Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

Maybe a misunderstanding occurred Garry.

In my post I am not comparing the Centauro to any tank, not just because it would be a sure defeat but because the final objective being to have omogeneous units, there is not sense at all to mix such units in the same tactical formation.

What I said is that while being perfectly possible to design a family of heavy wheeled IFV capable to take on the role of tracked ones (as always, until the weight didn't surpass a certain limit, so no tanks or heavy howitzer at all) if someone would want to have a wheeled tank destroyer armed with a high pressure gun I strongly advice them that they would have to take a step further and adopt something specifically designed for the role, as the Centauro certainly was, not just try to adapt an already existent vehicle to the role.

The same have done, just as an example, the SADF with their Rooikat that has few if not anything , in common with their previous wheeled IFV vehicle, the Ratel (yes, need to gave them the right honour of having designed and used operatively those novel categorie of vehicles, just in 6x6 configuration and lacking some essential characteristics of what they would became once in Europe).

GarryB wrote:lower ground pressure and it can go anywhere right?

It will be prevented from going far less places than if it had higher ground pressure. For a MBT there is no other chance than tracks, it does not mean that you can cross any kind of marsh or climb the Everest with it, just that it is the better option.

Of course not... there will be Armata and Kurganets for those that need tracks or something heavier and slower and more expensive.

Ok, fine....

but in a world where a Sprut could be useful... why wouldn't a wheeled version be useful in some places too?

Nothing against that. I just say the gun mounts are specific. The Centauro we are talking about for instance, both the 105 and 120 mm guns are high pressure but LRF or Low Recoilless Fitting. Pretty much the same as Spruts if I am not wrong.

And a lighter tracked model than the T-14 is the same... instead of sending  T-55s to Afghanistan, then Kurganets could have done...

Probably the one with the 57 mm cannon would be already very good in such environment, maybe the BMPT too.

In other words the AU-220 turret is in direct competition with the Epoch turret with an S-60 type 57mm gun...

What do you mean? There is no Epocha turret with the 2A91 gun...

Not very often there is only one way for them to go... remember they are amphibious too... and they are also much faster than tracked vehicles so could surprise simply by getting there much faster than expected...

Consider the fractal nature of hydrographic basins:



There is essentially zero chances in Europe and other temperate lands that you can go off road from point A to point B without having to cross streams and other forms of low, damp ground. You only need to get stuck in one of them to lose a lot of time, even if you where riding trouble free for the rest of the travel.

And they could put novachok in their smoke grenades...  

What an inhumane idea, enemy would be rendered moderately sleepy and unwilling to fight  

Reducing tire pressure reduces ground pressure...

Ok, repeating again since it was not understood the first time  

... and still have way worse ground pressure levels than the tracked vehicles.

And much better ground clearance is good for driving off road...

Actually the tracked vehicles have greater ground clearance. The big wheels needed to get good off-road capacities demand big suspension and high hulls, that is, they are a problem not a solution.

I remember in the early 1990s the US Army kept going on about the ideal tank... it seems shifting 65 ton tanks around the world is not that much fun and they were talking about a more strategically mobile 40 ton tank and there of course was a lot of talk but nothing ever came of it, but I always felt smug thinking at 48 tons the T-90 is pretty much what they really want but cannot say so...

Judging by Trump's last campaign poster, they are slowly starting to understand what weapons are the best    

Do you think that only applies to wheeled vehicles?

Of course not

Do you think a 65 ton tracked vehicle will just glide across soft ground like a hovercraft?

I am eager to see the 65 t wheeled tank...

Really you are just proving my point, some vehicles need tracks, either when they are heavy or when their operation demands the best possible off-road capabilities.

marcellogo wrote:Not for everyone but for everything that doesn't exceed the weight of 35/37 tons, yes, absolutely: a modern heavy wheeled modern 8x8 ground combat vehicle is the wisest of choices.
For Russia even more than for all others as the possibility to arm an entire unit of regiment/brigate size with only one type of vehicles is obviously necessary to made the whole Armata/Boomerang/Kurganet project to work.

