Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

Wheeled hulls are narrower and taller than tracked ones of the same weight class, so there is the real possibility, in case of firing with the turret turned at about 90 degrees from hull, of a flip over.

They have already developed a 125mm gun with a longer recoil stroke for lighter vehicles that is currently used in Sprut.

They could very easily fit that into the Armata T-14 turret...

Firing on the move is also problematic, given that the wheels, differently from tracks, give not a sufficient contact space with the ground.

I am sure they will find a solution... they have SAMs that fire on the move, so firing a long stroke 125mm gun should not be too impossible...

In those articles I linked they said they developed special recoil dampers for the Spruts and that allowed wheeled vehicles to carry such a weapon. It should be in fact a very similar turret to that, rather than T-14...

I thought the reduced recoil was from the long recoil stroke of the gun... like the 2A72 30mm cannon using longer recoil stroke than the 2A42 30mm cannon to reduce gun fumes in the crew compartment...

The T-14 and an eventual Bumerang with a bigger cannon I think serve quite different purposes. Those wheeled vehicles are ideal for expeditionary forces, they have enormous advantages for road transport or airlifting but cannot tactically compete with tracked vehicles in high intensity war.

Why?

Do you understand the purpose of the different vehicle families?

Do you think the T-14 will replace the T-90 and the Kurganets will replace BMPs and Boomerang will replace BTRs?

If that were the case there would be no need for the T-15 BMP... why would they need an Armata based BMP if there are Kurganets BMPs and Boomerang BMPs?

GarryB wrote:I thought the reduced recoil was from the long recoil stroke of the gun... like the 2A72 30mm cannon using longer recoil stroke than the 2A42 30mm cannon to reduce gun fumes in the crew compartment...

Sorry I cannot tell you... the article was quite decent if you want to take a look at it, they explained some technical aspects.

Do you understand the purpose of the different vehicle families?

I think so, but I have to admit that I am still halfway through with properly understanding the structure and operational doctrine of Russian land forces. Obviously vehicle families help with the logistics, development, reliability and so on. On the other hand each family has its own purpose due to different defensive and offensive capabilities, costs etc.

Do you think the T-14 will replace the T-90 and the Kurganets will replace BMPs and Boomerang will replace BTRs?

In the long rung that seems to be the idea. Of course in the beginning they will coexist. Like it happens in the Russian military in general with every platform, newer ones are progressively introduced, older ones are retired, but they are operated in parallel for many years.

If that were the case there would be no need for the T-15 BMP... why would they need an Armata based BMP if there are Kurganets BMPs and Boomerang BMPs?

See above, they don't have the same capacities and roles. A T-15 is a monster with the armour of a MBT and extremely powerful armament too, top of the line defensive suites etc. As I understand it, Armata is intended for high intensity warfare against enemy armoured divisions. Still I need to see what units receive it first to fully understand how it will be used, but the logic is that it forms the spearhead of the army in offensive operations. Kurganets is not a family proper, with just the IFV and APC versions to it if I am not wrong. As a tracked vehicle it should allow the same kind of tactical mobility (plus the amphibious capability Armata lacks) but be used rather against infantry and in defensive roles / flank protection . It does not have the weapons (from what is known until now) or the protection to be thrown against armoured forces as a T-15 can. Bumerang on the other hand is lighter and does not have the all terrain capabilities of the other two. But it will be ideal as I said where long range mobility is needed. Therefore it may end up operating where MBTs are not available and therefore it makes sense to give it a serious gun, that is a need I don't see for the Kurganets... but I admit I may be wrong

You talk about the armour level to take on enemy... but what is the current level of a Russian Armoured division?

The T-90 has pretty good armour but does every vehicle in a Russian armoured division have T-90 level protection?

Currently there are 26-27 different vehicle types in each division, from MBT and BMP and APC through all the engineer vehicles, recon, mine plow, air defence, anti tank missile vehicle, command vehicles, artillery vehicles etc etc.

The 26-27 vehicles are not 26-27 distinct separate different vehicles... there are vehicle familes already in use.... for instance BMP and BTR and BRDM and MTLBu and even T series tanks are used in a variety of roles... the MSTA 152mm artillery vehicle is T series tank based and a few engineer vehicles use T series tank chassis as a basis... there are also GTSM type vehicles too like the basis of the Tunguska, not to mention trucks as well.

The point of the vehicle families is to unify design and equipment and parts...

Right now a Motor Rifle division has BMPs and BTRs and BRDMs as well as MBTs and MTLBu type vehicles... different width and types of tracks, different wheels including wheels and tires, different engines, different transmissions... and importantly different levels of protection and mobility... tracked vehicles move well across country, but on roads the wheeled vehicles will have to slow down so the tracked vehicles can keep up.

I would suggest the armour protection of the Boomerang is probably better than any vehicle in a current Russian armour division with the sole exception of the T-90 or T-80 or T-72 tanks they are using... replacing all the armoured vehicles with Boomerangs would mean a dramatic improvement in protection and communications and optics and fire power, while at the same time meaning the Logistics tail can carry one type of tyre, and parts for one type of transmission and one type of engine... the logistics tail will be dramatically shorter... the entire unit will be able to swim over rivers and lakes and run very fast via road... and while there is terrain out there that will stop heavy wheeled vehicles they have winches and can work together to overcome those sorts of problems too.

The job of a tank is the job of a tank... the Turret on the T-14 is designed for that job, so why would you need a different turret if you mount it on a lighter vehicle?

It needs the same calibre gun and the same optics and sensors and systems.... in all three vehicles the crews are sitting in the hull so the turret already has protection for the things in it that need protection... why would putting it on a smaller vehicle mean the things in the turret need less protection?

A longer recoil 125mm gun would make it easier to operate, but I don't see any reason why the full standard gun could not be used on the Kurganets in situations where the enemy is not HATO and it is fighting in more open terrain and the very heavy and more expensive Armata chassis are not needed. Being able to operate amphibiously would be useful as you would not require bridging equipment....

The expectation is that the Armata vehicles will be needed for high intensity fighting in built up areas, but such vehicles in boggy marshy areas would be more trouble than they are worth. The fire power these forces can command with long range guided artillery and air power, having reduced weight vehicles with high speed and mobility wont need heavy armour much of the time.

GarryB wrote:You talk about the armour level to take on enemy... but what is the current level of a Russian Armoured division?

Well that is a very good question actually. If there are vehicles like a BTR-80 with the kind or armament you say, then I have nothing to say. They may exist but I just don't know them. It would mean until now they were not perceived as a need.

The T-90 has pretty good armour but does every vehicle in a Russian armoured division have T-90 level protection?

Currently there are 26-27 different vehicle types in each division, from MBT and BMP and APC through all the engineer vehicles, recon, mine plow, air defence, anti tank missile vehicle, command vehicles, artillery vehicles etc etc.

Obviously not all need the T-90 level of protection, there are a LOT of organic functions in a tank or motor rifle division that logically demand different vehicles. But the ones doing the fighting against enemy armoured divisions are mainly the tank regiments supported by motor rifle units. Just a reminder of the complexity of the division level you talk about:

The point of the vehicle families is to unify design and equipment and parts...

Certainly.

and importantly different levels of protection and mobility... tracked vehicles move well across country, but on roads the wheeled vehicles will have to slow down so the tracked vehicles can keep up.

So logically the less protected vehicles will not exactly like to engage enemy heavy tanks... we need to see how far APS go in order to see whether lighter wheeled vehicles have a chance against heavier tracked ones, but I guess they will always have the worst part for several reasons.

