BTR-80/82A and variants: News

BTR-82/A is not IFV, but APC to carry troops near front line and not to support troops on battle field. For that role back door is not that necessary and the side doors are good enough. After all a lot of helicopters in that role have side doors (I know, not a good comparison). BMPs must have back door to protect troops while exiting in battle field. What is actual role of BTR-90? Is it a wheeled IFV like BMPs or an APC like BTR-80? With Berezhok turret it is armed as IFV and have better armor than BTR-80, but that still does not mean, it will do a role of IFV.

If they are going to make them they might as well put the best turret available on them.
They might even go for the BTR-90M with the BMP-3M turret.

I guess it really depends on the role for the vehicles.

If they are more for patrol then the heavier firepower of the BMP-3M with 100mm rifled gun and 30mm cannon might come in useful, whereas if they are for troop transport a smaller turret might be better to improve available internal volume... say the BTR-82 style turret with a 14.5mm HMG and PKT.

I am looking forward to finding out.

BTR-82/A is not IFV, but APC to carry troops near front line and not to support troops on battle field.

You are quite right in theory but in practise there is no difference.

There are no vehicles that carry troops that will go blazing into enemy territory with soldiers firing from inside them... that was tried with the first BMPs in the Middle East and was a disaster.

All so called IFV deploy troops short of the front line and retreat a bit and give covering fire when the troops meet trouble.

The 30mm cannon on the BTR-82A like the one on the BTR-80A and the BMP-2 is for direct fire support of ground troops. The 14.5mm HMG of the BTR-82 and BTR-80 is for the same thing... the Soviets and Russians use the 14.5mm HMG like the west uses a 20mm cannon... its performance is similar but trades some shell weight for penetration performance.

The main difference these days is the wheeled vs tracked difference and this determines mobility options.

For that role back door is not that necessary and the side doors are good enough.

During an ambush you still want your troops getting out of the vehicle fast when they need to, because being in a vehicle when the enemy has plenty of anti armour weapons is like bunching up when the enemy has lots of artillery.

After all a lot of helicopters in that role have side doors (I know, not a good comparison).

It is an excellent comparison and proves my point exactly. The Hind has a small cabin with side doors and for recovering one downed pilot or two it is fine. When you are deploying a platoon however it is seconds on the ground that count so even though they have less armour Mi-8 and Mi-17 helos are used to deploy troops because less aircraft are needed for any number of troops and side and rear exits means less time on the ground wetting yourself for the pilot.

What is actual role of BTR-90? Is it a wheeled IFV like BMPs or an APC like BTR-80? With Berezhok turret it is armed as IFV and have better armor than BTR-80, but that still does not mean, it will do a role of IFV.

For the light brigades the vehicles need to be fast and mobile and deploy troops fast. They also need to provide direct fire support because there will be no tanks or BMPs or other heavier vehicles there. I would think a mix of vehicles would be preferred that some troops will be in vehicles like the Tigr-M perhaps with a Kord in a remote roof position for fire support, along with BTR-82/As for troop transport... they will drop off troops and retire 500m to provide direct fire support etc, and also some BTR-90Ms with 100mm gun and 30mm gun and missiles. There should also be a wheeled air defence vehicle too and perhaps a few mortar carriers etc etc. Needs to be fast an mobile with enough firepower to overwhelm quickly.

All just my opinion of course.

Have read on another forum that the BTR-90 will not be produced for the Russian Army and that the BTR-82/A vehicles are stopgaps till a new vehicle is developed.

The BTR-82 solves most of the obvious problems while keeping the price to a minimum... it might not have thermal sights but it will be connected to the C4IR"net".

Apparantly the new vehicle is called Gilza which should deal with the biggest problems like much better mine and IED resistence, heavier armour, a front mounted more powerful engine in the 600hp range (presumably because of the extra armour) and rear doors as well as side doors though the weight increase will probably eliminate the Amphibious capability which is obviously significant.

The implications being that perhaps the BMP-x might also sacrifice its amphibious capability for better armour too... the BMP-3s design was seriously compromised because of the need for amphibious capability... to have decent frontal armour and the turret up front the engine had to go to the rear of the vehicle which had a serious effect on rear entry and exit for the soldiers on board.

Scrubbing the amphibious capability would allow the design to become much more nose heavy, though a rethink might lead to a reduction in armament as well, but heavy front armour with a front mounted engine will make amphibious capability impossible because it will simply be too nose heavy to balance in the water.