Naturally, if you are instead specifically searching for an high pressure gun armed wheeled tank destroyer/recon vehicle, a B-1 Centauro (obviously updated), despite having been the first one of such a relatively new category of vehicles to come out, is still and by far the best choice around.pirat pirat

I have read they in fact tested the Centauro but didn't buy it, do you have any information about the reasons given? It may be a simple case of protection of the industrial bases / defence sovereignty, but maybe there were sound technical reasons? In any case the firepower of the latest Centauro II with the 120 mm cannon is a serious thing...

In my post I am not comparing the Centauro to any tank, not just because it would be a sure defeat but because the final objective being to have omogeneous units, there is not sense at all to mix such units in the same tactical formation.

It is unfair to compare a T-14 with a wheeled tank... a wheeled tank is not for every job... it has a very specific set of features that make it good for some situations and some jobs, but it is not meant to be your Main Battle Tank.

T-14 is a heavy tracked tank and is too big and expensive to be a standard MBT.

There are situations and environments where a wheeled tank is not only a better choice but a much better choice...

if someone would want to have a wheeled tank destroyer armed with a high pressure gun I strongly advice them that they would have to take a step further and adopt something specifically designed for the role, as the Centauro certainly was, not just try to adapt an already existent vehicle to the role.

The point I am trying to make is that the Russians didn't stumble to these concepts.... this was not a case of them designing and making the Armata T-14 and then thinking.... hey we could make a BMP out of this too lets called it T-15, and while we are at it lets make an artillery vehicle called 2S35 Coalition and an armoured recovery and engineer vehicle called a BREM T-16.

They didn't then think lets make a BMP-3 replacement and call it B-11 and a BTR-82 replacement and call it K-16... and then think suddenly... hey... lets see if we can make entire divisions out of just our new vehicle families.

They decided from the outset to create four new vehicle families in the heavy tracked, medium tracked, medium wheeled and light wheeled categories and to then replace pretty much all their existing vehicles with vehicles from these families to reduce the different types to a minimum.

The Typhoon family of light wheeled vehicles may not have been intended to carry 152mm artillery or 125mm smoothbore tank guns, but the Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang were.

They can get their 152mm truck mounted gun to fire safely to targets 70km away... it has arms it deploys to stabilise it during the shots, but it really does not seem to move all that much when firing... I suspect the support legs are for firing at more extreme angles perhaps where the truck chassis has less stability which makes sense.

The point is that the 125mm smoothbore gun armed Boomerang vehicle could be fitted with arm stabilisers too to be used to support the vehicle when firing the main gun... that is no big deal... put wheels on them and they could be used as training wheels to stop it rolling when shooting on the move at targets sideways...

Nothing against that. I just say the gun mounts are specific. The Centauro we are talking about for instance, both the 105 and 120 mm guns are high pressure but LRF or Low Recoilless Fitting. Pretty much the same as Spruts if I am not wrong.

I don't see why the long recoil model mechanism used in the Sprut could not used in the Armata turret and applied to the newest gun.

Probably the one with the 57 mm cannon would be already very good in such environment, maybe the BMPT too.

In wide open deserts where you can see the enemy at long range the 125mm gun would have value because it would retain better penetration out to greater ranges, but when the enemy has T-55s or doesn't even have tanks then the 57mm gun would be fine... especially when being used with 120mm gun/mortars and 152mm artillery support.

What do you mean? There is no Epocha turret with the 2A91 gun...

Why do you think that? There were all sorts of guns competing to be the BMP turret gun... including 30mm cannons which lost to the 73mm gun that won.

There is essentially zero chances in Europe and other temperate lands that you can go off road from point A to point B without having to cross streams and other forms of low, damp ground. You only need to get stuck in one of them to lose a lot of time, even if you where riding trouble free for the rest of the travel.

Why do you think a wheeled amphibious vehicle would get stuck and a non amphibious fording tracked vehicle would just breeze right on through?

What an inhumane idea, enemy would be rendered moderately sleepy and unwilling to fight

Only if British Bobbies are there to save them and take them to see the doctors at the NHS... as long as they can get you there before Boris sells it all to Donald...

... and still have way worse ground pressure levels than the tracked vehicles.

And like with small single engined fighters it is not a case that the lowest number automatically wins. Reducing tire pressure can allow your fast wheeled vehicles travel over soft ground they wouldn't normally be able to drive through. It does not make them fly like a hovercraft, but it means they have much better cross country performance than say a truck, while at the same time having the same high road speed and road endurance as that truck.

