Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

It is not just a case of putting the Armata MBT into service.

These systems operate together within a battlefield network to share information.

It is not just a case of producing 2,000 Armata MBTs and putting them into units replacing the T-72/90 vehicle previously there.

They need to fully develop an entire family of vehicles based on the Armata. They will also develop an entire family of vehicles based on Kurganets, boomerang, and Typhoon... that is hundreds of different vehicle types that will replace all previous model vehicle types... not just T-90, BMP-3, BTR-82, BRDM-2... we are also talking about replacing all the MTLB based command vehicles, artillery tractors, BTR and BMP based vehicles and the T-80 based MSTA artillery vehicles and air defence vehicles etc etc.

Of course it will take 4 years... probably 10 years to get close to completion.

But that is OK, because they are starting a process even NATO countries have not started and seem to be no where near starting... unified vehicle families...

GAZ Group Production Technologies
Published on May 10, 2017

In the last few years, GAZ Group has invested about $2 bln. USD into its technological modernization.

YMZ 530 150-330HP Diesel Engine.

Catalog:
YMZ V8 450HP - Good for Truck, Mrap, Armor, BTR
YMZ 240 500HP - Bmp3, farm track?
YMZ 780 750hp - For Kurga 25. Boomer. Bmp3
YMZ 840 800HP For Kurga 25. Boomer. Bmp3

Kurga 25 + Boomer YMZ 780 Engine:



Dual use Civil + Mility tech

I wonder if the Russians will incorporate a coaxial 30mm (as seen on the BMP-3) alongside the 57mm on the T-15 Armata and the Kurganets-25. A 57mm grenade launcher on top of the turret would be ideal - especially in urban egagements.

A 57mm grenade launcher would make more sense, or perhaps a 23mm cannon in the form of a KPB with the light 23 x 115mm ammo... low velocity, low recoil, compact ammo able to be carried in large numbers and fired in bursts to cover an area in HE shells rapidly... in fact instead of a KPB I would use the GSh-23 from the Hind for its high rate of fire and accuracy.

GarryB wrote:A 57mm grenade launcher would make more sense, or perhaps a 23mm cannon in the form of a KPB with the light 23 x 115mm ammo... low velocity, low recoil, compact ammo able to be carried in large numbers and fired in bursts to cover an area in HE shells rapidly... in fact instead of a KPB I would use the GSh-23 from the Hind for its high rate of fire and accuracy.

IMHO it would make the most sense to add the Gsh-23 as a coaxial weapon system to the 57mm cannon. As GarryB stated, its high rate of fire combined with reasonable accuracy would make for a devastating weapon capable of suppressing personnel and light armored targets. It makes more sense to place it under the protection of the turret, coaxial to the main weapon, where more ammo can be stored as opposed to a turret roof mounted remote weapon assembly. As a third coaxial weapon, a PKM machine gun could be implemented.

For additional firepower, an optional remote weapon station could be integrated on the roof of the remote controlled turret. This could be equipped with the 57mm grenade launcher in combination with another light machine gun. This would give the second crew member the ability to quickly target and suppress independently. Alternatively a dedicated anti UAV weapon could be integrated in the RWS in such combat environments where it would be required.

A question : Could there be a shell capable of anti-tank use? Or would the vehicle still be dependent on externally mounted ATGM rather than gun launched shells? I would imagine the 57mm is not suited for developing effective GLATGM systems.

If you mount a 57mm grenade launcher it would need independent elevation but could be mounted to point with the 57mm high velocity main gun so the gunner can fire one or the other.
A 23mm cannon would also benefit with independent elevation but would not need to traverse on its own as the targets you would use each of these three weapons against would not be the same.

The 57mm main gun with high velocity ammo would need to use unguided APFSDS rounds to defeat enemy IFVs but would be inadequate to take on MBT even with guided rounds unless they were HEAT armed diving top attack rounds.

A missile like Kornet would be needed to engage enemy MBTs.

I would think a belt feed of 57mm grenades would make coaxial design more appealing, while the small size of the 23mm rounds means an externally mounted RWS might be more practical, but of course the rate of fire of the twin barrel 23mm gun would mean large amounts of ammo would be needed.

In use a short burst of 5-20 rounds would allow area targets to be engaged rapidly as the shells would arrive in a cluster on target with shrapnel everywhere... it would be devastating to any troops in the open...

Note South African pilots said the twin barrel 23mm cannon was a very accurate weapon... they tested them when South Africa changed to a democracy.

It seems the low recoil allows very accurate fire in short bursts even with a very high rate of fire.

