BMD-4M and BTR-MD Rakushka:

Well here we go.

1000+ of these little powerful vehicles will be made by 2020

Russia to Commission BMD-4M Airborne Vehicles in 2013


MOSCOW, December 27 (RIA Novosti) – The Russian Airborne Troops will receive the first BMD-4M airborne combat vehicles and BTR-MD Rakushka multirole transport vehicles by the end of 2013, Defense Ministry spokesman Col. Alexander Kucherenko said on Thursday.
“Paratroopers are planning to receive 10 modernized BMD-4M airborne infantry fighting vehicles and 10 tracked Rakushka armored personnel carriers by mid-2013 for final testing and commissioning by the end of 2013,” Kucherenko said.
A decision to adopt the long-awaited BMD-4Ms has been made in the beginning of December despite an earlier statement by former deputy defense minister Alexander Sukhorukov that the vehicle had not met the requirements and would not be bought by the military.
The BMD-4M is the latest modification of an armored combat vehicle that can be para-dropped to provide firepower and support for airborne troops. It features a new chassis, a digital fire control system and a set of high-precision weaponry, including a 100-mm gun.
The 13-ton vehicle has a crew of two and can carry six paratroopers.
The Russian military is expected to acquire at least 1,000 BMD-4Ms under the current rearmament program until 2020.
At present, 123 BMD-3 and 60 BMD-4 airborne combat vehicles are in service with the Russian Airborne Troops, with the rest being outdated BMD-2 models.

http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20121227/178437013.html

Well, expected is not the same as will.
They are only starting production after the 10 examples will undergo testing in 2013.
Numbers will probably be determined then.

Hoping they get the up armored variant.

Αnd it sounds the logical solution for the replacement of all BMD-1 and BMD-2. A Kurganetz-25 version would be too heavy and maybe not able to drop

I newer think they have 60 BMD-4 and 123 BMD-3.

1000 BMD-4Ms
Why, so all the troops can just sit on top of them?
If they put any sort of active defenses on them the men won't even be able to do that - they will just have to walk aside them which would still be a better prospect than riding inside.

I remember reading about how the BMD-1 & 2 hulls used to just crack apart sometimes? Won't surprise me if you could cut those PoS's up with a simple can opener.

We need some new form of air-droppable armour ASAP, perhaps something that uses more exotic materials. Or failing that - perhaps a new drop-parachute or rocket system that would allow for heavier loads? Maybe drop the vehicle in two seperate parts? I dunno. Not the BMD-4M though.

remember reading about how the BMD-1 & 2 hulls used to just crack apart sometimes? Won't surprise me if you could cut those PoS's up with a simple can opener.

AFAIK that was in seriously rough terrain in Afghanistan. They ended up swapping their vehicles for BMP-2Es.

We need some new form of air-droppable armour ASAP, perhaps something that uses more exotic materials. Or failing that - perhaps a new drop-parachute or rocket system that would allow for heavier loads? Maybe drop the vehicle in two seperate parts? I dunno. Not the BMD-4M though.

They don't need the vehicles for protection, they need them for mobility.

Westerners don't understand the VDV, they think they are too vulnerable to attack any decent target, but look at western experience... operation market garden during WWII... drop airborne troops with light weapons and no artillery or armour behind enemy lines. Of course that is going to fail.

The advantage of the VDV is not the armour protection, though protecting them from small arms is obviously a good thing, but the fact that they can be dropped 40km away from their designated target... well out of AA range. The enemy might detect them but may have no idea of what their target might be. With their BMD-4Ms they can rapidly move to their objectives and with that sort of firepower blast their way in and capture their objective... which might be an airfield that they can then land heavier vehicles and other equipment faster and more efficiently.

The US equivalent of a BMD-4M is a truck or nothing.

Obviously better armour would be nice and can be added when it is perfected, but the BMD is about mobility and firepower and in their primary role it is perfect. For a conventional war they can borrow Kurganets's

And besides upgreading BMD-4 to BMD-4M standard Russians also managed to significantly reduce price by using much as they can components from BMP-3.