Actually the tracked vehicles have greater ground clearance. The big wheels needed to get good off-road capacities demand big suspension and high hulls, that is, they are a problem not a solution.

V shape hulls and wheeled design is good for surviving mines...

I am eager to see the 65 t wheeled tank...

Really you are just proving my point, some vehicles need tracks, either when they are heavy or when their operation demands the best possible off-road capabilities.

Modify an Abrams to run on its road wheels... it would sink like a pig.

65 ton armoured vehicles are unnecessary and too much trouble to move around the place.

I have read they in fact tested the Centauro but didn't buy it, do you have any information about the reasons given? It may be a simple case of protection of the industrial bases / defence sovereignty, but maybe there were sound technical reasons? In any case the firepower of the latest Centauro II with the 120 mm cannon is a serious thing...

They did test them and the things they learned went in to making the Boomerang family.... perhaps that is why it is further ahead than the Kurganets family?

GarryB wrote:I don't see why the long recoil model mechanism used in the Sprut could not used in the Armata turret and applied to the newest gun.

I guess the RCWS could be adapted to that low recoil mechanism, why not? As said, I don't know if it has the size a Bumerang or Kurganets type of vehicle can carry, but certainly a smaller RCWS can be created that is suitable, Centauro and Spruts prove it.

In wide open deserts where you can see the enemy at long range the 125mm gun would have value because it would retain better penetration out to greater ranges, but when the enemy has T-55s or doesn't even have tanks then the 57mm gun would be fine... especially when being used with 120mm gun/mortars and 152mm artillery support.

Yeah, I was assuming engaging infantry mainly, since you referred Afghanistan.

Why do you think that? There were all sorts of guns competing to be the BMP turret gun... including 30mm cannons which lost to the 73mm gun that won.

We have not seen any other RCWS with the 2A91 apart from the AU-220M, and it was only installed (in different versions, heavy and light) in the Derivatsiya and in the T-15 IFV. I have not seen neither of them in the Kurganets or Bumerang.

Why do you think a wheeled amphibious vehicle would get stuck and a non amphibious fording tracked vehicle would just breeze right on through?

Rivers big enough for an amphibious vehicle to sail it are relatively scarce, the smaller ones or simply the lower terrain where water accumulates exist everywhere.

Only if British Bobbies are there to save them and take them to see the doctors at the NHS... as long as they can get you there before Boris sells it all to Donald...

And like with small single engined fighters it is not a case that the lowest number automatically wins.

LOL too

Reducing tire pressure can allow your fast wheeled vehicles travel over soft ground they wouldn't normally be able to drive through. It does not make them fly like a hovercraft, but it means they have much better cross country performance than say a truck, while at the same time having the same high road speed and road endurance as that truck.

Sure, this is a key technology that has allowed wheeled vehicles to improve substantially their ground pressure levels and therefore the percentage of off-road conditions they can handle. Next step is that wheel presented recently made of three parts that can change from circular to triangular in shape, it may take a while though to see that implemented... if it gets implemented at all.

Modify an Abrams to run on its road wheels... it would sink like a pig.

Agreed...

65 ton armoured vehicles are unnecessary and too much trouble to move around the place.

Russia is already by 55 tons it seems... I agree an Abrams with 70 t has taken it too far. It probably is not very good off road even using tracks...

They did test them and the things they learned went in to making the Boomerang family.... perhaps that is why it is further ahead than the Kurganets family?

Yes, I assume they analysed it carefully and probably learned quite a bit, but I don't know what the results of the tests were, I will look further...

Yeah, I was assuming engaging infantry mainly, since you referred Afghanistan.

They build rock walls and live in buildings made of sand and other materials that bullets don't penetrate so easily... having some direct fire HE rounds that pack a punch is actually rather useful... and smacking vehicles with one HE round instead of plastering them with 30mm rounds makes a difference...

We have not seen any other RCWS with the 2A91 apart from the AU-220M, and it was only installed (in different versions, heavy and light) in the Derivatsiya and in the T-15 IFV. I have not seen neither of them in the Kurganets or Bumerang.

