Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #1

Which warheads are you talking about? One of the few Western ATGMS that seems to require a proper "standoff distance" is the I-TOW, but this missile is not going to be hitting the slat armour but going above it.

They are fairly easy to spot as they normally have rear mounted main HEAT charges or extended nose probes.

Just compare the old AT-3 with the upgraded AT-3...

In terms of RPGs, have you ever thought about why it was necessary to have the almost hollow frontal cone in front of the copper cone? Apart from decreasing the aerodynamic drag on the warhead and being the mounting point for the fuze, it is primarily required to provide the space for the cumulative jet to coalesce properly

If I didn't think of that why would I suggest that slat armour crushing the said portion would defeat the warhead by putting something solid where the jet is supposed to form...

In fact, if you look at the cross-sections of all HEAT warheads, you will be able to see that requisite distance taken into account in all of them. Hence, I cannot see how the penetrative power of a cumulative jet is going to be affected by the slat since there will always be the minimum requisite distance for effective jet formation (ie. the frontal cone) present.

As i mentioned it is optimised for rockets with their fuses in their nose tips... if the tip hits the slat then the jet is formed early a distance from the main armour, if it goes between the slats then the chances of it failing to detonate at all is greatly increased while the area where the jet is formed is damaged with the crushed nose components of the rocket and the slats that crushed the nose components forming barriers to the proper formation of the jet.

If all you plan to use the Strykers+slat for is to crush piss-poor durka durkas during policing duties in third world shitholes, be my guest.

Ummm who said Boomerang is a Stryker?

Is the Armata tank an M60A3 by any chance?

This is why I call slat armour "anachronistic", and with good reasons.

yeah... nobody in their right might would use slat armour in this day and age... it is useless sht...

https://i.servimg.com/u/f19/17/78/62/48/armata10.png

Either way, I understand perfectly what you are trying to say, however the RPG design already has that minimum standoff distance built in so your point is rendered moot.

My point is that for a significant percentage of the time slat armour will dud many HEAT charges on impact, and for the rest of the time it will change the standoff distance the main warhead is fired from which will also effect penetration for a relatively low cost.

Either way, I understand perfectly what you are trying to say, however the RPG design already has that minimum standoff distance built in so your point is rendered moot.

Experience has shown that no one technology will provide the holy grail of perfect protection.

Layers and a range of different technologies are needed and will be used to support other methods to keep the crew and troops safe.

If you are going to hang skirt armour on the side of a Boomerang then why not start with an outer slat layer... at the very worst it would be something to tie foliage to to camouflage the vehicle... and to get a hand grip to climb on and off the vehicle. the next layer could be ERA and then a core of NERA and then an inner layer of ERA and then a half metre air gap to the wheels to allow plenty of room so clogging is not a problem.

Armata still uses slat armour at its rear... why shouldn't boomerang?

77rus.smugmug.com/Military/April-22th-Alabino/i-QLBTv25/0/O/Alabino220415part2-51.jpg

If you download it to your computer and click on the Host an image button above the text area when posting images. Use the browse button and find the image on your HD and let it resize it to 800 x 600 and then click the button to upload. It will create three links of code... select the middle one and paste it into your post and click the upload button.

To get rid of the pop up box just click the image host button again and it toggles away.

Slat is helping the Ukrops win battles and escape ambushes and...oh wait.

Slat is good for low intensity conflict, and is essentially a D-System. As soon as the conflict gets hotter it isn't that effective and becomes in some cases an hazard.

Ukraine being case in point. And Slat has been erased from the most part from the IDF, who relies exclusively on NERA/ERA + Trophy. The SLATS are kept mostly for the Bulldozers.

Slat is a cheap trick, and the Russians are just mimicking the trend (although they were the pioneers see the signature) on their tanks.

Slat armor has its use, but very limited, look at T-15 where the T-14 has slat armor around its engine and exhausts, T-15 has NERA/ERA tiles which will protect the engine for more effecient, so the decision for Armata slat armor around its engine is because the engine is facing backwards where attacks are less likely so they try to safe money with low cost low effecient slat armor rather than ERA/NERA tiles.