This little machine can withstand 30mm caliber from front and has massive firepower and unrivaled mobility.

Rakushka hulls under construction.

New airborne APC, not sure if this is the one being discussed though.



http://www.vestnik-rm.ru/news-4-3625.htm

That is Rakushka, BTR-MDM.

Are there any plans for the 100mm mortar on the BMD-4 and BMP-3 to have HEAT shells so if it runs out of ATGMS it still has AT capability? The BMP-3 or BMD-4 could be like BMP-1s on steroids if they have HEAT ammo.

It's not really a mortar, it is a direct fire gun, just low velocity.

100mm HEAT would not make much of an impression on an MBT.
For whats its worth however the Arkan IS the BMP-3s HEAT replacement round.

Arkan is an expensive ATGM not a HEAT round and it only carries 4 of them. Wouldnt it be good to have a cheaper backup AT weapon like a non giuded HEAT round just like the BMP-1 had?

Are there any plans for the 100mm mortar on the BMD-4 and BMP-3 to have HEAT shells so if it runs out of ATGMS it still has AT capability?

BMD-4s have little business engaging enemy tanks, and the 8 Arkan missiles it carries are most likely to be used against point targets like bunkers or firing positions.

Remember airborne forces tend to attack targets deep in the enemies rear... there would be very few MBTs defending targets like airfields or comms centres.

The BMD is a troop carrier, for enemy tanks they would use the Rakushka with a Kornet-EM launcher fitted out as a tank destroyer.

As TR-1 mentions a 100mm HEAT round would not be that effective... especially as the 100mm gun is rifled and spinning HEAT rounds are not very effective.

The 100mm gun is for delivering HE shells on point targets out to 6-7km which it is excellent at. It is not an anti armour weapon except in emergencies with guided missiles.

Arkan is an expensive ATGM not a HEAT round and it only carries 4 of them.

These missiles were expensive when they were introduced in the 1980s, but are not expensive now, and the BMP-3 carries 8 Arkans.

Wouldnt it be good to have a cheaper backup AT weapon like a non giuded HEAT round just like the BMP-1 had?

The BMP-1 needed a 73mm gun because the AT-3 missile it carried was ineffective at less than about 500m, so the 73mm gun was for use against tanks out to that range. (It could penetrate an M60 tank at any range it could hit it BTW).

The problem resolved itself with western tank armour getting better and ATGMs getting more accurate with much shorter minimum engagement ranges.

[quote="GarryB"]

spinning HEAT rounds are not very effective.

Huh!! So RPG-7 is not very effective?
You have some explaining to do

RPG-7 rounds roll at a very slow rate compared to shells fired from a rifled barrel.

The main stabilisation of an RPG-7 round is the very long tail fins that pop out after launch... the slow roll is to prevent it veering off in one direction if the fins are damaged or the propellent or warhead have settled to one side of the rocket.

The influence of roll is obvious... a HEAT warhead is trying to create a concentrated beam of molten metal... if it is spinning at 2,000 revolutions a second then obviously that beam will be dispersed somewhat... and trying to push a needle through skin is easier than trying to push a low density 3cm thick rod.

It is the primary reason MBT main guns are smoothbore... long thin penetrators like APFSDS rounds are too long and narrow to stabilise by spinning so they are stabilised with fins. Full calibre HEAT rounds could be stabilised by spinning, but that spinning would dramatically reduce the armour penetration of the round. The only two rounds that benefit from spinning are HE rounds and HESH rounds, which is why the 100mm gun of the BMP-3 is rifled because its primary round is a HE round while its missiles use a slip ring to allow the missile to travel down the barrel and form a seal to stop the propellent gas blowing past it but also without being made to spin by the rifling.

The British Army clings to the rifled barrel because they still use the HESH round, though it would be ineffective against any vehicle with spaced armour except the very lightest ones.

