Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

Cyrus the great wrote:

Werewolf wrote:It is called GSh-23L or BMPT and they suffer the same problem from bad fixation of the gun barrels which start flexing.

So the KPV-14.5  might be the better choice. It's still a very powerful round, especially if it's only going to be used against infantry and lightly armoured vehicles, has a good range and would allow for more ammo.

No, it wouldn't. lightly armored to be penetrated by this calibre means nothing more armored than a Hummvee or BTR-60 side armor other than that almost every Light armored vehicle has more than enough armor to sustain or at least deflect ammunition at range of this calibre.

23mm or 30mm are a necessity due the targets resilience and 14.5mm are not more effective for this job and barely and 20mm are enough.

Werewolf wrote:
No, it wouldn't. lightly armored to be penetrated by this calibre means nothing more armored than a Hummvee or BTR-60 side armor other than that almost every Light armored vehicle has more than enough armor to sustain or at least deflect ammunition at range of this calibre.

23mm or 30mm are a necessity due the targets resilience and 14.5mm are not more effective for this job and barely and 20mm are enough.

I was thinking that the 57mm gun could deal with the heavy armour while the 14.5mm deals primarily with infantry, but since this round doesn't have the ability to use air-burst rounds, it might not be quite as useful. How many 30mm rounds could each side mounted autocannon hold on the Armata? I'm hoping that the guns can hold a total of 500 rounds.

Cyrus the great wrote:

Werewolf wrote:
No, it wouldn't. lightly armored to be penetrated by this calibre means nothing more armored than a Hummvee or BTR-60 side armor other than that almost every Light armored vehicle has more than enough armor to sustain or at least deflect ammunition at range of this calibre.

23mm or 30mm are a necessity due the targets resilience and 14.5mm are not more effective for this job and barely and 20mm are enough.

I was thinking that the 57mm gun could deal with the heavy armour while the 14.5mm deals primarily with infantry, but since this round doesn't have the ability to use air-burst rounds, it might not be quite as useful. How many 30mm rounds could each side mounted autocannon hold on the Armata? I'm hoping that the guns can hold a total of 500 rounds.

500 is too much for vehicle that is not mainly used for air defence. I guess you could expect 125-150 per side if such idea becomes reality at all. Mi28 is carrying 250 for an example so i assume they would just modify magazines used there 1 per side.

Militarov wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:

Werewolf wrote:
No, it wouldn't. lightly armored to be penetrated by this calibre means nothing more armored than a Hummvee or BTR-60 side armor other than that almost every Light armored vehicle has more than enough armor to sustain or at least deflect ammunition at range of this calibre.

23mm or 30mm are a necessity due the targets resilience and 14.5mm are not more effective for this job and barely and 20mm are enough.

I was thinking that the 57mm gun could deal with the heavy armour while the 14.5mm deals primarily with infantry, but since this round doesn't have the ability to use air-burst rounds, it might not be quite as useful. How many 30mm rounds could each side mounted autocannon hold on the Armata? I'm hoping that the guns can hold a total of 500 rounds.

500 is too much for vehicle that is not mainly used for air defence. I guess you could expect 125-150 per side if such idea becomes reality at all. Mi28 is carrying 250 for an example so i assume they would just modify magazines used there 1 per side.

Thanks, mate. A total of 300 rounds would still be pretty good. The ability to use air-burst rounds should obviate the need for a lot of ammo.

Mindstorm wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote: I liked how some of the initial renderings of the T-14 Armata had autocannons on the side

Early rendering of the MBT version of Armata will likely be much near to final product than product seen in march last year   in particular an autocannon (30 mm ,not 20 mm, and with the entire ammo stock composed of programable air-burst rounds) with main anti-infantry and anti-PGM/UAV tasks will be likely integrated.

Interesting. Looking at the T-14 in the parade vs the early rendering, my thinking was that the greater height of the turret was for perspective/situational awareness reasons. The 'commander's view' from the top of the turret is not available anymore, so putting a camera nice and high seems like a very good idea.