But we can assume there are or will be quite a few different types for different options... the original Au-220 was to replace the 76.2mm gun turret on a PT-76 light vehicle... the current Au-220M turret comes in a range of turrets of different weights and applications but mainly optimised for air defence like the 2S38 and of course the unified model for naval vessels: http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/naval-systems/shipborne-weapons/au-220-m/

Obviously standardising turrets would be a useful thing, but the Epocha turret is for BMPs, but BMPs in different situations need different weapons... fundamentally it needs a direct and indirect fire weapon to deliver HE rounds, and also a direct fire weapon to deliver armour penetrating rounds that can penetrate any peer vehicle it is likely to encounter, and it needs missiles to take down the heaviest tank or aircraft and it needs numbers of smaller lighter cheaper missiles to hit moving targets.

The latter two problems are clearly Kornet and Bulat missiles, while the first two could be solved by the 30mm cannon, the 57mm grenade launcher, or the 57mm 2A91 gun... we have not seen the latter yet.

For the role of anti aircraft gun vehicle the grenade launcher option is not suitable... APFSDS rounds would not be useful and very low velocity HE rounds not great either... high velocity 30mm cannon shells with air burst fuses would be useful and 57mm guns with 2A91 cannons and high velocity air burst HE shells and guided rounds would be the best choices...

Rivers big enough for an amphibious vehicle to sail it are relatively scarce, the smaller ones or simply the lower terrain where water accumulates exist everywhere.

Lot of big rivers around the place...

Next step is that wheel presented recently made of three parts that can change from circular to triangular in shape, it may take a while though to see that implemented... if it gets implemented at all.

If you want a wheel that can change shape, just have one that can balloon to enormous size when needed...

GarryB wrote:They build rock walls and live in buildings made of sand and other materials that bullets don't penetrate so easily... having some direct fire HE rounds that pack a punch is actually rather useful... and smacking vehicles with one HE round instead of plastering them with 30mm rounds makes a difference...

The 57 mm grenade launcher is rather effective against fortifications, and it has the advantage of rapid fire rate and smaller round size... not bad IMO compared to tank rounds, unless the fortifications are very robust...

The latter two problems are clearly Kornet and Bulat missiles, while the first two could be solved by the 30mm cannon, the 57mm grenade launcher, or the 57mm 2A91 gun... we have not seen the latter yet.

The 57 mm grenade launcher covers the roles rather well and with advantage in volume / load / magazine depth vs. the 2A91, which is specially interesting for platforms smaller than T-15.

For the role of anti aircraft gun vehicle the grenade launcher option is not suitable... APFSDS rounds would not be useful and very low velocity HE rounds not great either... high velocity 30mm cannon shells with air burst fuses would be useful and 57mm guns with 2A91 cannons and high velocity air burst HE shells and guided rounds would be the best choices...

They will have less organic AA capability I guess, but Derivatsiya and Sosna should go with them. The Kornet can be used against low speed air targets, I don't remember if the Bulat was capable in that role too.

Lot of big rivers around the place...

Sure, this plays an important role in theater / operational mobility, I was rather talking about tactical one.

Its such a shame the 57mm armed T-15 doesnt have more ATGMs. Two ATGMs? Thats on the same level of shittiness as the bradley. Why couldn't they have added two more Kornets?


I wish the Russians installed an AESA radar on their armata chassis BMPT that could fire khrizantemas at not only AFVs but helicopters Not only is the khrizantema much deadlier than the kornet, but it cannot be fooled by smokescreens like the primitive SACLOS(and no, lasers beam riders suck almost just as much as wire guidance). Since there are less weight considerations and the T-15 is already expensive, it wouldve made sense to add this massive increase in capability, compared to just 2 kornets. You will say kornets are already very good, but the whole point of the armata is to be the pinnacle of firepower, light years ahead of contemporary western AFVs. you will also say a khrizantema radar is too heavy, but radar ground radar tech has massively imrpoved in weight saving. The khrizantema radar is 80s tech.

Imagine a t-15 or armata BMPTwith 2-3 khrizantemas on one side of the turret, and 4-6 bulats on the other

Main weapon is the gun and the 57mm will go through any wall or obstacle, even the sides and weak points of an MBT.

