Russia Arms Expo 2013

We had three great arms show in Russia this year. This is last but not the least !

So post pictures and videos of event.

Wheeled Boomerang  

lol
dafuq?

That's not Boomerang but VBCI with Russian 57mm gun...

What a weird vehicle....

As Sa'iqa wrote:That's not Boomerang but VBCI with Russian 57mm gun...

Whole turret is a Russian make, and apparently the "angled-look" compared to VCBI is due to mockup additional armor.

Gives a good idea of hos big a 57mm turret is though. Not sure how much space it leaves for full infantry compliment.

EDIT: THey mentioned recently French-Russian IFV cooperation, but was never clear if they meant VCBI with Bachka-U or something else. Interesting that the relationship seems to be well in order.

Any info about it? Why it will be shown in first place?

It's way too gigantic for comfort
An IFV should not be bigger than a tank!

It looks like they're going with the 57mm for the IFVs.

The ammo storage does worry me. Keep in mind that the turrets on the new vehicles are unmanned, and the space normally occupied by the commander and gunner will be used for additional ammo.

IMO, on these smaller IFVs with limited space for passengers, a bustle magazine should be used.

First of all this vehicle is a mockup of a joint French Russian vehicle.

Second don't be fooled by the sleeve over the gun... look at the end of the gun... I think this is not the 57mm gun... I suspect this is the 45mm gun, which has new modern compact ammo.

Third, with the enemy either having modern fire control systems the only advantage of being smaller target is steeply angled armour offering better protection.

I suspect a much larger vehicle with more comfort and grow potential actually makes more sense.

Sure, you are a larger target for dumb unguided weapons, but the height should translate into better safety from mines and ieds and the taller vehicle should be more comfortable for the troops... there is no point in delivering battered and bruised troops, though making it too comfortable they might not want to leave the armour.

These vehicles are medium brigade vehicles that will rely on speed and firepower... they are not defensive... they are attack dogs.

The only negative aspect is potential for rolling... against RPGs there is already ARENA, so Standard and Afghanistan should be able to deal with them.

An IFV should not be bigger than a tank!

The Bradley is miles bigger than a T-72 in terms of height.

The boomerang IFV and APC will likely be very similar in size to the boomerang MBT when we see them that is.  

It has a strong resemblance to the CGI model of the 57mm turret upgrade for the PT-76.



The reason the  gun on the actual PT-76/57 looks different is because that's a modified S-60.
Ammo count is 85 rounds.

GarryB wrote:Third, with the enemy either having modern fire control systems

I'm probably making a big mistake but I'll have to completely disagree with you here  

Modern FCS or no modern FCS, no weapon is 100% accurate or its projectiles guaranteed to hit exactly where they're targeted; especially in rapid or burst fire. A smaller target equals a smaller chance of being hit, as simple as that.
While this may be less of an argument for MBTs which would by and large only be vulnerable to weapons that don't have burst or rapid fire capability and often have great density with very high velocities or guided propulsion and would thus not be affected nor by dispersal nor by wind or other weather conditions; an IFV like this one would still be vulnerable to bursts from 20mm, 23mm, 30mm, 45mm, 57mm auto-cannons and such that have some amount of dispersal; thus the IFV being of a smaller size and profile would ensure that less projectiles land on it.

It's also a key point that not all such weaponry that an IFV like this one would be vulnerable to would have modern FCS anyway. A Zu-23-2 with a basic optical sight should do the trick against this vehicle from a kilometer away with a burst against its flank from a concealed position; and its height and length will definitely not work to its advantage under this scenario.

the only advantage of being smaller target is steeply angled armour offering better protection.

Not to mention that with a shorter vehicle you can have the vehicle more densely armoured/protected for the same overall weight.

Sure, you are a larger target for dumb unguided weapons,

This too.

but the height should translate into better safety from mines and ieds and the taller vehicle should be more comfortable for the troops...

Comfort and mine-protection is nice, but it's more of a priority for MRAP vehicles that would be employed in COIN warfare and facing insurgency tactics along their regular patrol routes.
IFVs are going to be invading by hopefully unexpected routes and will try and avoid minefields.
Of course you could use IFVs as MRAPs, facing IEDs and mines along roads in conquered territory and so on.. but you're probably better off using dedicated MRAPs for that.

For IFVs mobility, protection and the capability to support their dismounted troops with considerable firepower are the priorities.
I think Russian IFV tactics call for the IFV to skip from cover to cover while following behind the squad; much like an individual infantryman does.
With this vehicle's excessive height, it will find more trouble finding suitable mounds and rubble and so on that it successively park itself behind to maximise its protection and concealment as the infantry ahead of it continue to advance.
Although if the turret is unmanned, then perhaps this is not important.

there is no point in delivering battered and bruised troops, though making it too comfortable they might not want to leave the armour.

Like I said, comfort is nice, but it hardly takes pride of place on the mantlepiece. It's something that may have to be sacrificed if it means a more survivable and effective IFV.

The reason the gun on the actual PT-76/57 looks different is because that's a modified S-60.
Ammo count is 85 rounds.