Looking at this:




vs this:



I think I would have more to fear as an infantryman trying to sneak past or sneak up to the second one. The swiveling camera + 7.62mm machine gun on a high vantage point should make spotting and killing things at close range much easier. And in some circumstances where the first tank will be totally blinded by terrain or overgrowth, the second tank will retain situational awareness and, in its immediate vicinity, combat potency.

What I would do to the first tank is replace that small camera tower in the middle of the turret with the parade tank's higher vantage point camera + machine gun combination. Then perhaps there wouldn't be a need for the multi-barrel coaxial machine gun - though that might still be useful as a kind of tank-CIWS, who knows.

The turret of the CGI based Armata is among the best ways of how to protect a turret. The T-90A/SM already have among the best turret shapes for protection/projection there is and the Burlak/Proriv and Black Eagle based concepts are certainly great and far better turret shapes than any other tank.

KiloGolf wrote:So what you're saying is that IFVs will go the Bushmaster III (50 mm) and -IV (40 mm) way and equivalents in post-USSR space.

Imagine you mean the opposite, isn't ?

50 mm for Bushmaster III ......and here we could start a long discussion on the caliber and metrics of the chain gun that should shot this...... "50 mm" round, admiting that we can really name in this way the "50 mm SuperShot" round, moreover still today in the developing stage.....have Anti-Air/PGM planned performance level much lower than even the gun already offered for export today for BMP-3 new iterations and ATOM program.

Much more simply : no weapon developer in the west has today the technology to develop, even in the middle term, a working high ROF gun for LAVs, with its entire ammunition complement ,in a caliber near to a true 57 mm gun ; that for the mere reason that they do not own the experimentally established and tested historical know-how for theirs design, production and refinement.

For this reason they are forced to bend toward "hybrid" solutions that have nothing to do with the parameters offered by guns and rounds in this caliber.

KiloGolf wrote:
I agree, but having said that, I cannot see how this brings the cost down.

This solution do not bring the cost of the platform down, instead it increase of several times the costs of practically any system employed in future battlefield by the enemy to cope with mechanized ground forces (that is : short range mini-UAV, surveillance UAVs, UCAVs, glide bombs, air to ground missiles, ATGM, helicopters, LAVs, bunkers and fortifications and so on....) to prevent that those offensive and ISR systems would suddenly shift in the almost complete irrelevance.

KiloGolf wrote:
So in the end a 50 mm autocannon with autocorrected projectiles that can hit a UAV at 1km afar (ca. 5000 ft) is not panacea, nor a game changer

Maybe that this abortion of "50mm" round, if we can name so a "bloated" round, horribly engineered to impossibly match with 35 mm guns (with the effects easily foreseeable for its aerodynamic and ballistic performances) will not be a panacea against UAVs in the EAPS program.


To the contrary, even the today export oriented БМП-3М-57 Деривацияm, with sensibly reduced performances ion respect to what will be mounted on the new generation platforms and obviously not capable to capitalize even half the potential of today 57 mm caliber guns would offer that :

Did anyone hear any news about Boomerang APC?

Anything at all? Whole thing pretty much disappeared.

PapaDragon wrote:
Did anyone hear any news about Boomerang APC?

Anything at all? Whole thing pretty much disappeared.

Whut? The Boomerang APC is on like Donkey Kong. It will have the 12.7 HMG on RCT.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Did anyone hear any news about Boomerang APC?

Anything at all? Whole thing pretty much disappeared.

Whut? The Boomerang APC is on like Donkey Kong. It will have the 12.7 HMG on RCT.

I know it's on. I was just asking about news, pictures, videos, etc....

Armata has loads of it , Kurganets also but Boomerang not so much. Photo here and there would be nice.