Missiles are just in case they need something bigger.

They will have vehicle with khrisantema and kornet ED carrying atgm that have 15 or so reloads and will cover the other vehicles in front of them.

Kornet is hard to jamm and is used by plenty of other vehicles and is the main atgm carried by russian soldiers. Easier logistic.

Helicopter can be dealth with the 57mm gun too or the nearby pantsir/tor/tunguska/Igla/Osa-akm/57mm AA gun/Verba. They have lot of choices.

They will also have air cover by ka-52/mi-28/mi-35 with 3 or 4 types of atgm, rockets, guided rockets and manpads/r73 to keep enemy chopper far away.

Isos wrote:Main weapon is the gun and the 57mm will go through any wall or obstacle, even the sides and weak points of an MBT.

Missiles are just in case they need something bigger.

They will have vehicle with khrisantema and kornet ED carrying atgm that have 15 or so reloads and will cover the  other vehicles in front of them.

Kornet is hard to jamm and is used by plenty of other vehicles and is the main atgm carried by russian soldiers. Easier logistic.

Helicopter can be dealth with the 57mm gun too or the nearby pantsir/tor/tunguska/Igla/Osa-akm/57mm AA gun/Verba. They have lot of choices.

They will also have air cover by ka-52/mi-28/mi-35 with 3 or 4 types of atgm, rockets, guided rockets and manpads/r73 to keep enemy chopper far away.

They need to install the khrizantema on new IFVs and especially BMPTs. No such thing as overkill.  I guess you agree with the American(also germans and swedish) retarded decision to give its IFVs just 2 ready to fire ATGMs. I guess they too trust their 25-40mm APFSDS.

Helicopter can be dealth with the 57mm gun too or the nearby pantsir/tor/tunguska/Igla/Osa-akm/57mm AA gun/Verba. They have lot of choices.

What if the Sosna, derivatsiya, etc are too busy destroying SDB/Maverick/JSOW standoff barrages fired by NATO aircraft and run out of ammo, just as NATO helicopters decide to start with their hellfire and brimstone barrages?

The 57 mm grenade launcher is rather effective against fortifications, and it has the advantage of rapid fire rate and smaller round size... not bad IMO compared to tank rounds, unless the fortifications are very robust...

Before we saw that APFSDS round for the grenade launcher I actually thought they would use a mix of turrets for their BMPs... both essentially the same turrets the grenade launcher turret currently uses with four Kornets and 8 Bulats, and coaxial MGs, but a mix of the 57mm grenade launcher with a HE round (to replace the 73mm gun armed BMP-1 or the 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3) and the 57mm high velocity S-60 gun to replace the AP 30mm cannon of the BMP-2 and BMP-3.

Having an APFSDS round using the 57mm grenade round case means it can do both jobs with the one gun. The 57mm HE round wont be quite as powerful as the 100mm HE round, but the case size and length should allow the APFSDS round to be a much better penetrator of armour than any 30mm 30x165mm round they could ever develop... simply because there is room for a much bigger projectile and also room for much more propellent.

The 57mm gun becomes something that can replace the 2A38M gun of Tunguska and Pantsir... but with airburst ammo making them more effective it might supplement rather than replace those as well.

Lighter BTRs like the BTR-82A carry 30mm cannon so for those roles the 30mm cannon could continue to be used and with air burst shells will be even more effective.

Someone asked if Russia had a light anti tank kinetic round like the Israeli 60mm, well if they want one then doing to the 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3 what they did with the 57mm grenade launcher could be a clever solution to a light vehicle weapon system that can fire a good HE shell, with a decent APFSDS round, and of course the guided missiles designed for that gun to fire as well. A T-55 sized turret with the 100mm autoloader system and missile rounds plus extra racks for AP rounds would make it an excellent light IFV killer. A bit of bulky but not heavy add on armour on it plus ERA and APS and you could make old T-55s and T-72s quite potent vehicles for use where the enemy might not have much armour. You could modify the autoloader to add a turret bustle extra loader with HE shells to keep them out of the crew compartment. Say 50 rounds in the under turret autoloader and another 30-40 in a turret bustle structure... the actual rounds for the gun are quite small, though the missiles are a bit longer...