I would suggest the armour protection of the Boomerang is probably better than any vehicle in a current Russian armour division with the sole exception of the T-90 or T-80 or T-72 tanks they are using... replacing all the armoured vehicles with Boomerangs would mean a dramatic improvement

That is true, and applies also to Armata and Kurganets. They are way bigger, heavier and better protected. The Bumerang is so much bigger than BTR-80 that together they seem literally out of scale. Kurganets is way bigger and better protected than BMP-1 too

the entire unit will be able to swim over rivers and lakes and run very fast via road... and while there is terrain out there that will stop heavy wheeled vehicles they have winches and can work together to overcome those sorts of problems too.

Armatas will not move fast on the road or swim, but the fact that they will form the backbone of the tank divisions suggest they are very important. So every vehicle covers its role. A wheeled vehicle that has a bigger cannon can attack on an unexpected axis on a high level conflict or even engage armoured forces in developing countries, given enough technological gap exists, but a Kurganets with a T-14 turret is something I would not really see, or the fact that a light wheeled vehicle can carry such a big turret with such demands for the platform.

The job of a tank is the job of a tank... the Turret on the T-14 is designed for that job, so why would you need a different turret if you mount it on a lighter vehicle?

For two reasons:

- It might not be protected enough to serioulsy engage enemy tanks
- There are technical constraints for the weight, diameter and turret loads a light vehicle can admit.

Why cannot a feather weight have the arms of a heavy weight? There was a Russian guy in MMA if I am not wrong that pumped his biceps to Popeye levels, still he got his ass kicked more often than not

It needs the same calibre gun and the same optics and sensors and systems.... in all three vehicles the crews are sitting in the hull so the turret already has protection for the things in it that need protection... why would putting it on a smaller vehicle mean the things in the turret need less protection?

The T-14 turret has all the weight and equipment the platform below can take care of. If the platform is lighter, the turret must be lighter too.

A longer recoil 125mm gun would make it easier to operate, but I don't see any reason why the full standard gun could not be used on the Kurganets in situations where the enemy is not HATO and it is fighting in more open terrain and the very heavy and more expensive Armata chassis are not needed. Being able to operate amphibiously would be useful as you would not require bridging equipment....

Cannot be 100% sure, but maybe the T-14 turret is almost as heavy as the Kurganets itself. Would it float with such a turret on top? Not to talk it is needs full hull penetration, different diameter hole etc...

The expectation is that the Armata vehicles will be needed for high intensity fighting in built up areas, but such vehicles in boggy marshy areas would be more trouble than they are worth. The fire power these forces can command with long range guided artillery and air power, having reduced weight vehicles with high speed and mobility wont need heavy armour much of the time.

Probably they are not needed for the most common low intensity conflicts that is true. But the high intensity ones are those for which you ultimately have an army. For me their current families in development make a lot of sense.

Well that is a very good question actually. If there are vehicles like a BTR-80 with the kind or armament you say, then I have nothing to say. They may exist but I just don't know them. It would mean until now they were not perceived as a need.

My point was that of all the multitude of vehicles in an armoured force only a small percentage are actually tanks, and of the rest of the vehicles BMPs often have reasonable protection but the rest basically have the bare minimum anyway.

The Boomerang has better armour than a BMP (BMP-3 = 18 tons and Boomerang is a 25 ton class vehicle).

Add to that better situational awareness with excellent communications and sensors and new weapons then having Boomerang based tanks is not the hardship you make it out to be.

Obviously not all need the T-90 level of protection, there are a LOT of organic functions in a tank or motor rifle division that logically demand different vehicles. But the ones doing the fighting against enemy armoured divisions are mainly the tank regiments supported by motor rifle units. Just a reminder of the complexity of the division level you talk about:

That is what I am trying to say, by going to vehicle family based forces the average armour level will go up dramatically across the board... as will mobility.

So logically the less protected vehicles will not exactly like to engage enemy heavy tanks... we need to see how far APS go in order to see whether lighter wheeled vehicles have a chance against heavier tracked ones, but I guess they will always have the worst part for several reasons.

The reality is that there is no such thing as a vehicle that can bounce anything fired at them... nothing has full 360 degree protection and can just roll anywhere without support and prep... for high danger areas they have Armata, but they also have drones and equipment that can improve performance to ensure you fire first and you kill first.

That is true, and applies also to Armata and Kurganets. They are way bigger, heavier and better protected. The Bumerang is so much bigger than BTR-80 that together they seem literally out of scale. Kurganets is way bigger and better protected than BMP-1 too

The armour is not just heavier, but it is also arranged better to protect the crew and dismounted troops better.

Troops that will likely have Ratnik 3 by the time all of this gets into service...

Armatas will not move fast on the road or swim, but the fact that they will form the backbone of the tank divisions suggest they are very important. So every vehicle covers its role. A wheeled vehicle that has a bigger cannon can attack on an unexpected axis on a high level conflict or even engage armoured forces in developing countries, given enough technological gap exists, but a Kurganets with a T-14 turret is something I would not really see, or the fact that a light wheeled vehicle can carry such a big turret with such demands for the platform.

They might mix their forces initially, but the intent in the end is to have unified divisions with only one vehicle type... so Armata divisions with Armata tank and Armata motor rifle regiments... with T-14 tank and T-15 BMP regiments.

The turret of the Armata is not that big and certainly not that heavy because it does not have the 900mm plus armour cheeks the T-90 needs to protect the two crew in the turret. This means the same turret could be used on the Kurganets and perhaps the same turret but with the long stroke lower recoil 125mm gun of the Sprut mounted could be used on the Boomerang.

- It might not be protected enough to serioulsy engage enemy tanks

Which tank is invulnerable to enemy fire? And for how long?

- There are technical constraints for the weight, diameter and turret loads a light vehicle can admit.

There are, but a long stroke low recoil 125mm gun and the very light weight turret from the Armata which does not have heavily armoured cheeks like manned turrets do, should be fine.

Note the 30mm cannon armed Epoch turret has been seen on the Boomerang and the Kurganets and the Armata chassis, and we have seen charts showing 57mm guns on turrets for all three vehicles too... why do you think it is so far fetched to use the Armata T-14 turret on a Boomerang and Kurganets... we have seen the 30mm cannon armed turret of the T-15 on the BMP versions of the Boomerang and Kurganets too... and that will likely be superceeded by the 57mm gun and multiple missile armed (Kornet and Bulat) turrets we have been seeing recently for BMPs in the future.

Why cannot a feather weight have the arms of a heavy weight?

In this case the feather weight is the Typhoon with four and six wheeled versions... and I agree they likely wont carry 125mm guns and probably not 152mm guns either.

The T-14 turret has all the weight and equipment the platform below can take care of. If the platform is lighter, the turret must be lighter too.

The turret is much lighter than the turret for a T-90AM... the gun is likely redesigned to spread the recoil...

Cannot be 100% sure, but maybe the T-14 turret is almost as heavy as the Kurganets itself. Would it float with such a turret on top? Not to talk it is needs full hull penetration, different diameter hole etc...

The T-14 turret is very light because it does not require the armour thickness in the front that a manned turret like a T-90AM would require...

Probably they are not needed for the most common low intensity conflicts that is true. But the high intensity ones are those for which you ultimately have an army. For me their current families in development make a lot of sense.

The German army didn't crush all other armies in the first part of WWII because of the level of armour protection on their vehicles.... in fact many of the armoured vehicles they faced were much better protected... they did so well because they worked together as a team with good optics and good communications and tactics. They sacrificed extra armour with larger tank turrets holding commanders and gunners and loaders.

Today you add drones and support weapons the soldiers of WWII could only dream of.

GarryB wrote:They might mix their forces initially, but the intent in the end is to have unified divisions with only one vehicle type... so Armata divisions with Armata tank and Armata motor rifle regiments... with T-14 tank and T-15 BMP regiments.