I just don't think you can conclusively say it is definitely 57mm in absence of any photos of what the 45mm looks like.

Remember a while back we had photos of what was described as 57mm guns in a factory lying on the floor... they had a significant muzzle brake fitted to them...

Of course it being a joint Russian French vehicle I could see why the Russians might want to arm it with a 57mm gun they can provide old ammo stocks to support to third world countries already using the S-60 gun.

Look at the sight... this is a plywood mockup made in a few months I doubt the gun is even real.

Modern FCS or no modern FCS, no weapon is 100% accurate or its projectiles guaranteed to hit exactly where they're targeted; especially in rapid or burst fire. A smaller target equals a smaller chance of being hit, as simple as that.

For dumb cheap weapons fired by third world insurgents with no superpower support. Against a modern enemy with abundant guided munitions... size is less of an issue.

an IFV like this one would still be vulnerable to bursts from 20mm, 23mm, 30mm, 45mm, 57mm auto-cannons and such that have some amount of dispersal; thus the IFV being of a smaller size and profile would ensure that less projectiles land on it.

If these vehicles are no seriously resistent to 35mm rounds then they are not doing their job.

A Zu-23-2 with a basic optical sight should do the trick against this vehicle from a kilometer away with a burst against its flank from a concealed position; and its height and length will definitely not work to its advantage under this scenario.

At a distance of 1km those 23mm shells will be rather randomly distributed, and I agree that hits are more likely with a larger target, but with the new soldier equipment being developed a tiny little BMP or BTR is just not going to cut it unless you want to have state of the Ark APCS (ie carrying soldiers two by two).

Again... this is a French/Russian collaboration... not Boomerang... western forces have had 3m tall IFVs for some time and they don't seem more prone to being hit by enemy fire than Soviet vehicles.

And again... guided weapons.

Of course you could use IFVs as MRAPs, facing IEDs and mines along roads in conquered territory and so on.. but you're probably better off using dedicated MRAPs for that.

I would think engineer anti mine vehicles would be rather more suitable than any type of MRAP.

For IFVs mobility, protection and the capability to support their dismounted troops with considerable firepower are the priorities.
I think Russian IFV tactics call for the IFV to skip from cover to cover while following behind the squad; much like an individual infantryman does.
With this vehicle's excessive height, it will find more trouble finding suitable mounds and rubble and so on that it successively park itself behind to maximise its protection and concealment as the infantry ahead of it continue to advance.
Although if the turret is unmanned, then perhaps this is not important.

Well... haven't you just given a solid reason in support of my view?

Certainly the IFV will use cover, but it also needs clear lines of fire to engage enemy forces and support its troops... being an unmanned turret exposure is not that big a deal...

Not that they should make 5m tall IFVs...

Like I said, comfort is nice, but it hardly takes pride of place on the mantlepiece. It's something that may have to be sacrificed if it means a more survivable and effective IFV.

Being able to fit all the troops and all their kit so the soldiers can sit with their packs on and weapons ready to fight rather than with their kit strapped on top of the vehicle is a good thing.

GarryB wrote:First of all this vehicle is a mockup of a joint French Russian vehicle.

GarryB wrote:Again... this is a French/Russian collaboration... not Boomerang... .

Are you totally sure GarryB of that ?

Entire aft section and middle and upper body frame is completely different from the French vehicle.....  

GarryB wrote:Third, with the enemy either having modern fire control systems the only advantage of being smaller target is steeply angled armour offering better protection.

GarryB wrote:......western forces have had 3m tall IFVs for some time and they don't seem more prone to being hit by enemy fire than Soviet vehicles

In fully mobile offensive/defensive large scale engagements at medium range -1500-2000 m - against enemy IFVs and MBT employing today unguided rounds   (mostly KE APFSDS with today level of muzzle velocity) a sensible reduction of target area (in particular in silhouette's height) lead to a significant reduction of the number of Hits - up to 25-30 %- independently from enemy  FCS sophistication.

What just said mean that a significant percentage of blue's fire power continue to achieve attrition on enemy vehicles leading ,at its own time, to the achievement of a progressively faster numerical and fire power's overmatch on enemy units as the engagement evolve subordinately to the time function..

Those kind of compromise choices in IFV's design has been lately dictated mostly by anti-mine/IED reasons ( even few centimeters of distance from ground ,in a V-shaped bottom, generate an huge reduction on the main fraction of explosive-generated energy acting on the hull's bottom and its angle of incidence ).

The 3 m high silhouette western design would be not merely more prone ,but enormously more prone to being hit by unguided IFV and MBT's enemy fire in mobile large scale ground engagements ,at medium/long range, in comparison to IFV such as BMP-2/3, the leading idea behind this design choice has been produced mostly by the belief that such large scale engagements against very powerful enemies would be immensely less probable than a small scale regional conflict against enemy insurgents employing mostly IED and ambush .    

TR1 wrote: the "angled-look" compared to VCBI is due to mockup additional armor.