@Garry just curiosity is more flat chassis of tracked platform better for buoyancy? US Marines opt for tracked option for EFV

Anyway I look forward to see prototype



In Russia began testing the latest BTR "Boomerang"

Moscow, 8 February 2016, 10:46 — REGNUM, the General Director of "Military-industrial company" Alexander krasovitskiy in an interview with RIA Novosti said on 8 February about the beginning of preliminary tests of the newest armoured troop-carrier "boomerang".
According to him, the "Boomerang" involving more than 40 leading enterprises of Russia, but the bulk of the work over the machine of a new generation performs "Military-industrial company".

http://gurkhan.blogspot.ru/2016/02/blog-post_79.html#more

News at last!!! THX Gunship  

‘Unkillable’: Russia Testing New Generation Armored Vehicle

The Bumerang - Russia’s newest armored personnel carrier, which was unveiled during last year’s May 9 Victory Parade in Moscow - is currently undergoing preliminary trials.

http://sputniknews.com/russia/20160208/1034407894/russia-military-apc.html

Alexander Krasovitsky, the head of the Bumerang’s maker, the Military-Industrial Company, heaped praise on what he describes as a “machine you simply can’t kill.”

“This is a new generation vehicle, better armed and better protected, both actively and passively, and boasting an advanced system of control, which exceeds what you can find on the very best foreign analogues,” Krasovitsky told RIA Novosti.

First presented during the 2015 Victory Day parade on Red Square, the Bumerang is already being eyed by foreign militaries.

“There is a great deal of foreign interest in buying the Bumerang. If we get an official go-ahead from the government we’ll be ready to sell,” Alexander Krasovitsky said.

The Bumerang is to replace the BTR-82/A, a heavily modernized version of the 1980s-designed BTR-80.

Its 8x8, front-engine design features ceramic armor technology, including anti-tank grenade and anti-mine protection, has a crew of three, and can be fitted with a 30 mm anti-materiel or armor-piercing cannon, a 7.62 mm or 12.7  mm machine gun.

In addition to its role as a troop carrier, the Bumerang can serve as an anti-tank missile carrier, an air defense missile launcher, an armored ambulance, a command post vehicle, a fire-support vehicle and a mortar carrier.

[quote="PapaDragon"]
News at last!!! THX Gunship  


my pleasure

Although this is only 3D graphics bu twith bihg gun looks also nice

@Garry just curiosity is more flat chassis of tracked platform better for buoyancy? US Marines opt for tracked option for EFV

Flat bottoms are catastrophic for mine resistance, and would not be very good for a vehicle moving through the water.

Most boat hulls usually have a v shape for directional stability to move through the water and stabilise themselves.

Flat bottomed vessels like those fan boats they use to slip over the water in the everglades and swampy ground are designed to ride over the water rather than move in it.

sepheronx wrote:http://tass.ru/en/defense/855565

So the company who makes the Kurganets and the other infantry fighting vehicles is undergoing bankruptcy.  So what do you guys think? The company involved in its bankruptcy may try to strip the company apart and sell to the west like many did in the 90's?  Is this an attempt to limit competition and to reduce Russia's capabilities in manufacturing?

Or do you think this will get resolved or someone else takes over the company?

My bet? Rostec will take it.

Are we starting to see a pattern here? In late 2015 we saw financial institutions try to sue/bankrupt UVZ, in 2014 we saw Ukrainians abruptly cut all military contracts with Russia and all EU countries were forced drop their contracts as well. This reeks of hybrid warfare, and I guess more oligarchs will have to go to prison.

sepheronx wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

sepheronx wrote:http://tass.ru/en/defense/855565

So the company who makes the Kurganets and the other infantry fighting vehicles is undergoing bankruptcy.  So what do you guys think? The company involved in its bankruptcy may try to strip the company apart and sell to the west like many did in the 90's?  Is this an attempt to limit competition and to reduce Russia's capabilities in manufacturing?

Or do you think this will get resolved or someone else takes over the company?

My bet? Rostec will take it.

Are we starting to see a pattern here? In late 2015 we saw financial institutions try to sue/bankrupt UVZ, in 2014 we saw Ukrainians abruptly cut all military contracts with Russia and all EU countries were forced drop their contracts as well. This reeks of hybrid warfare, and I guess more oligarchs will have to go to prison.