Supporting vehicles will still be of other types right? Also today there are BTR and BMP companies in the same motor rifle regiments

The turret of the Armata is not that big and certainly not that heavy because it does not have the 900mm plus armour cheeks the T-90 needs to protect the two crew in the turret. This means the same turret could be used on the Kurganets and perhaps the same turret but with the long stroke lower recoil 125mm gun  of the Sprut mounted could be used on the Boomerang.

I agree not being manned helps a lot, it is big though, the cannon has what, 20% more muzzle power than that on a T-90... you would need to have the numbers to see what goes and what not on what platform. I tend to agree with what I read in the article about the constraints faced for the Spruts apply to Bumerang, being a nearly equivalent vehicle, so I think it could be armed with a similar turret, even better of course if it is a RWS proper and not manned. So a RWS based on the Spruts cannon. For Kurganets, sorry I still don't see the point in the army, they have already Spruts for the VDV which is more than fine for that precise application.

There are, but a long stroke low recoil 125mm gun and the very light weight turret from the Armata which does not have heavily armoured cheeks like manned turrets do, should be fine.

Do you know the weight of the turret? I think I see what you mean. In the end it would be an unmanned turret based in the technologies developed for Armata. I think it cannot be the same if it is based on a different gun but it may have similar elements in terms of optronics, defensive equipment and so on. It all depends on what design bureau takes care of the task, each one has their own expertise and development line.

Big problems with Kurganets ?
https://twitter.com/TheDeadDistrict/status/1300814836566233088

Likely the same big problems that were going to stop the PAK FA and Armata and Su-57 and T-90AM from entering service too...

Unless it has specifics or a new article for reference I would just take that as fake news...

It is in development and testing. It's normal they still find problems. If there was no problem it would be build in serial numbers.

marcellogo wrote:

Isos wrote:It is in development and testing. It's normal they still find problems. If there was no problem it would be build in serial numbers.

still I have the impression that the Kurganets is a sort of "nobody's child"in the sense that risk to be compressed between T-15 and Boomerang families on one side plus advanced version of BMP-3 and BMD on the other.

Advantages of Boomerang over BTR-82 is evident, same between the whole Armata family and T-90 and BMP-3M but between Kurganets and the last two legacy vehicles updated version?

Those advanced BMP's are very much in the same boat as the advanced T-90 Break-3. It's 'advanced' but not better than their successor vehicle.

Depend what you mean by better. Armata isn't only made to make "better" vehicle, it is also a way to unify the chassi of many different vehicles to make easier/cheaper the maintenance of the fleet because the procurement cost will be very high because of more modern stuff.

Newly build Bmp-3 can be as good as kurganets but it won't share anything with the new vehicles while the in service bmp-1/2/3 will be replaced slowly by kurganets.

In terms of cost new bmp-3 are expensive too. Modern stuff isn't the metal boxes of the 50s or 60s made just of metal. T-90MS has the same systems as the t-14, more or less advanced, but it stay the same systems and they cost a lot for both. Then the best option is to buy the new vehicle.

Arrow wrote:Big problems with Kurganets ?
https://twitter.com/TheDeadDistrict/status/1300814836566233088

It would be great if they had linked the original statements by Murakowsky, it would not be the first time he has been misquoted. After so many years of development, new weapons station presented recently and appearing several times at the victory day I am not taking this very seriously until I see some official statement.

marcellogo wrote:still I have the impression that the Kurganets is a sort of "nobody's child"in the sense that risk to be compressed between T-15 and Boomerang families on one side plus advanced version of BMP-3 and BMD on the other.

It should be the following generation after BMP-3, with different layout and much improved protection. The T-15 is a different kind of machine, apparently created to follow tanks in high intensity warfare against armoured formations of the enemy, whereas the weapons and protection in the Kurganets seem to be optimized for fighting against infantry units.

It is in development and testing. It's normal they still find problems. If there was no problem it would be build in serial numbers.

Wasn't there are report that said teh Boomerangs were too narrow and they were going to make them wider?

There might be issues with the Kurganets that need solutions too, but that is no reason to think it will be cancelled... the Armata is too big and expensive to be their only future armoured tracked vehicle... they need the cheaper option of the Kurganets... and the much cheaper option of wheeled vehicles with the Boomerang too.

still I have the impression that the Kurganets is a sort of "nobody's child"in the sense that risk to be compressed between T-15 and Boomerang families on one side plus advanced version of BMP-3 and BMD on the other.

The BMP-3 is in its twilight... Kurganets has much better armour and much better internal layout and is a fully modular future vehicle family, while there are a couple of different vehicles on the BMP-3 platform the Kurganets will be more complete.

Advantages of Boomerang over BTR-82 is evident, same between the whole Armata family and T-90 and BMP-3M but between Kurganets and the last two legacy vehicles updated version?

Kurganets has the same much more powerful engine family as used in Boomerang, and has better arranged internal layout with more room in the back and the engine up front and much better armour all round.

It is significantly better, but probably wont be as cheap till they get the whole family into production and service...

Then the best option is to buy the new vehicle.

Indeed, though the eventual plan is for brigades or divisions to be unified with one vehicle type... right now you have a mix of BMPs and BTRs and BRDMs and MTLBs and GTSMs and T series tank chassis for all sorts of different roles... in the future as the different vehicles are replaced you will get Armata divisions and Kurganets divisions where every vehicle in each force has one engine type and one track type and one transmission type and one wheel type etc etc.

This should reduce the logistics tail and improve commonality and indeed mean mobility and protection will be more uniform across a force.

It should be the following generation after BMP-3, with different layout and much improved protection. The T-15 is a different kind of machine, apparently created to follow tanks in high intensity warfare against armoured formations of the enemy, whereas the weapons and protection in the Kurganets seem to be optimized for fighting against infantry units.

Eventually the Armata forces will have all Armata based vehicles where heavy armour is needed... like in cities or against very well equipped enemies...

All the vehicles in the unit will be Armata based and have T designations... in comparison a Kurganets force will have B designations.

For instance at the moment an armoured force might have BMP-1, -2, or -3s, or an airborne force might have BMDs... or they might have BTRs.

In the future they will have Armata or Kurganets or Boomerang vehicles... the designations I have so far are T-14 for the Armata MBT, T-15 for the Armata BMP, T-16 for the Armata BREM engineer vehicle, and Koalition for the Armata MSTA. I don't have any designations for the Kurganets vehicles, but I know they are designated B-xx where x will be a number. The Boomerang range of vehicles have the designation of K and the K-16 is the Kurganets BTR, while the K-17 is the Kurganets BMP.

You can generally identify them by their turrets... a 30mm cannon and missiles or 57mm gun would generally be the BMP vehicles... we don't know if the BMP includes both the high velocity 57mm gun and the 57mm grenade launcher or just the latter, with the high velocity 57mm gun turret for air defence instead.
The BTR or APC turret is a Kord HMG in a tiny turret and has been seen on Kurganets and Armata and Boomerang...

The problems refered are real and so is the statement from В. И. Мураховский about the information that it received from ГАБТУ (the Federation's directorate responsible for technical requirements and compliance of the armoured and motorized objects for Ground Armed Forces).

The program is not canceled but would require a serious modification of at least two main components and a reorganization of the production lines.

While Курганец-25 represent, also in its actual form, a big generational leap in terms of mere performances in the most important metrics in comparison with БМП series, even when the latters are modernized and equiped with the latest combat modules, it fall short of some important requirements put at the basis of the program that ,in the actual form, it cannot comply with.

Requirements for those programs are put to assure a very robust lead to the Federation Forces on the ground, against any competitor worldwide (included foreign programs today only on the drawing board), from the time of theirs introduction up to 20 years after.

I always felt that it would have been worth going directly for electric transmission in Armata and Kurg series rather than hydromechanical, you're going to have to spend a lot of money on tooling and production regardless, might as well get a superior product.

I hope they also rework the T-15, it's beak is absurd.

