMP "Kurganets" in the spring

Unified platform "Kurgan" may be the same for the average tracked combat vehicle type - on the basis of its plan to create infantry fighting vehicles (IFV), command and staff vehicles (CSV), reconnaissance and ambulances, as well as artillery guns with a caliber up to 122 millimeters. When creating a new car included studies for previous projects, "Kurgan" - BMP-1 and BMP-2 and BMP-3. The design weight of the machine of the "Kurganets-25" does not exceed 25 tonnes. Engine and transmission cars are in the front of the machine. They will be shifted to the right in order to improve the layout and improve the survivability of the machine. Marines fighting machine leaves behind. The maximum number of Marines - eight in full gear.

I tough when I sow they will place engine and transmission to the front that it will not be able to cross water obstacles, but it seems

that they did managed to keep buoyancy.

I like the profile of it, I was afraid it would be really tall. No ring for turret, APC version?

Likely several versions wont have a turret like the command and engineer models. I would expect the APC model to have a small turret ring with a remote weapon system like a 40mm grenade launcher or Kord mounted on it.

as well as artillery guns with a caliber up to 122 millimeters.

I suspect they will adopt the 120mm rifled gun/mortar to replace the 122mm artillery... they are already replacing the 122mm gun on the 2S1 with the 120mm rifled gun/mortar to create the 2S34 Hosta, so it would be a step backwards to reintroduce the 122mm gun for Kurganets and Boomerang brigades.

Note the 120mm gun mortar has similar range to the 122mm gun but can fire a much wider range of round types including guided missiles and guided shells, so they are not losing anything in terms of firepower by going to 120mm.

I tough when I sow they will place engine and transmission to the front that it will not be able to cross water obstacles, but it seems

that they did managed to keep buoyancy.

I suspect they managed it by giving the vehicle heavier side armour, more exotic lighter frontal armour, and likely an armoured heavy ramp rear door and operating mechanism.

Also keep in mind that a large engine bay does not equate to a heavy engine/transmission.

I would expect they allowed for growth potential as new add on armour kits will make the vehicle heavier over its operational life, so room in the engine bay would make things easier... the sort of thing you can allow for when you are designing from scratch and have an clean sheet.

Another very interesting article from Gur Khan attacks!

There is one eye catching quote in line with what GarryB has being saying.

The concept of modernization BMP

LINK

"That technique, which today is in the military, obsolete, this BMP-1 and BMP-2. But it would be irrational to give it up at all, because there is the possibility of its continued efficient operation of the troops. We offer the option of upgrading the machines with the installation of these complex "Berezhok" Given our positive experience. In PMA was manufactured and delivered more than 400 foreign customer product BMP-2M "Berezhok." This beautiful, highly commercially-established technique proved itself a foreign customer. That is, most of our technical solutions are already being conducted, which eliminates the risks of development. We propose a new image of the combat vehicle with a new high-performance weapons: artillery - is a 57 mm cannon and rocket - ATGM "Kornet-EM . "

And the quote I find most interesting (from the same link)

It is suggested by Shipunov to use besides automatic gun, two types of guided wepons

- heavy ATGM for tanks/defenses/helicopters
- light and cheap guided weapons for lightly armored and unarmored vehicles, fire points in buildings etc

AG Shipunov detailed the participants to the concept of building a promising weapon system for BMP, reiterating that an effective way to ensure the effective implementation of the combat mission is the application of the fittest for their decisions - guided weapons on targets that have significant vertical projection, and automatic guns Ballistics grenade to destroy manpower. In this guided weapons should be of two types: heavy ("Kornet-EM") to engage all types of tanks, powerful defenses and helicopters at maximum range, and easy and cheap to mass destruction lightly armored and unarmored military vehicles, field fortifications, fire points in buildings, modern tanks, etc.

So it seems they are going with the larger 57mm gun as opposed to the 45mm. Still waiting on telescopic rounds.

The Kornet-EM is the obvious choice, but any idea what the other "light, and cheap" weapon could be? A vehicle based thermobaric missile? I'm kind of confused about this, considering a 57mm gun would be adequate for everything short of a tank.

I rather suspect what they are talking about is guided 57mm shells as being the light guided round. If the vehicle had laser guided 57mm shells and Kornet-EM, then the Kornet-EM would be the heavy guided missile for use against tanks, while the other point targets that need a guided projectile to engage like aircraft or sniper position at long range, or ATGM team or enemy point target like a light vehicle then a guided 57mm round would suffice.

I very much hope that the 57mm round they are talking about has been replaced by a 57mm telescoped round of compact design that can be stored and handled under armour by automated ammo handling systems more easily than the old 57mm shells of the S-60 anti aircraft systems.

The larger calibre should allow for more effective guided shells and also enormous potential for the APFSDS rounds and standard HE shells this cannon will fire. Later in life it could perhaps be expanded to a 65mm calibre for even better performance when needed.

The implications are interesting because with laser guided shells then such a cannon could replace the currently used 30mm cannon and use shell weight and guidance accuracy to compensate for lower rate of fire. The result should be much higher hit rate, less wasted ammo and lower ammo expenditure during a given engagement. As design of the guided round improves it can become more effective over time with higher ceiling and range and of course it can be effective against point targets on the ground too.

An effective answer to a swarm attack could be 10-15 IFVs equipped with 57mm guns firing 120-240 guided shells per minute... an APHE shell would be very effective against most light vehicles...

considering a 57mm gun would be adequate for everything short of a tank.

With modern ammo even the old 57mm design should be able to penetrate most modern tanks from the side and rear.

The advantage of 57mm ammo is that the Navy uses it widely too, so development of guided rounds can be shared.

I would hope, as I mention above, that they spend the money and develop a new telescoped case 57mm round that is powerful but also compact and easy to handle/load.

It would be very useful on land and at sea and for the next generation CAS aircraft to replace the Su-25SM it would be a very interesting weapon for tank busting in a HVAPFSDS round... though firing sabot rounds from an aircraft would be problematic in terms of sabot material entering the engine intakes...