Werewolf wrote:Slat armor has its use, but very limited, look at T-15 where the T-14 has slat armor around its engine and exhausts, T-15 has NERA/ERA tiles which will protect the engine for more effecient, so the decision for Armata slat armor around its engine is because the engine is facing backwards where attacks are less likely so they try to safe money with low cost low effecient slat armor rather than ERA/NERA tiles.

Yes, usage of slat armour on MBTs is a way to substitute a much cheaper armour solution and one that does not weight as much per square meter of "protection" (than, say ERA/NERA) for areas that have statistically low chances of getting hit during combat.

On a lighter AFV, slat armour was typically used because the cost of the alternative is a very sizeable chunk of the cost of the entire vehicle and because of very limited weight allowances of the suspension/engine in the lighter chassis. Also, having some added protection, no matter how questionable, is better than nothing (there is also the positive effect on crew/passenger morale).

However, with the advent of inexpensive and reliable APS and ERA/NERA modules as evidenced by Kurganets, as well as the improved engine power and suspension of the new wheeled Boomerang chassis (which provides substantially more weight allowance for additional armour solutions), I don't see why adding slat armour to the vulnerable sides of such a vehicle instead of the more effective alternatives is even necessary anymore. Sure, stick a slat on the dismount ramp, but leave the rest to the ERA/NERA/APS big boys.

Slapping slat armour on top of the ERA/NERA modules is also sub-optimal, since that weight allowance could be more effectively put to use to defend not only against ancient rpgs, but also against contemporary kinetic and chemical penetrators of the likely peer adversary (modern rpgs+autocannons). The weight allowance of the slat armour can be used to improve the ERA/NERA modules by implementing additional layers/better geometry/etc or increasing the coverage and effectiveness of APS by installing more sensors and/or charges.

Made a quick comparison from this video.

Nice work.

As an ass man, that is a nice looking rear.

Few questions:

1. Why do we have IFVs and APCs in the same family, and how many dismount soldiers the IFV can carry?

2. Way the Kurganets has huge side armor, is it a combination of ERA and NERA?

AJ-47 wrote:Few questions:

1. Why do we have IFVs and APCs in the same family, and how many dismount soldiers the IFV can carry?

One reason maybe that the BTR (APC) would provide better amphibious capability for groupings that need that capability, including for the naval infantry.

The other reason would only apply clearly if the BMP (IFV) turret was hull-penetrating. In that case, the BTR (APC) version could be used to provide extra space for weapon teams like shoulder-fired SAM teams, as in the case of three vehicles that carry the nine two-man SAM teams of the battalion's air defense platoon.

2. Way the Kurganets has huge side armor, is it a combination of ERA and NERA?

For an amphibious vehicle, especially for a front-engined one, it is important for the side armor to provide extra buoyancy, so that may be one of the reasons.

Regarding slat armour... guess we will have to agree to disagree... if it is no better than nothing why have it covering the engine area on tanks?

1. Why do we have IFVs and APCs in the same family, and how many dismount soldiers the IFV can carry?

there are four new vehicle families... Armata is the heavy tracked vehicle family, the Kurganets is the medium weight tracked vehicle family, the Boomerang is the medium weight wheeled vehicle family and the Typhoon is the light weight wheeled vehicle family.

Right now there are two types of Division in the Russian Army.. the Motor Rifle (ie infantry) division, and the Tank division.

In the future there will be one heavy type of each division (motor rifle and tank) with armata vehicles, and two types of medium of each division (ie wheeled and tracked... so four different types consisting of medium wheeled and medium tracked Motor Rifle, and medium wheeled and medium tracked tank), plus one type of division ( motor rifle and tank) with Typhoon vehicles being the light brigades.

Right now a division has MBT based vehicles like the T-72 and T-90, and also MSTA and various bridging vehicles as well as BMPs and BTRs and MTLB based vehicles including ambulance vehicles and command vehicles like ACRV, and indeed engineer vehicles... in fact dozens of different types with different engines, different transmisions, different wheels, different tracks, different levels of protection and different levels of mobility... some float, some snorkel.

The armata division will have 30 different types of armata vehicle from tank to IFV and APC and air defence vehicle to artillery. A motor rifle armata division will have three units of IFVs and one of tanks, and an anti tank battalion with Krisanetma. A tank armata division will have one unit of IFVs and two or three tank units.