They will have less organic AA capability I guess, but Derivatsiya and Sosna should go with them. The Kornet can be used against low speed air targets, I don't remember if the Bulat was capable in that role too.

I would expect Bulat will be used against any sort of manouvering moving target including drones... even with the grenade launcher a command detonated HE round could be directed at a hovering drone or group of drones and detonated amongst them with devastating effect on fragile light drones...

These Bulat... I seem to remember ranges of 5-6km range but I don't know why... against most targets it would be a very handy man portable system too... with laser beam riding guidance it could be much much faster than Metis, though I doubt it would match Metis's 950mm penetration performance.

Its such a shame the 57mm armed T-15 doesnt have more ATGMs. Two ATGMs? Thats on the same level of shittiness as the bradley. Why couldn't they have added two more Kornets?

To be fair I think if they think they will need more that they will likely carry more. The 57mm gun will be able to do some serious work on a wide range of battlefield targets.

I wish the Russians installed an AESA radar on their armata chassis BMPT that could fire khrizantemas at not only AFVs but helicopters Not only is the khrizantema much deadlier than the kornet, but it cannot be fooled by smokescreens like the primitive SACLOS(and no, lasers beam riders suck almost just as much as wire guidance). Since there are less weight considerations and the T-15 is already expensive, it wouldve made sense to add this massive increase in capability, compared to just 2 kornets. You will say kornets are already very good, but the whole point of the armata is to be the pinnacle of firepower, light years ahead of contemporary western AFVs. you will also say a khrizantema radar is too heavy, but radar ground radar tech has massively imrpoved in weight saving. The khrizantema radar is 80s tech.

Russian Motor Rifle Divisions have anti tank platoons equipped with Shturm and now Krisantema... currently on MTLB chassis, but I would expect them to continue that and have Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang based Krisantema vehicles as standard.

Imagine a t-15 or armata BMPTwith 2-3 khrizantemas on one side of the turret, and 4-6 bulats on the other

With the side mounted tubes they seem to go for two tubes each side. With Bulat it seems to use 8 missiles per raise-able launcher, but it looks like the standard Kornet launcher which normally carries four missiles.

I would expect the Armata BMP vehicle (T-15) will end up carrying the 57mm grenade launcher, plus four Kornet-EM missiles and 8 retractable Bulat missiles as standard.

The version that replaces the Krisantema system will likely have upgraded radar and optronics and large numbers of missiles ready to fire.

They need to install the khrizantema on new IFVs and especially BMPTs. No such thing as overkill. I guess you agree with the American(also germans and swedish) retarded decision to give its IFVs just 2 ready to fire ATGMs. I guess they too trust their 25-40mm APFSDS.

I disagree with Krisantema for every vehicle... the radar system would take up too much space just to carry two or four missiles. They already have a dedicated design to carry them and the radar they need to make them effective. They will also have Pine missiles with no radar and large solid rocket booster and laser beam riding to hit targets out to 10km range with a flight time of about 12 seconds...

The BMP turrets shown so far seem to be 57mm grenade launcher equipped turrets with four Kornet and 8 Bulat missiles ready to fire. Together with 57mm APFSDS rounds that sounds pretty damn good to me... whether it is on Armata or Kurganets or Boomerang based vehicles...

What if the Sosna, derivatsiya, etc are too busy destroying SDB/Maverick/JSOW standoff barrages fired by NATO aircraft and run out of ammo, just as NATO helicopters decide to start with their hellfire and brimstone barrages?

Pantsir and BUK and TOR will be there too... I would expect HATO forces to run out of ammo first in this case because the Russians have a lot of anti aircraft weapons from Verba and Igla-S, through Tunguska et al... There will also be long range artillery attacking HATO forward air bases and airfields, plus friendly air cover as well which will make life for HATO interdictors difficult.

Do you know if that figure comes from an official source like design bureau?

Looks plausible.

Since when did Russia use the smoothbore 120mm...

Gun/Mortar.

NONA, Hosta, Vena, etc

GarryB wrote:Gun/Mortar.

NONA, Hosta, Vena, etc

Thoes are rifled.

I am talking about the 120mm gun from the leopard 2 in that edited image posted above.

For export.

The-thing-next-door wrote:
Thoes are rifled.