Also they APS/camera placements on Kurg were also quite poor especially if you wanted to put Nadkikda on it.

Supporting vehicles will still be of other types right? Also today there are BTR and BMP companies in the same motor rifle regiments

Right now they already have vehicle families in a division but it is limited to a few vehicle types... you have tank and motor rifle divisions, but as you know the difference is that tank divisions have more three tank regiments and maybe one or two infantry regiments, while a motor rifle division has three infantry regiments and one tank regiment for support... there are no all tank or all infantry forces.

Of course to boost their effectiveness against armoured enemies a motor rifle force will have MTLB based ATGM vehicles like Shturm or now Khrisantema and Kornet...

What I am saying is that in a current division there will be BMPs that are BMPs, but there will also be BMPs carrying Kornet missiles and various types of engineer vehicles based on the BMP... plus BTRs and BRDMs and MTLBs including command vehicles and GTSM type vehicles and even T series tank based vehicles like MSTA 152mm artillery and indeed various BREM vehicles and heavy engineer vehicles too.

The purpose of the new vehicle family types is to replace them all.

So an Armata division has Armata tanks (T-14), Armata BMPs (T-15), Armata BTRs (with Kord HMG turret), Armata BREM engineer vehicles (T-16) etc etc... including TOR vehicle and Pantsir/Tunguska vehicle, ambulance vehicle, command vehicle, rocket artillery vehicle, Coalition gun artillery vehicle, ATGM carrier, 120mm gun/mortar carrier vehicle, etc etc

They will all have the T designation and a number...

A Kurganets division has Kurganets vehicles... and it will have all the same 26-27 odd vehicle types... the only designation I have managed to find is for the BMP which is the B-11, but all the other vehicles will be B-xx, and the Armata vehicles T-xx where the xx are two digit numbers.

The Boomerang division has Boomerang vehicles... with the K-xx designation... the only two I know for that are the K-17 for the BMP and K-16 for the BTR.

The purpose is to get the level of protection and mobility to the same level for the vehicles in a single mobile unit, but it also means that instead of carrying different wheels and tracks and engine parts for 10 or more different engines and transmissions, and other bits and pieces, they just need to carry spare parts for one vehicle type with standard parts.. engine, transmission, wheels and tracks etc etc.... It makes the logistics tail much smaller and more efficient making the whole force much more mobile and compact.

I agree not being manned helps a lot, it is big though, the cannon has what, 20% more muzzle power than that on a T-90... you would need to have the numbers to see what goes and what not on what platform. I tend to agree with what I read in the article about the constraints faced for the Spruts apply to Bumerang, being a nearly equivalent vehicle, so I think it could be armed with a similar turret, even better of course if it is a RWS proper and not manned. So a RWS based on the Spruts cannon. For Kurganets, sorry I still don't see the point in the army, they have already Spruts for the VDV which is more than fine for that precise application.

They already said the turret of the Armata is designed to take the 152mm gun so it should be fine for a low recoil model of the gun it is already being fitted with.

The Spruts are about 18 tons and the Boomerang is likely in the 25 ton plus weight range so I really don't think it will be a huge problem...

There will likely be reduced accuracy on the move because the wheeled Boomerang is probably less stable, but if you need a more accurate shot just stop and then drive away... or fire a guided round which should not be effected by whether you are moving or not.

Do you know the weight of the turret? I think I see what you mean. In the end it would be an unmanned turret based in the technologies developed for Armata. I think it cannot be the same if it is based on a different gun but it may have similar elements in terms of optronics, defensive equipment and so on. It all depends on what design bureau takes care of the task, each one has their own expertise and development line.

But that is the point of family vehicles and design unification.... the Epoch turret has been seen on all three vehicles... I have seen the small turret with the Kord HMG mounted in it on most of the vehicles too... why do you think they would design vehicle familes and then make unique turrets for each?

As I mentioned there are 26-27 different vehicles in a division... some don't have turrets, but even assuming there are 20 different turrets needed including tank and 57mm air defence gun, and 57mm grenade launcher plus missiles BMP, but also 30mm plus missiles BMP... etc etc... do you honestly think they are going to design three different turrets for the three different families?

Obviously there need to be exceptions, but I would think the MBT turret is not needed because they have a light gun model, while the rest of the Armata turret has all the sensors and equipment etc etc a MBT needs... so why would a Boomerang or Kurganets tank commander want less?

The exception I would see would be the 152mm artillery vehicles... I think Kurganets and Boomerang might use the truck based Coalition vehicles, or at least those gun mounts fitted to those vehicles instead of the full Armata 2S35 turret being fitted.

Also they APS/camera placements on Kurg were also quite poor especially if you wanted to put Nadkikda on it.

I would expect the new Nakidka is built in to the components and elements there... if anything I would expect active camouflage to be added next...

It is certainly important to remember that the actual vehicles a unit might on paper might not be available, and certainly different levels of unit and different locations of unit will effect both the types of vehicles they are supposed to have and the actual vehicles they literally have.

For instance during the cold war most of the units in East Germany had all the best new stuff, and ironically when they were withdrawn a lot of that stuff went to the Ukraine and Belarus, but there were first order units and second order units and third order units, where the first order were fully manned and equipped with all the best newest stuff first, the second order units had lots of not the best stuff but still modern and were never fully manned... and would take a couple of weeks to form up and fully equip ready to go. The third order was skeleton manned with mostly previous generation gear that was mostly in storage, which was fine because these units would be manned by reservists who were called up that probably trained and served on that older stuff anyway so they would be rather familiar with it, but it would probably take a month to get these units fighting ready.

There would be no third or even second level units in East Germany or Ukraine or Belarus or Eastern Europe... but across the whole of the Soviet Union they would be in backwater areas...

A unit in Chechnia or even Georgia is more likely to have older equipment.

Another factor was mobility... they had BTRs and BMPs... in some places wheels are better and they are certainly cheaper to buy and to operate.

The forces sent to Afghanistan in the 1980s took BMPs and BTRs but they had mostly T-62s and T-55s and a few T-72s because they didn't need anything better.

In some places with deep snow or deep mud they traded their BMPs for MTLBs... MTLBs have less armour and much less fire power, but much wider tracks and are lighter and therefore have excellent mobility in soft terrain.

A BTR-60 or BRDM-2 can move at high speeds over long distances on roads or hard terrain... tracked vehicles can't move as far or as fast, but often have better armour and fire power.

Many people in the west ignore they always talk about the Armata as a family and Kurganets as a family and Boomerang as a family and Typhoon as a family... and I think in their minds they think Armata is the Tank (T-14), and Kurganets is the BMP (B-11) and Boomerang is the BTR (K-16) and the Typhoon is the BRDM light vehicle (No idea)... (Note the Typhoon are six and four wheeled light vehicles... they were originally going to be related to the Boomerangs... they were called Boomerang-10 as opposed to what we call now Boomerang-25... which essentially meant the Typhoons were four and six wheel versions of the 8 wheeled Boomerang... with the 8x8s in the 25 ton weight range and the 4x4s and 6x6s in the 10 ton weight range as essentially either MRAPs or light armoured vehicles where the bigger heavier platforms were not needed... an 18 ton 6x6 with a 57mm cannon would be useful for convoy escort or ground and air defence for an airfield for instance, while being lighter and cheaper than a 25 ton 8x8 version...)

The reality, as I keep mentioning, is complete families of vehicles... they do have a range of uses for existing chassis as I have mentioned... there are an enormous range of other vehicles based on BTRs and BMPs and MTLBs and BRDMs and even T series tanks... the MSTA and BMO-T engineer troop transport vehicle and various BREM engineer vehicles too... these new families take it all just one step further and take advantage of having one type of engine and transmission and wheel/track within a unit so spare parts can be carried in numbers without needing lots of different types.