The projectiles have a heavy HE payload for such a small calibre... they use the same projectile as used in the Shilka but being 23 x 115mm instead of 23 x 152mm they have a much lower velocity.

The Shilka has high velocity rounds to engage fast moving small targets. The Hind and the MiG-23 has low velocity rounds at enormous rates of fire and heavy projectiles to hit small fast moving targets (in the same way a shotgun blast is more effective than a bullet stream)

The YMZ-780 engine spec about "motor resource" of 2500 hours is strange. Diesel engines are notoriously low maintenance and
long lived. Why would this engine require service after about one year of use? The only service it would need is an oil and filter
change. This is not "motor resource", this is standard procedure for all engines (six months for gasoline ones). They make it
sound like the engine needs an overhaul every year. Total nonsense.

GarryB wrote:A 57mm grenade launcher would make more sense, or perhaps a 23mm cannon in the form of a KPB with the light 23 x 115mm ammo... low velocity, low recoil, compact ammo able to be carried in large numbers and fired in bursts to cover an area in HE shells rapidly... in fact instead of a KPB I would use the GSh-23 from the Hind for its high rate of fire and accuracy.

If the Russians incorporate the Gsh-23 as a coaxial gun (like on the BMP-3) on a 57mm armed T-15, the amount of 23 X 115 rounds that could be accomodated in the turret  would be contingent on the size of the turret that the T-15 Armata ends up with.

It would be ideal to have 100 mm high velocity 57mm rounds and 800 23 X 115 rounds in the turret and four Kornet missiles on the sides, provided that the turret does not become too large and take away armour from more vital areas.

Perhaps a layout in which GSh-23 guns are placed on each side of the turret with their own ammunition bins would be ideal.  This would be incredible if they can do this without taking up the space of the Kornets on the turret side. How many 23 X 115 rounds do you think each ammunition bin could carry?

0nillie0 wrote:

GarryB wrote:A 57mm grenade launcher would make more sense, or perhaps a 23mm cannon in the form of a KPB with the light 23 x 115mm ammo... low velocity, low recoil, compact ammo able to be carried in large numbers and fired in bursts to cover an area in HE shells rapidly... in fact instead of a KPB I would use the GSh-23 from the Hind for its high rate of fire and accuracy.

IMHO it would make the most sense to add the Gsh-23 as a coaxial weapon system to the 57mm cannon. As GarryB stated, its high rate of fire combined with reasonable accuracy would make for a devastating weapon capable of suppressing personnel and light armored targets. It makes more sense to place it under the protection of the turret, coaxial to the main weapon, where more ammo can be stored as opposed to a turret roof mounted remote weapon assembly. As a third coaxial weapon, a PKM machine gun could be implemented.

For additional firepower, an optional remote weapon station could be integrated on the roof of the remote controlled turret. This could be equipped with the 57mm grenade launcher in combination with another light machine gun. This would give the second crew member the ability to quickly target and suppress independently. Alternatively a dedicated anti UAV weapon could be integrated in the RWS in such combat environments where it would be required.

A question : Could there be a shell capable of anti-tank use? Or would the vehicle still be dependent on externally mounted ATGM rather than gun launched shells? I would imagine the 57mm is not suited for developing effective GLATGM systems.

Of course it makes sense to add heavy AGLs and an autocannon as a secondary coaxial weapon. But judging by the design of the armata, there's a big chance that there wont be more than a puny PKT or 40mm balkan AGL. For some reason Russians don't like putting secondary guns on their AFVs that aren't larger than rifle calibre MGs while other countries have experimented more with them, while for example the french have been putting 12.7mm browning coaxials on their leclercs and the czechs made the T-72M2 Moderna which had a 2A42 strapped on to it.

If the Russians incorporate the Gsh-23 as a coaxial gun (like on the BMP-3) on a 57mm armed T-15, the amount of 23 X 115 rounds that could be accomodated in the turret would be contingent on the size of the turret that the T-15 Armata ends up with.

Being and IFV it will still need guided ATGMs, so Kornet or Ataka or something like that would still be needed.

Personally I would fill the area below the turret ring with 57mm rounds... 150-250 would be ideal IMHO, but that will likely fill the area completely. Therefore I would make the 23mm cannon coaxial and have an ammo drum behind the rear of the turret with 400-800 rounds... the 23mm rounds being much smaller than 30mm BMP rounds and would take up rather less room.

The risk of them cooking off if hit by enemy fire would be low so external storage or secondary ammo should be OK.

If the Russians incorporate the Gsh-23 as a coaxial gun (like on the BMP-3) on a 57mm armed T-15, the amount of 23 X 115 rounds that could be accomodated in the turret would be contingent on the size of the turret that the T-15 Armata ends up with.