Perhaps external guns and external ammo bins could improve internal volume for troops and firepower for the troop carriers, or perhaps a "firepower" vehicle like the BMP-T does have a place but it will likely be heavy direct fire capability as an external 30mm high elevation gun could be fitted to most armoured vehicles, a seperate firepower vehicle that has the turret of the BMP-3M with an external gun arrangement and external autoloader in a bustle arrangement that seperates the HE shells from the crew might be a good solution.


I wonder if this new vehicle is the same vehicle planned called Typhoon for light brigades, or if Typhoon will supplement or eventually replace the Gilza.

I guess the question of amphibious capability comes down to how the light, medium, and heavy units will be expected to operate/used.

I would think the light and perhaps medium could be air deployed or deployed by sea which would make some amphibious capability useful. I rather doubt the Heavy Brigade will require amphibious capability so if it is not equipped with BTR-T type vehicles then any BMPs will likely get extra armour packages to improve protection to near tank levels which will make swimming difficult. The problems of the Bradley getting heavier come to mind and these problems will need to be dealt with.

While continuing to develop a new family of platforms such as light (Typhoon), medium ("Boomerang" and "Kurganets-25") and heavy ("Armata").

Of course it could be that this Gilza could actually be a Boomerang or Kurganets-25 type vehicle for the medium brigades with BMP levels of armour... it might even have 10 wheels?

Of course some truck trailers use double wheels to spread the load so perhaps an 8 x 8 layout but with the front 4 wheels being double wheels, or perhaps the middle 4... or all 8 wheels being double wheels?

I don't know much about trucks... certainly a mine that takes out one wheel will also destroy a wheel right next to it and two wheels like that would be harder to change, but it might allow lower tire pressure to be used which is good for cross country performance... you don't want to end up with a very well armoured vehicle that can't leave a sealed road because it will sink like a rock.

I remember reading a US army eval of a BTR-60 and the guy claimed it was the ultimate RV and he had it bouncing across all sorts of rough country and sand and mud and snow. If he got stuck there was a winch that could be tied to a nearby tree, or you could use a ground anchor if there was no tree handy.

His eval made me want to go out and buy one actually...

Have read on another forum that the BTR-90 will not be produced for the Russian Army and that the BTR-82/A vehicles are stopgaps till a new vehicle is developed.

The BTR-82 solves most of the obvious problems while keeping the price to a minimum... it might not have thermal sights but it will be connected to the C4IR"net".

Apparantly the new vehicle is called Gilza which should deal with the biggest problems like much better mine and IED resistence, heavier armour, a front mounted more powerful engine in the 600hp range (presumably because of the extra armour) and rear doors as well as side doors though the weight increase will probably eliminate the Amphibious capability which is obviously significant.

[quote]

Intertesting news. I hope Russian army will go for BTR-82A armed with 30 mm gun,than BTR-82 armed with 14,5 mm machine gun. Both BTR-82/A have stabilized FCS with II night channel (I hope 3rd gen II tube), so maybe luck of thermal sight is not that big deal, when it is in function of APC and not of IFV. Gilza will be the one to do the job as wheeled IFV.

I more think they will use BTR-82/A and Gilza together, because BTR-82/A is still amphibious and Russian army need them for operations around their large rivers for river crossing to secure bridge building. The same could go for their IFVs, where they will use with tanks heavier IFVs, but BMP-3M will be used for operations, where amphibious capabilities are a must have.

Anyway, placing C4ISR "net" inside tanks, BMPs, BMDs and BTRs will make those vehicles far more capable to engage targets around them, but the quality of their C4ISR "net" will depend on their recce capabilities.

As far as I know they will use the two models of the BTR-82 together (both the 14.5mm and 30mm gun armed versions) and that both vehicles are seen as complimentary.
I have read the BTR-82A with the 30mm gun actually has a system similar to ANIET where the rounds have fuses that can be set as they are loaded to detonate them at a specific range, but that would be a feature of the ammo so I would expect such a setup could be part of other vehicles using the standard 30mm calibre (with the necessary electronics, fuse setting equipment and of course the right ammo).

If they are a stopgap for the Gilza then I suspect when the Gilza is ready it will replace the BTR-82s in production and service.

As far as I can tell the BTR-90 was very expensive but had many fundamental flaws of the cheaper vehicle so it was cancelled and the Gilza is being developed.

This means that the Gilza might be expensive too but without the flaws of the BTR series, which means it is certainly possible it might be produced together with the BTR-82s I guess depending on how the BTR-82s go.