But it goes further... the seat designs are unified... the screens and crew compartment equipment will be unified... the turrets will be unified... so a tank driver moving from an Armata to a Kurganets or a Boomerang will be using the same optics and same gun and same controls in the same seat... obviously they couldn't all have the same level of armour or engine but the Kurganets and Boomerang are a similar weight and share the same engine and transmission... and heavy new trucks could also use the same engine too...

It means developing a new tank is developing it for four vehicles instead of just one... though of course the Typhoon might use the Sprut turret modified into an unmanned turret... but for example the naval 57mm gun turret is unmanned and unified with the 2S38 AA gun turret... so that turret could be used on a ship from river craft up to Cruiser or carrier for self defence using special ammo, but it could also be fitted to Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang and Typhoon chassis too because they are designed to use unmanned turrets.

It means design it once and use it across various platforms with minimal modification or cost.

The Air Force might use Typhoon vehicles for airfield defence along with a few unmanned robot vehicles and of course Pantsir... etc etc.

It would be a cheap relatively light vehicle with low operating costs and flexible turret options for a wide range of weapons and equipment... remember all the special recon vehicles with thermal imagers and artillery spotting radars will also be included in the different vehicle types too... and jammers and everything in between.

First ones were equipped by a majority of tank with BMP used as the sole infantry carrier, motor rifle ones were more articulated sporting all three types of vehicles BUT in this case the wheeled APC were the majority and tanks followed on leaving the BMP as the major vehicle in just one regiment.

Yes, essentially the tank forces had both tanks and BMPs, as did the Motor Rifle units.... the differences in their make up was the balance of tanks and infantry with the tank forces only having a smaller infantry support contingent, while the motor rifle units were infantry heavy with only one regiment of tanks and they also tended to have a towed anti tank regiment and anti tank force with MTLBs and the Shturm ATGMs... the tank forces were more mobile and aggressive, while the motor rifle units were more defensive though both were fully mechanised and able to move...

AFAIK both had both BMPs and BTRs and BRDMs... but in first priority forces they tended to have more BMPs.

In practise the idea for both the BMPs and BTRs was that they would deliver troops short of the objective and then sit back and as the troops moved forward if they met any resistance they could call in direct and immediate fire support from their supporting vehicles. If the enemy had good anti armour capabilities the troops would move forward, and if they didn't the vehicles seemed to stay pretty close to the troops but that was only the appearance given from exercises where troops would walk line abreast next to their vehicles blazing away from the hip with their weapons....

NOW it is quite clear how the new Armata based units would be almost completely equipped with them and former motor rifle ones with Boomerangs based regiments plus eventually a tank one.
Maintaining instead a three vehicle unit would mean returning to the precedent situation, without having any no need as the Boomerang, if it would deliver what was promised would be sufficiently fast, well armed and protected to operate together with tanks units.

An important factor is cost, both cost to buy and cost to operate, and the Armata BMP and the Kurganets BMP wont be cheap and will likely be rather hard to take down as their armour is probably heavy enough along with NERA and APS systems to stop most conventional enemy rounds from the front and alot from the side too. The cost of buying them and operating them will be rather higher than current BMPs... and I rather suspect that the final models... the final force structure will probably have 50 to 60 percent of Russian armour being Boomerang based vehicles. Probably 30% will be Kurganets and the remaining 10-20% will be Armata.

They will probably start out using the Armata to replace T-90/T-80/T-72 tanks, but the wont replace all T-90/T-80/T-72 tanks with Armata... likely most of the T-72s will be replaced by Boomerang based tanks...

Lets assume a tank force about the same as what the CFE limits were... about 6000 tanks for Russia... which means using my numbers... lets say 60% Boomerang, 30% Kurganets, and 10% Armata tanks, so that would mean 3,600 Boomerang tanks, 1,800 Kurganets tanks, and 600 Armata tanks.

A tank division has about 31 tanks and a Motor Rifle division has about 1/3rd that so about 11 tanks... so that means 15 tank divisions with 465 tanks and 12 Motor Rifle divisions with 11 tanks each which equals 132 tanks... which leaves three tanks left over...

Note I am just talking about actual tanks.... T-14s... the actual number of Armata vehicles you would need is much much higher than 600 tanks because there is a similar number of T-15s they will need along with whatever they are calling their BTR models etc etc.

I suspect what they will do is their highest priority units will get Armata tanks (T-14s) and then Armata BMPs (T-15s) and then as new variants are designed and complete testing like the BREM engineer models (T-16s) are added to those units and gradually they will become Armata only forces.

I suspect they will do the same with lower echelon units using the other vehicles... so the Boomerang and Kurganets units will likely keep their T series tanks... there is no urgency to replace them... replace all the other types first and then replace the T series tanks to shorten the logistics tail of the force....

So, the only real role that I see for Kurganets is in some brigate level units having to deal with particularly demanding environment (naval infantry, Arctic command or places like Pripyat marshes) or acting as an Army level cavalry/reconnaissance unit.

The Kurganets is lighter and cheaper than Armata and many roles and locations don't warrant anything better. With composite armour its frontal protection is likely to be 500mm or more and with ERA and APS systems it is not going to be easy to deal with at battlefield ranges... and its weapons and sensors will be as good as Armatas so it wont be under armed either... likely with drones and of course all weather day and night air and artillery support.... they will be rather potent forces.. and being fully amphibious and lighter to transport I would expect the naval infantry will end up with naval versions of them as well... perhaps with minor modifications for operating in salt water and higher sea states than the army needs...

So, something that would allow to "shift to the left" the delivery date without no major problems and concentrate instead on Armata and Boomerang mass production.

Armata is not their general tank... it is their heavy tank... if you look at WWII how many heavy T-35 tanks did the Soviets have at the start of WWII.... how many medium tanks and light tanks did they have and end up making.

The difference is of course that with hindsight the T-35 was terrible, and the T-26 tanks were too small and needed a larger crew... though the gun was good, the layout of the vehicle and the fact that the commander was also the gunner and loader limited its potential...

Armata, Kurganets, and Boomerang and Typhoon don't have these problems...

Also because already existing BMP-3 and T-90 are i.m.h.o. still perfectly fit to cover the role in the meantime...

I suspect the T-90 will get moved down an echelon to a lower tier armoured group... the forces that get (eventually) Kurganets BMPs and APCs will likely also get T-90s as tanks, while the forces that currently have T-90s will get T-14s for tanks and T-16s for BMPs, and their T-90s and BMP-3s will move down the line.

Certain units will benefit from road mobility and they will likely get the Boomerang BMPs and BTRs... and keep using T series tanks too.

In any case, let's clear it: I'm not advocating at all acquiring consistent quantities of the already existing vehicles instead of keep on developing Kurganets, only to take all the time it will needs to have a clearly superior and, above all, mature product.

Exactly. Solve the problems and sort it all out before putting it into production... that is what pre-serial models are for.... to find and solve problems while it is still easier and cheaper to sort them out.

The modular nature of the vehicles and suites we are talking about should reduce costs and simplify development and production, so when the vehicle chassis itself is ready things should go rather well.

GarryB wrote:The purpose of the new vehicle family types is to replace them all.

I think the different families indicate different roles and therefore I don't expect every vehicle at the division or regiment level to belong just to one of them. In fact this was not the case before and as I argued in the Armata thread, there might be a limited doctrinal change going on so that two tracked IFVs with significantly different characteristics can be used in parallel, but that looks as an exception actually. One heavy platform that excels in armoured combat, one lighter tracked vehicle for the infantry, one wheeled platform. Each of them with roles which are of application for them and others where their specific characteristics don't bring anything useful. Armata is too heavy and expensive for any use outside high intensity combat against the best enemy armoured units, Kurganets does not have the protection of T-15 or any advantage as a basis for a tank or a self propelled howitzer, Bumerang cannot go where tracked vehicles go and it is also not protected as a MBT...