Instead to me it appear that any element of the vehicle (turret facet shaping , gun barrel coverage,  hull side and upper body inclination etc...) all converge toward a design clearly optimized for RCS reduction in the high frequency scattering regime an for magnification of ground clutter screening from airborne-based radar sensors.

Boomerang looks something like this as displayed in official picture



So I am not certain if what we are looking is Boomerang

It better not be

Some more info related to the turret.

http://s018.radikal.ru/i528/1309/93/e421f5bd2f4f.jpg

57mm APFSDS in the works.

http://s5.uploads.ru/gQr7Z.jpg

It isnt boomerang but some sort of weird looking vehicle made as JV between Russia and France.

I would love to see the BMPT with the 57mm.....

sepheronx wrote:It isnt boomerang but some sort of weird looking vehicle made as JV between Russia and France.

For example, as far as I know, in Tagil will be shown a concept of a new Russian-French machine it was designed for just four months. Yes, it's just a concept car, but it affects the speed with which it was created. Yes

(director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies Ruslan Pukhov)

LINK

It is Vextra chassis with Russian turret as some guy on MP pointed.

xeno wrote:
It is Vextra chassis with Russian turret as some guy on MP pointed.

14.5mm or 23mm?

TR1 wrote:I would love to see the BMPT with the 57mm.....

Armata BTR would have 12.7, 14.5, or 23mm main guns.

Armata BMP would use the 57mm.

Armata BMPT will either have twin 30's or the 120mm & GSh-23-6, depending on what the army chooses for the production model.

Are you totally sure GarryB of that ?

Read this thread:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?230601-Russia-Arms-Expo-%28RAE%29-2013-in-Nizhnyj-Tagil/page2

Particularly post # 28.

Entire aft section and middle and upper body frame is completely different from the French vehicle.....

I said it was a joint French/Russian vehicle... I didn't say it was a Russian turret on a French chassis.

In fully mobile offensive/defensive large scale engagements at medium range -1500-2000 m - against enemy IFVs and MBT employing today unguided rounds (mostly KE APFSDS with today level of muzzle velocity) a sensible reduction of target area (in particular in silhouette's height) lead to a significant reduction of the number of Hits - up to 25-30 %- independently from enemy FCS sophistication.

A well designed medium armoured vehicle should be protected over its frontal 60 degree arc out to about 1,500m from that sort of ammo, so getting hit with 25-30% more projectiles should not result in a penetration.

What just said mean that a significant percentage of blue's fire power continue to achieve attrition on enemy vehicles leading ,at its own time, to the achievement of a progressively faster numerical and fire power's overmatch on enemy units as the engagement evolve subordinately to the time function..

High velocity darts penetrating the turret will not effect the performance of this vehicle... whatever it is... assuming the turret is unmanned.

The 3 m high silhouette western design would be not merely more prone ,but enormously more prone to being hit by unguided IFV and MBT's enemy fire in mobile large scale ground engagements ,at medium/long range, in comparison to IFV such as BMP-2/3, the leading idea behind this design choice has been produced mostly by the belief that such large scale engagements against very powerful enemies would be immensely less probable than a small scale regional conflict against enemy insurgents employing mostly IED and ambush Wink.

Small compact designs limit the choice as to where ammo and fuel and personel can be placed... smaller targets are therefore high density targets where a penetrating hit is more likely to hit crew or ammo or fuel leading to casualties.

I do appreciate that making a vehicle a huge target is not desirable in itself, but making it comfortable to operate in and able to store all the items needed operationally are more important IMHO.

all converge toward a design clearly optimized for RCS reduction in the high frequency scattering regime an for magnification of ground clutter screening from airborne-based radar sensors.

That will be a consideration too... any vehicle entering Russian Military service will likely be anti radar and anti IIR coated to minimise signature.

14.5mm or 23mm?

Based on the muzzle flash hider and barrel length I would say for certain it is 23mm... more precisely 23 x 152mm as used on the ZU-23 and ZSU-23-4... a very powerful high velocity round for anti armour and anti aircraft use.

Armata BTR would have 12.7, 14.5, or 23mm main guns.

Armata BMP would use the 57mm.

Armata BMPT will either have twin 30's or the 120mm & GSh-23-6, depending on what the army chooses for the production model.

Yes, or to translate it into vehicle classes... the APC model Armata will have HMG to light cannon armament... ie 12.7/14.5/23/30mm cannon plus likely lots of MGs and of course grenade launchers likely in 40mm calibre like the new Balkan.
The IFV model Armata needs to deal with enemy IFVs which might start off requiring a 57mm (30mm is already inadequate with several western IFVs), but may eventually require 125mm smoothbore to take on tank based IFVs.
The BMPT is a firepower vehicle used for anti ambush against a range of infantry targets... the old armament of two 30mm cannon would be an option, though I greatly prefer heavier firepower in the form of a high rate of fire cannon and a heavy cannon for harder targets... a 23mm 6 barrel rotary cannon and a 120mm gun/mortar fill that niche very effectively... especially with guided missile rounds able to engage targets at extended ranges.