The rate of fire of the GSh-23 is enormous... there would be no advantage to having two unless the aim is over kill.

The aviation gunpod using the same cannon weighs about 220kg, where the gun and 250 rounds of ammo weighs about 145kg.

The 6 barrel gatling gunpod with 500 rounds weighs 260kg with gun and ammo, so the ammo is compact and light, as are the guns that fire them.

For some reason Russians don't like putting secondary guns on their AFVs that aren't larger than rifle calibre MGs while other countries have experimented more with them, while for example the french have been putting 12.7mm browning coaxials on their leclercs and the czechs made the T-72M2 Moderna which had a 2A42 strapped on to it.

Except for BMP-3 with 100mm rifled gun and 30mm cannon, or the BMP-2 upgrades with 30mm cannon and 30mm grenade launchers mounted to the rear of the turrets... and of course ATGMs.

In combat a machine gun can be rather useful and can carry a rather larger amount of ready to fire ammo than a grenade launcher or heavier weapon.

The T-10M has a 14.5mm coaxial HMG and a roof mounted HMG that replaced the 12.7mm weapons used in both positions on the T-10 tank.

The reality is that many targets appear within about 1km where a rifle calibre machine gun is still very useful.

Most Soviet/Russian APCs have HMG calibre main guns, so there is no shortage. The 14.5mm HMGs are very similar to western 20mm cannons with lighter HE rounds but much better armour penetration performance.

Interesting interview with Director of «ВПК» Александр Красовицкий.


Interesting points about unified platform "Boomerang":


- It can be remotely controled, at the point that it could be named a "robot".

- Its level of protection against precision guided weapons ,including in the upper emisphere, is astonishing ,to the point that, in its word, Boomerang would result practically "indestructible".

- «ВПК» was present at "Балтийское дерби" and was ready to support requests from the Marines, including increase in speed (ostensively floating one) to allow realization of landing missions from over-the-horizon (60 km) with increased crew. Likely that mean a marine-optimized version with modified propulsion and internal arrangement.


http://iz.ru/611287/aleksei-ramm-dmitrii-litovkin/bronetransporter-bumerang-eto-kosmos

Alexey Khlopotov is coming unglued.... check out this absurdity...

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com.au/2017/08/blog-post_10.html

Russia failed to develop the newest BMP

The project of the Russian BMP "Kurganets-25" was unsuccessful. Such a statement was made by the former deputy chief engineer of the Kurgan machine-building plant for serial production of the BMP, Danil Relin. The specialist's words are transmitted by the portal "Kurgan and Kurgan".
"The project" Kurganets 25 "was unsuccessful, a new machine is needed, and therefore, a technical task for its development. But who should make it - is unclear, "- said Rhelin.

Relin made his statement at a meeting of the City Council of Veterans during the discussion of the situation around Kurganmashzavod. According to the expert, the company can save either the development of new military equipment, or a deep modernization. At the moment the plant is declared bankrupt. For the first time BMP "Kurganets-25" was demonstrated on May 9, 2015 at the parade on Victory Day. It was supposed that this technique would replace the current infantry armored vehicles used by Russia's armed forces. Officially, nothing was reported about the failure of the project. According to plans, the BMP was to enter mass production in 2017-2018. In 2015 it was reported that the main disadvantage of "Kurganets-25" is a high profile. In particular, these observations are related to the fact that the deadlines for the development of the BMP were shifted by a year.

Are we supposed to really believe that the Kurganets silhouette height is an issue? You think this would not have been considered earlier? I dunno, maybe like the at the fucking PRELIMINARY DESIGN stage? Would the project have proceeded as far as it has if vehicle height was such a concern????

And this business about KMZ being "bankrupt"? Its clear that so-called "bankruptcy" for state-owned MIC enterprises doesn't work like private companies. It just means that KMZs current drip-feed of funds isn't enough and needs to be increased. The essential workforce and factory managers will keep on keeping on while the replaceable executives and accountants sort out the tawdry real-world necessity of finding money from the Feds.

The company is undergoing bankruptcy but this is under the guise of the government and rostec. Rostec stated that they will acquire the company and then merge it with Uralvagonzavod in order to create an "armored holding" but will only do so when the debt issue of the company is resolved (they don't want to have an asset they just acquired cost them dearly). So after it is declared officially bankrupt, rostec will acquire them and merge it.

Kurganetz isn't a failure. The guy is unhinged probably about something at the company. In the end, they will make it. Actually, it uses the universal platform so that would make Armata a failure but it isn't. Contrary, it is the most anticipated weapon to eventually enter service.