In the long run I can see T-14, T-15 working together in tank regiments and divisions (plus maybe some AD / BMPT vehicles based on that platform too, maybe even howitzers in the future because the increased hull size would be an advantage for them), Kurganets + T90M on motor rifle units and Bumerang as wheeled IFV and APC across units as BTRs are used now. Maybe Armatas go to motor rifle units and Kurganets to tank units too, I am not soi sure about that and it seems to me every unit is configured a bit different, probably a certain level of flexibility and capacity to operate on their own is intended.

It makes the logistics tail much smaller and more efficient making the whole force much more mobile and compact.

I agree on the logistics part, but the price to be paid in terms of capability and development needs is too high. Think about it this way: why to create an Armata platform and then a Kurganets platform too? What is the difference and what operational requirements and roles impose such differences?

The Spruts are about 18 tons and the Boomerang is likely in the 25 ton plus weight range so I really don't think it will be a huge problem...

Sure the Kurganets could carry a low recoil cannon, but I don't see it brings any substantial advantage. Divisions already have and I think will continue to have a variety of vehicles. Why using a very high hull platform like the Kurganets as a tank hunter if you have a T-90 or an Armata designed for that role? A Bumerang with this cannon makes sense because of its increased mobility and use in expeditionary forces, but the Kurganets as a tank is slow as a tank proper and weak as a Bumerang. In any case we will see, I just give my opinion but I cannot prove I am right.

There will likely be reduced accuracy on the move because the wheeled Boomerang is probably less stable, but if you need a more accurate shot just stop and then drive away... or fire a guided round which should not be effected by whether you are moving or not.

But that is the point of family vehicles and design unification.... the Epoch turret has been seen on all three vehicles... I have seen the small turret with the Kord HMG mounted in it on most of the vehicles too... why do you think they would design vehicle familes and then make unique turrets for each?

The T-14 turret is designed for a heavy platform, then there are APC /IFV turrets valid for medium and light vehicles with or without hull penetration. Limitations of the platform apply, you will not see a Typhoon with a Koalitsiya turret.

As I mentioned there are 26-27 different vehicles in a division... some don't have turrets, but even assuming there are 20 different turrets needed including tank and 57mm air defence gun, and 57mm grenade launcher plus missiles BMP, but also 30mm plus missiles BMP... etc etc... do you honestly think they are going to design three different turrets for the three different families?

See above. They have the RCWS for the T-14, there is the DUBM-57 for the T-15, and then there is the Epokha, Berezhok, Bumerang-BM, BPPU-1, just among what we have seen recently and not even trying to be exhaustive. So there are already many different weapons stations, not talking about ATGM vehicles, SAM etc. There will be commonality where it makes sense, but there will be also stations designed for specific platforms or roles that simply cannot be used or don't bring advantages in other platforms.

Obviously there need to be exceptions, but I would think the MBT turret is not needed because they have a light gun model, while the rest of the Armata turret has all the sensors and equipment etc etc a MBT needs... so why would a Boomerang or Kurganets tank commander want less?

The exception I would see would be the 152mm artillery vehicles... I think Kurganets and Boomerang might use the truck based Coalition vehicles, or at least those gun mounts fitted to those vehicles instead of the full Armata 2S35 turret being fitted.

Good that we agree there needs to be exceptions... of course if your vehicles are wheeled you can perfectly use truck mounted artillery and keep a similar level of mobility for the whole unit with reduced costs.

marcellogo wrote:without having any no need as the Boomerang, if it would deliver what was promised would be sufficiently fast, well armed and protected to operate together with tanks units.

Can a wheeled vehicle operate together with tanks in complex terrain? I am not so sure, levels of terrain pressure for wheeled and tacked platforms are still very different...

Also because already existing BMP-3 and T-90 are i.m.h.o. still perfectly fit to cover the role in the meantime...

Agreed. They bought more than hundred of them just before these news about the delay of the Kurganets were disclosed, and they presented the BMP-3-based Manul with the Epokha RCWS in this Army, so they have in this case, as it is their norm, a foldback plan. A BMP-3 with APS and modern sights and systems will be perfectly ok for many years and I agree too, that they better take their time with Kurganets and mature it into something that actually solves problems for the ground forces instead of creating them.

GarryB wrote:the final force structure will probably have 50 to 60 percent of Russian armour being Boomerang based vehicles. Probably 30% will be Kurganets and the remaining 10-20% will be Armata.

I suspect the T-90 will get moved down an echelon to a lower tier armoured group... the forces that get (eventually) Kurganets BMPs and APCs will likely also get T-90s as tanks, while the forces that currently have T-90s will get T-14s for tanks and T-16s for BMPs, and their T-90s and BMP-3s will move down the line.

A tank division has about 31 tanks and a Motor Rifle division has about 1/3rd that so about 11 tanks... so that means 15 tank divisions with 465 tanks and 12 Motor Rifle divisions with 11 tanks each which equals 132 tanks... which leaves three tanks left over...

Those numbers are per battalion not per division...

I think the different families indicate different roles and therefore I don't expect every vehicle at the division or regiment level to belong just to one of them.

The purpose of the families is to reduce the number of actual different vehicle types in a force... remember that many of the BMP based vehicles are not unified either... there are BMP-1 , BMP-2, and BMP-3 all with different engines and wheels and tracks and transmissions so even if one division has BMP-3s for troop transport they might have BMP-2 and BMP-1 based support vehicles all with different engines and parts... there are at least three versions of the MTLB... the original MTLB, the upgraded MTLBu and now a new model with a new designation...

For forces that don't have to move a lot they might mix up the vehicle types... the Boomerang based vehicles could be used in some roles in Kurganets units simply because the wheeled Boomerangs will be much cheaper and yet will still be amphibious and have the same engine and transmission.... just carry some tires...

But on the whole the point of having a vehicle family is to minimise the logistics tail to make it more mobile and deployable...

They don't need a huge number of heavy forces... compared with the old model, they will actually have a lot more ready to use units available sooner and with modern equipment and systems able to call up massively more capable support units of both tube and rocket artillery and air support in the form of fixed and rotary wing as well as tactical guided missiles...

Armata is too heavy and expensive for any use outside high intensity combat against the best enemy armoured units, Kurganets does not have the protection of T-15 or any advantage as a basis for a tank or a self propelled howitzer, Bumerang cannot go where tracked vehicles go and it is also not protected as a MBT...

Kurganets would have been overkill for Afghanistan in the 1980s, Boomerang probably would have been better suited for that entire conflict... Kurganets would have been better suited to Chechnia with Armata for use in cities...

As I have mentioned the balance of forces will probably be 10-15% Armata, 20-30% Kurganets and 50% Boomerang, with perhaps 10% light vehicles based on Typhoon... light highly mobile recon with excellent communications and fire power and of course drones artillery and airsupport.

In the long run I can see T-14, T-15 working together in tank regiments and divisions (plus maybe some AD / BMPT vehicles based on that platform too, maybe even howitzers in the future because the increased hull size would be an advantage for them),

But not all tank divisions will need heavy tanks... on the border with Mongolia or Kazakhstan they don't need to be Armata based divisions... light amphibious armoured vehicles makes rather more sense and are much more cost effective.

Kurganets + T90M on motor rifle units and Bumerang as wheeled IFV and APC across units as BTRs are used now. Maybe Armatas go to motor rifle units and Kurganets to tank units too, I am not soi sure about that and it seems to me every unit is configured a bit different, probably a certain level of flexibility and capacity to operate on their own is intended.

The make up of the units will depend on the terrain they have to work with and the expected enemy they will be facing... in Syria they wouldn't need Armatas... Kurganets would be fine for frontline stuff... their APS and NERA would render TOWs and RPGs useless... for policing the Boomerangs would be very mobile and fast with excellent fire power... and still pretty decent protection...