I am talking about the 120mm gun from the leopard 2 in that edited image posted above.

There's also a NEMO mortar in the graphic. Its an advertisment, meant signal to export customers how much commonality exists between the Bumerang and its NATO counterparts that it could use entire weapon modules developed for the latter. Not unheard of, with some customers of NATO IFVs procuring the excellent BMP-3 turrets for their vehicles instead of going with the stock.

State tests of cars on the Boomerang platform will begin in 2021

APCs and infantry fighting vehicles on this platform have successfully passed preliminary tests.

State tests of the K-16 armored personnel carrier (APC) and K-17 wheeled infantry fighting vehicle (BMP), created on the basis of the Boomerang armored platform, are planned to begin next spring, Alexander Krasovitsky, General Director of the Military-Industrial Company, said on December 18.

"Earlier, the BTR and BMP on a platform of "boomerang" successfully passed the preliminary tests. After them, we implemented a number of customer's wishes, modified the machines, and made new samples, taking into account all the improvements. Now the vehicles are ready for state tests, which are scheduled to start next spring, " he said.

https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/202012181346-O9mH6.html

The size of the "Bumerang" for clarity. the height of the board is about 2 meters:

Offtop: The T-16 BMPT looks simply overwhelming. it's much bigger than a Boomerang.

This video is interesting... not just because it is supposed to be about the Boomerang yet has footage of all sorts of vehicles that are tracked like Kurganets and BMP-3 or wheeled like most versions of the BTR, but at about 3:17 there is a part where it shows versions of the Boomerang with different turrets including one with an Armata turret...

It does complain about delays and design changes and absurdly lack of funding... it seems the idea of testing in the west is just a formality and no changes are permitted because that just increases the price and gives the customer what they want.

Ironically delays and changes in design cost more money and are not indications of a lack of money for funding... but these guys are obviously not experts...

It mentions these vehicles have all new systems so testing takes longer because they don't use proven mature parts but then speculates on delays and says stupid things like the Kurganets is going to replace the BMP-2.



The T-16, B-11, and K-17 are all supposed to replace both the BMP-2 and BMP-3 IFVs... Duh!

I was intrigued by the anti radar fabric cover that they put on these. I wonder how effective it is from things like JSTARS and sensor fused ammo.

mnztr wrote:I was intrigued by the anti radar fabric cover that they put on these. I wonder how effective it is from things like JSTARS and sensor fused ammo.

Good enough to mask actual vehicles as decoys even at close scrutiny. This way the enemy would have no choice but to drastically reduce the threshold for weapon engagement, increasing the rate at which the expensive PGMs are used on what are mostly synthetic fabric blow-ups fed by leaf blowers.

The developer announced the beginning of state tests of the K-16 BTR on the Boomerang platform

The new K-16 armored personnel carrier based on the Boomerang unified wheeled platform will enter state trials this year. Alexander Krasovitsky, general director of the Military-Industrial Company, told Interfax about this.

This year the K-16 is going to state tests. Preliminary tests of the armored personnel carrier were completed last year, the car received the letter "O" - he declared.

According to Krasovitsky, the K-16 BTR is a fundamentally new vehicle in the armored personnel carrier class, developed with a high level of protection, a new transmission and control system.

(...) all modern achievements of science and technology have been used in the design; it can be said that a breakthrough in engineering is laid in this machine. If necessary, you can control the machine remotely, that is, the chassis information and control system supports all functions of robotic movement - added the general director of the military-industrial complex.

Answering the question about the creation of a wheeled tank on the Boomerang platform , Krasovitsky explained that such a tank would be created corresponding to the task at hand, but at the moment there was no such order.

As for the possibility of creating a wheeled tank on this base, this is not a problem. If we are given such a task, we will certainly fulfill it. - he specified.

The general director of the military-industrial complex announced in December last year that the state tests of the K-16 armored personnel carrier (BTR) and the K-17 wheeled infantry fighting vehicle (BMP) on the Boomerang platform will begin in the spring of 2021, but did not give a more precise date. According to him, both vehicles, which had previously completed preliminary tests, were modified taking into account the wishes of the Ministry of Defense. At the same time, it was reported that new models of armored vehicles would be created for passing state tests, taking into account the comments of the military.