Sorry, I am not convinced.
During the 50ies and 60ies all tank (except T-62) barrels were rifled... and they fired HEAT rounds.
A HEAT round directs a tin high temperature jet beam towards the armour. The spinning of the round is unconsequencial IMHO. There will be no dispersment of the jet beam. Think of a aircraft jet engine, the jet exhaust will be straight even if you spin the engine around its axis.
The move towards smoothbore was not because of the HEAT round, it was because you could get higher muzzle velocities through smoothbores.

During the 50ies and 60ies all tank (except T-62) barrels were rifled... and they fired HEAT rounds.

They used slip rings, and even some very elaborate warheads fitted with ball bearings so the warhead was not spinning to prevent the HEAT warhead from spinning too fast.

From wiki:

HEAT warheads become much less effective if they are rapidly spinning, which became a challenge for weapon designers – for a long time, spinning the shell was the most standard method for obtaining good accuracy, as with any rifled gun. However, the centrifugal force of a spinning shell disperses the charge jet. Consequently, most hollow charge projectiles are fin-stabilized and not spin-stabilized.[4] The round could be fired from smoothbore barrel, losing some accuracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-explosive_anti-tank_warhead

The increase in muzzle velocity from a smoothbore barrel compared with a rifled barrel is not huge, the primary reason to change for the Soviets was because spin is bad for HEAT rounds and at the time HEAT was their primary tank round.

APFSDS rounds can't be stabilised by spinning either because the longer and narrower an object is the fast it needs to be spun to properly stabilise it... which is why arrows and darts have fin stabilisation.

GarryB wrote:

During the 50ies and 60ies all tank (except T-62) barrels were rifled... and they fired HEAT rounds.

They used slip rings, and even some very elaborate warheads fitted with ball bearings so the warhead was not spinning to prevent the HEAT warhead from spinning too fast.

.

Why cant this be done for the BMP-3's 100mm gun?

GarryB wrote:

During the 50ies and 60ies all tank (except T-62) barrels were rifled... and they fired HEAT rounds.

They used slip rings, and even some very elaborate warheads fitted with ball bearings so the warhead was not spinning to prevent the HEAT warhead from spinning too fast.

From wiki:

HEAT warheads become much less effective if they are rapidly spinning, which became a challenge for weapon designers – for a long time, spinning the shell was the most standard method for obtaining good accuracy, as with any rifled gun. However, the centrifugal force of a spinning shell disperses the charge jet. Consequently, most hollow charge projectiles are fin-stabilized and not spin-stabilized.[4] The round could be fired from smoothbore barrel, losing some accuracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-explosive_anti-tank_warhead

The increase in muzzle velocity from a smoothbore barrel compared with a rifled barrel is not huge, the primary reason to change for the Soviets was because spin is bad for HEAT rounds and at the time HEAT was their primary tank round.

APFSDS rounds can't be stabilised by spinning either because the longer and narrower an object is the fast it needs to be spun to properly stabilise it... which is why arrows and darts have fin stabilisation.

Interesting. Thanks for clarification.

Why cant this be done for the BMP-3's 100mm gun?

They do.

The Arkan missile fired down the 100mm main gun of the BMP-3 has a HEAT warhead.

The thing is that the primary use of the gun and its main ammo type is HE, so it makes sense to use a rifled gun and use slip rings for the odd missile it launches.

http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20130423/934101424.html

Due to cost increase (1/3rd more per vehicle) due to production line moving to Kurganmash from the Volgograd factory, the number of BMD-4Ms bought this year is rumored to be dropped from 10 to 7.

Maybe the rest they will get in the beginning of next year. What is more important is, that production start and that they come into units.

Another Shamanov interview on the latest BMD problems.

http://twower.livejournal.com/1086241.html

-Only 2 BMD-4Ms will be produced this year. The issue is Tula's inability to produce more than two combat modules for this year, which will be sent to Kurganmash for assembly on the hull. These vehicles will be tested @ Kubinka.
-In September 2 Rakushkas will be handed over.
-By Summer 2014 all 10 BMD-4Ms and 10 Rakushkas will be handed over.
-Wants VDV to be 80% contract 20% conscript. Says this figure will be reached next year.

How many BMD-4 and BMD-4M does the VDV have?
We have seen some paraded at May 9 parades in the past.