I agree on the logistics part, but the price to be paid in terms of capability and development needs is too high.

Developing a suite of weapons and sensors and equipment for a specific role is a good thing... it is like Ratnik... previously each component was considered separately and not as a system that works together... treating it as a system and integrating parts to make them multifunction  to eliminate the need for carrying several separate components that could be melded together to form one multifunction component makes sense... it is the same for vehicles... creating an ambulance kit and then applying it to four different vehicle families is a good thing that will likely improve the quality of systems the lighter vehicles use because it is unified and instead of making a Sprut like turret that is different for Kurganets, they can just use the T-14 turret for at least the Kurganets and Boomerang... it works... it has been tested and when fitted to smaller vehicles it might need a tweek or two but applying a tank turret to the other vehicles saves developing four new tank turrets... I would say the Typhoon could use Sprut and could probably be used as an airborne vehicle in that form too.

Think about it this way: why to create an Armata platform and then a Kurganets platform too? What is the difference and what operational requirements and roles impose such differences?

Weight and cost. The Russian military will find itself in an enormous variety of situations... previously it had generations of tanks to help it cope, so it could send T-62s with add on armour to Afghanistan for instance where the enemy only had RPGs and Milan ATGMs, whereas for a conflict in Chechnia they would need better tanks because their anti armour weapons were much better and in greater numbers and being used by an enemy who knew the internal layout of their vehicles so they knew exactly where to aim.

If they chose not to have the Kurganets family that would mean they had two families... heavy tracked and medium wheeled... heavy tracked is expected to be used in built up areas and forests where armour is very vulnerable to surprise attack at short range... they wont need that level of armour on flat open terrain or mountains where enemy vehicles and troops can be seen at great distances... speed and mobility and amphibious performance are more valuable there.

Sure the Kurganets could carry a low recoil cannon, but I don't see it brings any substantial advantage.

Against most enemies a Kurganets with 500mm of ceramic and composite frontal armour plus ERA and APS would be as tough to kill as a T-90 from the front or from the sides or rear... no tank is invulnerable. Reduced costs meaning greater numbers and better mobility... floating across rivers instead of fording them....

Kurganets should be able to use the full power 125mm gun of the T-14 just fine... it would be the Typhoon that would need the long recoil model... perhaps an unmanned version  of the Sprut turret... I would think even the Boomerang could use the T-14 turret without problems too.

A Bumerang with this cannon makes sense because of its increased mobility and use in expeditionary forces, but the Kurganets as a tank is slow as a tank proper and weak as a Bumerang.

Why do you think it will be slow... it will be fully amphibious and much lighter than the T-14... it should be able to cross country a T-14 might have problems with because of its weight... or it needs bigger tracks...

In any case we will see, I just give my opinion but I cannot prove I am right.

I can't prove I am right either, but the logical point of developing new vehicle families... why make the T-15 and the B-11? and the K-15?

Surely if the T-14 is the tank and the B-11 is the BMP-4 and the K-15 is the BTR-100 or whatever and the Typhoon is the BRDM-4 then why are they talking about all the other vehicle types they are making?

The Epoch turret was shown installed on all these types of vehicles and has been seen on the BMP-3 as well... we have seen the small APC/BTR turret with the Kord HMG on the Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang platforms too...

The T-14 turret is designed for a heavy platform,

Who said?

The turret design of the T-14... with no crew or ammo stored above the turret ring would need very little actual armour and should actually be reasonably light as far as tank turrets go. A T-90 turret in comparison would need cheek armour of 900mm plus to protect the tank commander and tank gunner in their positions either side of the main gun but the T-14 just needs armour to protect the gun and the autoloading mechanism which presumably is behind the gun and only pops up when it is loading a round... another advantage of all the vehicles having their crews in the hulls.

Limitations of the platform apply, you will not see a Typhoon with a Koalitsiya turret.

You say that, and I thought that for a while, but we have seen a truck mounted Koalition turret that fires with very little movement of the vehicle... add a couple of the support legs the truck uses for stabilisation and it should be fine on a Boomerang... on a Typhoon you are probably taking it a bit too far... the Typhoon are light recon vehicles that would probably be supported by a separate artillery regiment that would be attached as needed.

I would think a 125mm gun on the Typhoon would also be over the top and in fact its gun based vehicle could be the 6x6 wheeler with the turret from the 2S38 57mm AA gun vehicle... being a light recon vehicle I would think a 57mm direct fire gun would be plenty of fire power for both attack and self defence...

There will be commonality where it makes sense, but there will be also stations designed for specific platforms or roles that simply cannot be used or don't bring advantages in other platforms.

A bucket or a line charge launcher for an engineer vehicle or mine clearing system respectively would be pretty standard across the unit types so having versions in different vehicle families would make sense most of the time.

Good that we agree there needs to be exceptions... of course if your vehicles are wheeled you can perfectly use truck mounted artillery and keep a similar level of mobility for the whole unit with reduced costs.

Well the point is that in many ops a vehicle like a tank... a heavy armoured vehicle designed to penetrate enormous thicknesses of armour plate really only makes sense if the enemy has a lot of them. In a COIN type situation it would make more sense to replace the MBT vehicle in an Armata or Kurganets or Boomerang unit with something like a BMPT or just a BMP with the troops replaced with extra ammo instead of the tanks... all the other vehicles could be the same.

In Afghanistan the Soviets took their forces in without changing them, so they had Chem and Bio warfare troops as well as air defence forces that were never really needed. The point was they were part of the forces that were sent and rather than leave them behind it was more useful to keep them and use them for odd jobs... the air defence vehicles were very useful... nothing blunts an ambush like a four barrel 23mm gun mount where the electronics have been removed and an extra 2,000 23x152mm cannon shells have been added.

Can a wheeled vehicle operate together with tanks in complex terrain?

In Afghanistan the BTRs were very popular... their armour wasn't great but they bounced over all sorts of rough rocky terrain and the loss of a wheel to a mine was not a big problem... they were often used together with tracked vehicles that sat back and used their fire power to support them.

I am not so sure, levels of terrain pressure for wheeled and tacked platforms are still very different...

Don't think of wheeled vehicles as being like a truck that will just bog down as soon as it leaves the tarmac... they have central tire pressure regulation systems and can lower their tire pressure for better grip on mud or sand or snow and are fully amphibious...

A BMP-3 with APS and modern sights and systems will be perfectly ok for many years and I agree too, that they better take their time with Kurganets and mature it into something that actually solves problems for the ground forces instead of creating them.

Keep in mind the BMP-3 is an 18 ton vehicle so we are talking quite a bit lighter than either Boomerang or Kurganets... and APS will blunt an incoming APFSDS round but it wont stop it... the Kurganets and Armata will have enough base armour to stop what is left, but I would suspect the Boomerang and BMP-3 might struggle. Think of an APFSDS round as a nail that is driven into the wood with one hit... the APS makes it yaw a little so when the nail gun fires it into the wood in one shot all the energy that would have gone into hammering it through the armour actually goes into bending and shattering it... it might only make a dent in the armour as it tries to go through sideways which makes all the energy of the round go into destroying the nail instead of penetrating the "wood".

Those numbers are per battalion not per division...

Yeah, just picked those numbers from the air... I vaguely remember 31 tanks in a tank regiment or some such thing.... the point remains that the Tank force has three parts tank and one part BMP and the Motor Rifle force has the reverse one part tank and three parts BMP and also ATGMs and towed anti tank guns and other things attached.

I have not any indication that Russians are changing their basic structure: 10 vehicles for a company, 31/41 for a btg, 94 of the main vehicle type + 31 for the secondary one for a regiment: brigate I know less well so I'll consider them similar to a regiment+ an equivalent share of divisional assets + logistic in order to operate independently.