Same guy who was fired from Kurgan plant is talking shit about that plant's product? Wow, color me shocked...

Seriously, I have sent folks being salty, especially here in Serbia but Russians are taking it to next level when it comes to salt. Do they even have concept of dignity there? I fucked up so now I will talk shit about everyone? Grow up bitches, all of you... Jesus....

Besides what is so wrong and faulty with Kurganets? Let's get a rundown:

1) It moves

2) It floats

3) It shoots

4) It's armoured

5) It doesn't require crew of midgets to operate it

Looks fine to me...

miketheterrible wrote:The company is undergoing bankruptcy but this is under the guise of the government and rostec. Rostec stated that they will acquire the company and then merge it with Uralvagonzavod in order to create an "armored holding" but will only do so when the debt issue of the company is resolved (they don't want to have an asset they just acquired cost them dearly).  So after it is declared officially bankrupt, rostec will acquire them and merge it.

Kurganetz isn't a failure. The guy is unhinged probably about something at the company. In the end, they will make it.  Actually, it uses the universal platform so that would make Armata a failure but it isn't. Contrary, it is the most anticipated weapon to eventually enter service.

Agreed 100% (and yes, thats kinda what I was alluding too regarding so-called "bankruptcy"), but what annoys me is that Khlopotov repeats this bovine excrement....

Was the former engineer guy fired?

I thought more orders of BMP and BMD are going to improve the situation

They will give it to rostec, the only way to save it.

They can order infinite amount of BMP's and it won't save the company. Piss poor management for too long. Once its part of an armor holding, it will be fine.

miketheterrible wrote:They will give it to rostec, the only way to save it.

They can order infinite amount of BMP's and it won't save the company. Piss poor management for too long. Once its part of an armor holding, it will be fine.

Whatever works for them. It just need to pump out BMPs and BMDs with better paying to the workers.

They are consolidating the companies by the sounds of it. Rostec will own both to unite them into 1 group, fix the management structure and business structure, modernize what has to, and then they usually sell majority shares in a privatization bid (this usually ends up being like 20% bank 1, 25% Rostec, 25% some other bank, etc).

Once the bankruptcy proceeds and they get everything cleared, then the company will switch hands. This is a strategic company, so they will make sure to keep it running. Just under new ownership.

In theory, it may do better afterwards because if it is part of an armored holding group controlled by Uralvagonzavod, then interoperability significantly increases and thus projects that work with unified body will move a lot faster.

New Boomerang variant:

Arctic_Fox wrote:New Boomerang variant:

Berezhok combat module? Nice

However, I think that this will be more of an export variant, as Russia would equip their own ones with the Bumerang-BM combat module.

Might be a combo... having the 30mm AGL sounds good to me.

"Boomerang" with the fighting module "Berezhok"

Among other things, at the military technical forum "Army-2017" that opened in Kubinka, a variant of the armored unified wheeled platform VPK-7829 "Boomerang" with the inhabited combat module B05Y01 "Berezhok" developed by JSC "Design Bureau of Instrumentation" was demonstrated in a dynamic display. (KBP, Tula) instead of the Boomerang-BM unmanned combat module (also developed by KBMP) installed on prototypes "Boomerang" in K-17 version. A sample of "Boomerang" with the combat module "Berezhok" has been preliminarily tested for some time.







http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2801784.html

franco wrote:Might be a combo... having the 30mm AGL sounds good to me.

Having the new grenade launcher in a panoramic weapon station would be much better imho.

At any rate, i think the new combat modules just aren't ready. If they where, we would see them now on Bumerang AFV or at least a static display (not a mock up but the real thing). Perhaps i am jumping the gun and we will see it at Army, but yet they have been testing Bumerang IFV with Berezhok which became available years ago. Especially that remote 30mm module design always looks a bit odd to me...very not Russian...And they are going to get Berezhok on the BMP-2 if that is still going as planned. So again : Less reasons to push ahead with new intermediate modules.
Look at the turret on the BTR-87. Just a regular old BTR-82 turret with new sights and Kornet capability. It makes sense as Russia already operates so many BTR-82A.

Hopefully progress on the new 57mm combat module doesn't stall.

P.S.

Jus to be clear, i think the Berezhok module looks great on Bumerang AFV. And i have always been a fan of it. Not hating on it ! Needs imho a more capable commander sight tho.
It would be great if they could combine the grenade launcher and panoramic commander sight, similar to the commander module on T-14.

In the end it is still a manned turret, which is not really a bad thing, would it not be for all that ammo stored near the crew...