Previously I believed the Russian Army was going to make the BTR-90s and BTR-82s together while working on a new vehicle that was going to enter service after 2015, so I think BTR-82s and Gilzas could be produced together too, I would think as they make Gilzas they will replace the older model BTRs and perhaps keep producing BTR-82s because they are cheaper than Gilzas and as you point out their amphibious design and lighter weights will likely mean more aircraft can carry them whereas a Gilza will probably be 5-10 tons heavier depending on how much extra armour is fitted which means 25-30 tons so it is too heavy for the An-12.

I suspect that work on QWIP technology could lead to much cheaper night vision equipment that could be fitted to wheeled light vehicles of all types so the current lack of full night vision on the BTR-82s is probably only short term too, with performance comparable to a thermal imager, but when the technology matures prices in the CCD range like a cam corder.

As far as I know they will use the two models of the BTR-82 together (both the 14.5mm and 30mm gun armed versions) and that both vehicles are seen as complimentary.
I have read the BTR-82A with the 30mm gun actually has a system similar to ANIET where the rounds have fuses that can be set as they are loaded to detonate them at a specific range, but that would be a feature of the ammo so I would expect such a setup could be part of other vehicles using the standard 30mm calibre (with the necessary electronics, fuse setting equipment and of course the right ammo).

Something similar as Oerlikon 35 mm AA gun have? This is very useful against aerial targets, but less against ground targets. With C4ISR "net" it could do some AA job, but for that role a turret with two barrel GSh-30-2 30 mm gun and Igla missiles will be better suited. I know that turret was shown on modernized MT-LB, but BTR-82 could also use it.

I suspect that work on QWIP technology could lead to much cheaper night vision equipment that could be fitted to wheeled light vehicles of all types so the current lack of full night vision on the BTR-82s is probably only short term too, with performance comparable to a thermal imager, but when the technology matures prices in the CCD range like a cam corder.

[quote]

Any improvements in this direction are wellcomed to improve night capabilities for reasonable price. Anyway, 3rd gen II tube with intensifying 50.000x or more gives good night capabilities for night operations. Total darkness is rare in nature, maybe in heavy fog, but in that case thermal imager won't see much better.

Something similar as Oerlikon 35 mm AA gun have?

Yes, like the AHEAD rounds.

The real question is about the construction of the round.

With ANIET it was a new fuse and a new fuse setting system and some new electronics in the fire control system, so you got a standard 125mm HE shell and fitted the new electronic fuse and then you lased the target to get the range and that information was used to set the fuse as it moved in the autoloader from the underfloor magazine to the gun.

If the target was behind a concrete wall for example you lased the range to the wall and then added 2-3 metres so the round detonated past the wall. You then raised the gun to shoot over the wall and loaded the round which had its fuse set to detonate above whatever was behind the wall and then you fired.

Because it is a standard shell most of the effective shell fragments go sideways because it is the walls of the shell that fragment while the nose has the fuse and the tail has the fins to stabilise the round in flight.

They have introduced a new shell that has lots of fragments in the nose behind the fuse so if you fit the ANIET fuse to it it becomes like a flying claymore mine with lots of metal fragments flying forward.

With the new round if a group of infantry are advancing... say 1.5km away you can lase the front guy and deduct 300m from that range and set the fuse. When the front guy is 1,250m away you fire the shell and it should detonate 50m in front of them and spray thousands of small fragments at them like a super shot gun shell.

I have not seen the new 30mm shell but as it is a fixed shell rather than just a fuse I would expect it is designed to direct fragments forward like the new ANIET shell and the AHEAD shell.

The real question is how accurate is the timer in the fuse.

The Russians have had a similar shell for some time that has lots of little fragments in it but it detonates at a fixed distance rather than using a timer fuse and it is often used against infantry on the ground or soft aerial targets.

It might even be useful against UAVs as the range can be very accurately assessed with laser rangefinder so the spray of fragments should make UAV kills easier (due to their small size).

This is very useful against aerial targets, but less against ground targets.

Would be useful against an infantry charge and soft targets. With aerial targets it would also be useful against small light UAVs.

I think it might just be like tube fired anti tank rounds... it doesn't make an IFV a tank destroyer, but it is another specialised and useful type of ammunition that you might use or you might not.

Is BTR-90 a better Armoured vehical compared to BTR-80a that Russian Army planning to procure , in terms of firepower , protection and mobility ?

Nice video of BTR-90

It is better armoured, though some of the extra weight is from the heavy turret mounted firepower.

AFAIK they are developing a new vehicle called Gilza which will likely have the engine at the front and ramp rear doors, though I think from memory they will keep the side doors too... in an ambush situation an attack from the rear or the side is far more likely than an attack from the front so being able to exit from the sides and rear is an advantage.