You are quite right... as far as I know they are not changing their basic structure... what they intended to do was eventually get a brigade with one vehicle type or perhaps two or three depending on the situation, instead of the current situation with 26-27 different types from perhaps 8-15 different vehicle types all mixed in together.

NOW, I consider that the biggest advantages of new vehicles is precisely the one of getting rid of the presence of different vehicles in the same OPERATIVE unit i.e. regiment or brigade lvl.

And I think that is precisely how they will introduce the new vehicles... a division with three regiments of T-90s that is their top tier unit that will fight HATO in cities will get their T-90s replaced with T-14s and their BMP-3s replaced with T-15s and their BREM engineer vehicles replaced with T-16s.

I don't think they will get Kurganets B-11s replacing their BMP-3s and Boomerang K-16s replacing their BTR-82s.

So, instead of having T-55 to T-90 and BMP in a tank regiment one will have ARMATA chassis for both, the same will go with motor rifle regiments that would transitate happily into an all Boomerang force.

They use Tank forces and Motor Rifle forces for different things... if an enemy is well dug in and well equipped they are more likely to use a Motor Rifle force to get them out... perhaps with extra artillery forces supporting them because essentially driving at them with tanks is not a great way to deal with a well dug in and equipped enemy.

On flat open terrain however where there is a chance to manouver against an enemy force that is mobile and moving then a tank force is more useful to engage with the enemy.

That means there will be Armata based Tank divisions and also Armata based Motor Rifle divisions... there will also be Kurganets based tank divisions and Kurganets based Motor Rifle divisions and indeed Boomerang based tank divisions and Boomerang based Motor Rifle divisions too... and I suspect recon forces with Typhoon type vehicles might have 82mm mortar vehicles instead of 120mm ones and a 57mm gun armed vehicle instead of a 125mm gun armed vehicle, but they will be used too for highly mobile forces with very good communications and fire power...

The difference will be the Typhoons are there to get information on the enemy and not to fight unless they have to...

Logistical and operative advantage would be huge, keeping Kurganets in such formations would be just a waste of resources.

Think of the difference the vehicle family concept provides... a Kurganets force will have excellent cross country mobility being fully amphibious and rather lighter than most tanks. Where roads are good quality a Boomerang force could move at speeds no tracked force could even consider... would be fully amphibious too and light and mobile too.

Armata forces are mobile but also heavily protected... picking off the BMPs and BTRs and then swarming over the tanks wont be an option because the BMPs and BTRs and BMPTs will have tank level protection too and weapons optimised for taking out enemy IFVs of all types...

Remember even the Boomerang BMP is going to have a 57mm gun... even if it is the grenade launcher it is going to be a very powerful HE round, and an APFSDS round much more powerful than the 30mm cannon... the case capacity on that round is huge so the propellent should give it plenty of performance, and the 8 Bulat ATGMs each vehicle carries should let it take out enemy IFVs fairly easily and efficiently if they are moving... the 57mm APFSDS if they are not, and the 4 Kornet-EM can take on any enemy MBT to 8.5km range...

These vehicles will have the latest sensors and equipment as fitted to the Armata vehicles including APS systems and NERA as well as drones and artillery and helicopter and fixed wing air support on call...

A.t.m. is already certain that Koalitsya would go on a T-90 chassis and so much support units(engineers AD, logistics, and so on) would have specialized vehicles.

Current MSTA 152mm artillery vehicles are T series tank based... as are their BREM engineer vehicles and their BMO-T tank based engineer troop transport vehicle.

As the new variants of the new vehicle families are developed they will be used in the relevant forces... freeing up existing types to cascade to other units of course or be freed to go into reserve.

In this, I repeat, I keep seeing Kurganets as something with out a precise place to stay, almost when it came to regular units.

Think of the Kurganets as the cheaper lighter Armata tanks for units that need lighter more mobile vehicles that are not as heavy or as expensive.

I would personally use it as a substitute of MT-LB in that units that are actually using it and in marine infantry but I'll take the time to made the necessary corrections to made it really specialized in such roles (wider tracks or snow and powerful pump jets, water screens and ballast changes in order to made it able to operate from open sea instead than in rivers).

It will certainly need modification to allow it to operate in the much harsher marine environment but I don't think the changes would be impossible and certainly unnecessary for the Army to worry about.

Needless to say, with such changes it would also became a wonderful tracked reconnaissance vehicle so cavalry units will be another obvious choice.

It is going to be everything... though their might be a delay, they have no shortage or problem right now...

Also in this last case, however rigorously in an independent unit, NOT in an Armata or Boomerang equipped operative formation.

Of course... putting different vehicle families of the new generation together in mixed forces defeats the concept and the purpose...

Ooh , this is going to become an interesting discussion.

To be clear, this is opinion on my part... I have nothing to back this up, but this is my understanding of what they are doing and why so this is what I worked out would make logical sense. It is all together possible that they might decide half way through that the goals of compact vehicle family forces where all the vehicles use the same motor and transmission parts and wheels and tracks instead of what they have now... a nightmare of a mix of different families... they might have BMP vehicles based in a force but all different BMPs so one vehicle might be BMP-1 based and another BMP-2 based with a different role and of course different tracks and different wheel types and different engines and transmissions, and another recon vehicle in the unit might be BMP-3 based which is OK because the troop transport BMPs in that force are BMP-3s, but they have to carry parts for the older models as well as for the three different versions of MTLB, and the two different T series tanks they are operating... because while they might have upgraded T-72s as their MBT their 152mm MSTA artillery vehicles are based on the T-80 and have different wheels and tracks and engines and transmissions... can you see the problems?

Also when you come to a river your BMP based vehicles might be able to swim but your tanks and artillery and some other vehicles need bridging equipment which is T-55 based with its own engine and wheels and tracks and transmission... Bah!!!!!!!!!!

Brand new vehicle families designed with new modern armour that protect the crew as best they possibly can fitted with new weapons and sensors and defensive equipment... they have had ERA and APS systems for years but actually putting them on their vehicles has been patchy.

Just the new night vision equipment and communications systems alone would make a transformational change, but they are also getting so much more... it is really exciting.

I read an article in Snafu saying that the Kurganet-25 Is indefinitely Postponed!
https://www.snafu-solomon.com/2020/09/kurganet-25-indefinitely-postponed.html

and Russia going to upgrade the BMP-3 See Below too.

Tony
@Cyberspec1
·
Sep 2
#RussianArmy #Manul
1/ Heavily modified #BMP_3 Manul (yes there's a BMP-3 under there somewhere).
Externally resembles the prospective #Kurganetz_25 (has the same unmanned turret also) which has reportedly been postponed. Also, engine has been moved to the front

Is it right?

No reputable or authoritative sources were quoted so why lend them any credence? The claims seem to mainly based on little more than the fact that BMP-3 isn't being abandoned.

Dogs barking and caravans...

AJ-47 wrote:I read an article in Snafu saying that the Kurganet-25 Is indefinitely Postponed!
https://www.snafu-solomon.com/2020/09/kurganet-25-indefinitely-postponed.html

and Russia going to upgrade the BMP-3 See Below too.

Tony
@Cyberspec1
·
Sep 2
#RussianArmy #Manul
1/ Heavily modified #BMP_3 Manul (yes there's a BMP-3 under there somewhere).
Externally resembles the prospective #Kurganetz_25 (has the same unmanned turret also) which has reportedly been postponed. Also, engine has been moved to the front

Is it right?

I was not convinced but Mindstorm confirmed that Murakowsky actually made such statements. And now Manul starts making more sense, designers are reporting it is a transitional step to future vehicles and that ground forces have shown interest. I am actually liking the idea

http://bastion-karpenko.ru/bmp-3-manul/