Yes.  So is the Russian authorities going to step in to prevent such a situation? Or are they going to let their industry go bankrupt and fall apart and have nothing to manufacture such equipment?

It'll likely get the 'Izhmash-treatment', meaning it'll be saved and leadership will be re-organized...the financier minstrels and organ grinders behind this will likely see a visit from the FSB, and I mean FFS the head of the Moscow Stock Exchange was caught protesting with John McCain in the Maidan Square in Kiev in late-2013/early-2014, so there's plenty of pro-West organ grinders in the finance industry to warrant a law enforcement crackdown on the Russian finance sector. I think the best solution would be to slap a Tobin Tax on all the pro-West Liberast-hole speculators and hedge-fund managers (aka the Soros cult).

sepheronx wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

sepheronx wrote:http://tass.ru/en/defense/855565

So the company who makes the Kurganets and the other infantry fighting vehicles is undergoing bankruptcy.  So what do you guys think? The company involved in its bankruptcy may try to strip the company apart and sell to the west like many did in the 90's?  Is this an attempt to limit competition and to reduce Russia's capabilities in manufacturing?

Or do you think this will get resolved or someone else takes over the company?

My bet? Rostec will take it.

Are we starting to see a pattern here? In late 2015 we saw financial institutions try to sue/bankrupt UVZ, in 2014 we saw Ukrainians abruptly cut all military contracts with Russia and all EU countries were forced drop their contracts as well. This reeks of hybrid warfare, and I guess more oligarchs will have to go to prison.

Yes.  So is the Russian authorities going to step in to prevent such a situation? Or are they going to let their industry go bankrupt and fall apart and have nothing to manufacture such equipment?

It'll likely get the 'Izhmash-treatment', meaning it'll be saved and leadership will be re-organized...the financier minstrels and organ grinders behind this will likely see a visit from the FSB, and I mean FFS the head of the Moscow Stock Exchange was caught protesting with John McCain in the Maidan Square in Kiev in late-2013/early-2014, so there's plenty of pro-West organ grinders in the finance industry to warrant a law enforcement crackdown on the Russian finance sector. I think the best solution would be to slap a Tobin Tax on all the pro-West Liberast-hole speculators and hedge-fund managers (aka the Soros cult).

And the guy who was protesting with John McStain, is he still walking free and operating in Moscow Stock Exchange?  If so, then Russian authorities will not save this company.

Kurganmash will be saved because the BMP-3/Kurganets-25 production is too important. I think were going to have a hot summer, due to the fact that the EU, being led by the nose be Uncle Sham, will continue sanctions (even Lavrov mentioned just recently the sanctions may last decades), so expect 2017 (VVP's last year in office) for sh*t to get real! If the EU vassals manage to stabilize relations, then expect Sergey Lavrov to be VVP's successor as president, but if things remain as they are (the more likely scenario) then expect Shoigu to succeed as president as he (a man of Tuvan descent, and the head of Russian armed forces) will be symbol of Russia's strategic financial and military shift East.

With the strategic shift East, correlating with the Eurasian Silk Road project, it should be pointed out that Shoigu has a degree in civil engineering...

sepheronx wrote:Doesn't Putin have the right to participate one last time?  And how much do you want to be he will become PM again if not being able to be President?

I think KMP will fall under Rostec as they not only have the money, but also the technological resources in order to provide what is needed in import substitution.

I think the next step for Putin is the presidency of the Eurasian Union my friend, with Nazarbayev as his prime minister...


...O.K., back on topic. The most likely scenario will probably indeed be Kurganmash being absorbed and micro-managed by Tractor Plants (the concern that produces BMD-4's, and Sprut-SD's) and macro-managed under the Rostec label, under the miracle worker Sergey Chemezov.

Kurganmash is not filing for bankruptcy, it is petitioned to file for bankruptcy.

Nothing will happen, the petition is petty and will be shot down by Russian courts.

I wouldn't be surprised to see they still be reorganized.

Guys, it is all media BS.

That company makes APCs for Russian Army. They are not going anywhere, don't care if they are ten times bankrupt. Let's get real here.