The kurganets division will have 30 different types of Kurganets vehicles... the equipment and sensors are unified so a Boomerang gun vehicle will have the same optics and sensors and gun as the armata tank... all the crew positions across all the vehicles will be standard so you can get into an armata tank and sit in any of the three crew seats and drive the vehicle and control the gun and communicate with HQ. With three guys in the vehicle they can swap roles without moving from their seats. It will be the same for all including boomerang, kurganets, and typhoon... standard controls and standard screens.

The purpose is to decrease the logistics tail to the minimum to make the groups as mobile as possible without redundancy and duplication... only need spare parts for one type of engine rather than ten... and when the vehicles operate they all will have similar mobility and similar levels of protection.

It's nice to see both APC and IFV versions of Boomerang vehicles. At first I was thinking it will be only APC.

Walkarounds for Ob.693 and Ob.695.

http://walkarounds.scalemodels.ru/v/walkarounds/afv/after_1950/

Nice pics, guys. Keep em coming!
Regarding slat, well it's "breath trough" protection too


It's cumbersome and dangerous if You apply it on deathtraps like BTR-80/BTR-3/BTR-4 where they interfere with hatches or decrease vehicles mobility.
Russians on other hand seem to have more sensible approach.

So far, I am more impressed visually by the IFVs and APCs than Armata honestly :O .

Kurganets just looks right.

TR1 wrote:So far, I am more impressed visually by the IFVs and APCs than Armata honestly :O .

Kurganets just looks right.

Yes, looks pretty polished, but i still expect they will hang it like a tree with more APS and i do hope with ERA tiles aswell, because those NERA tiles won't cut it against RPG's and Tandem shaped charges.

Has anyone estimated the height of Boomrang? That thing looks really tall, almost the height of Ural Typhoons..

2.5/2.7m according to some.

BTW a I'm really at odds with the rolling train of the Boomerang. Kamaz 63969 had a very promising suspension set and from what I see it looks like a reinforced BTR-90 suspension set was used. Anyway what happened to the 2T Stalker? The design seemed pretty good including the turret execution.

Anyway what happened to the 2T Stalker? The design seemed pretty good including the turret execution. wrote:

It was created by Belorussia, not RF.
I don't think they went anywhere further than some prototypes.

Bolt wrote:
It was created by Belorussia, not RF.
I don't think they went anywhere further than some prototypes.

I know about it being Belorussian, but the Chassis was good, simple and the turret really impressive. The only drawback was the engine and gearbox, being US and German.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Bolt wrote:
It was created by Belorussia, not RF.
I don't think they went anywhere further than some prototypes.

I know about it being Belorussian, but the Chassis was good, simple and the turret really impressive. The only drawback was the engine and gearbox, being US and German.

TL; DR - too expensive and not particularly needed.

flamming_python wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Bolt wrote:
It was created by Belorussia, not RF.
I don't think they went anywhere further than some prototypes.

I know about it being Belorussian, but the Chassis was good, simple and the turret really impressive. The only drawback was the engine and gearbox, being US and German.

TL; DR - too expensive and not particularly needed.

Pointless when that BMP-3 reco vehicle existed.

TR1 wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Bolt wrote:
It was created by Belorussia, not RF.
I don't think they went anywhere further than some prototypes.

I know about it being Belorussian, but the Chassis was good, simple and the turret really impressive. The only drawback was the engine and gearbox, being US and German.

TL; DR - too expensive and not particularly needed.

Pointless when that BMP-3 reco vehicle existed.

Yet 15 years later Russia is about to field same tonnage class vehicles, with generally same firepower. There were good solid ideas, but MIC being MIC like everywhere.

Stalker.... seemed to me to be trying to be everything to everyone... I mean... Igla, and Ataka... and UAVs and ground based unmanned vehicles... it just seems to be something a Tigr should be doing in the guise of an IFV.

GarryB wrote:Stalker.... seemed to me to be trying to be everything to everyone... I mean... Igla, and Ataka... and UAVs and ground based unmanned vehicles... it just seems to be something a Tigr should be doing in the guise of an IFV.

Indeed, but it was "ze future". It even had Swedish camo...

Anyway, the turret was very interesting with a complete array of weapons and rather contained weight and volume/size.