The BTR-82 they are buying in the mean time have better armour than the BTR-80 that includes a layer of kevlar anti spall liner, but it is just a short term gap filler for the Gilza till it is ready for production.
The BTR-82 fixes a few minor problems with the BTR-80 like the stabilised guns allow accurate firing on the move, the ammo feed for the 14.5mm guns has been changed to allow continuous fire, where before the ammo was stored in 50 round belts so every 50 rounds fired it needed to have the next belt manually loaded into it. It will also have modern communcations equipment added and it will have some sort of battle management system there too so it becomes a node in the military network.

The BTR-90 is significantly more expensive than the BTR-82 so talk of its production is perhaps premature, unless someone has heard if both will be produced, or if the BTR-82s will be produced and the BTR-90 production will wait till Gilza is ready and it gets produced instead.

I am not sure if Gilza will ever see the light of the day.

I am not sure if Gilza will ever see the light of the day.

What alternative is there? Keep making BTR-80s forever?

Shifting the engine to the front and putting a ramp rear door is not that hard... the BMP-1 and BMP-2 had their engines in the front, and they can put a ramp rear door in an Mi-8 they can certainly do it in an armoured vehicle.

The thing is that if it doesn't appear the replacement for the BTR series will be French or Italian or German.

I do not think BTR-80 will live for ever but most certainly the 80 and 80a with few BTR-90 will serve the Russian Army for next two decade.

I personally think this decade will see more of R&D and prototype vehical as far as development of new Tank and Armoured vehical goes , no series production is expected

And as the new arms program shows there is more stress for the Army in other areas compared to new Tanks and BTR , infact the Army gets the lowest of the three service in the new 2011-2020 program.

So Gilza or some new tank is something we will have to wait for next decade , while we would see some incrementally upgraded BTR and T's to remain satisfied.

They better look at electronics on truck real good to make sure it can't be tracked by cellphone towers or remote disabled electronically. Problem you have when buying vehicles from NATO..might be some hidden strings. May need electronics ripped out to run motor/transmission and replaced with self made boxes.

I do not think BTR-80 will live for ever but most certainly the 80 and
80a with few BTR-90 will serve the Russian Army for next two decade.

Are they even making any BTR-90s?

A BTR-90 is not in the same class as the BTR-80... the former is expensive and capable... in many ways a wheeled BMP. The BTR-80 on the other hand is a cheap mobile alternative to a truck.

It is my understanding that the Russian military are not happy with the BTR-80 and BTR-90 layout and they want them redesigned.

As a gap filler the BTR-80 will get cosmetic updates and made into the BTR-82 and produced.

The BTR-90 design is being completely redesigned and called Gilza and will be put into production when ready... with better armour and a better layout.

If successful the Gilza layout and chassis could be used as the basis for the BTR-84 to replace the BTR-82s, though to keep costs down it might simply used BTR-82 turrets with simpler optics and weapons etc.

And as the new arms program shows there is more stress for the Army in
other areas compared to new Tanks and BTR , infact the Army gets the
lowest of the three service in the new 2011-2020 program.

A wheeled APC is a numbers machine... there is zero chance of meeting the requirements of 70% new stuff by 2020 if they don't replace their APCs with new vehicles.
The army is the lowest priority of the services, but it is clear that by 2013 they will have 1,000 Ivecos and 500 PVPs, and when those factories have completed those vehicles they will need something else to produce, the focus now is getting new things into production. The BTR-82s are likely already in production now, the BTR-90 was supposed to be in production a year ago, so they were expecting new vehicles and in the case of the BTR-90 they have not been getting them, so there is a gap right now. If the Gilza can't fill that gap shortly it might be Italian or French or German solutions that are used.

And as Pervius points out who knows what sort of Easter Eggs the maker might put in. The US was happy to put built in faults into the electronics they supplied the Soviet Union...

Tigr-M and BTR-82 in production and sent to troops

http://www.amz.ru/Sobitiya.files/Page3883.html

Are those barrels on Tiger-M air filters for NBC device? I hope Russian army will also install remote controlled weapon stations as it is trend now in this class of armor vehicles.

One question about BTR-82/82A. Does FCS TKN-4GA have laser range finder? It is a must have to work with ballistic computer and stabilization for precise fire on the move.

Does FCS TKN-4GA have laser range finder? It is a must have to work with
ballistic computer and stabilization for precise fire on the move.

I would expect so... especially if the rumours about the ANIET type 30mm ammo are true.

medo wrote:Are those barrels on Tiger-M air filters for NBC device?

Those are just fuel exhaust , would help while passing through foot deep water.

How is BTR-82A comparable with Ukrainian BTR-4? Iraq and Thailand buy quite a number of them.

medo wrote:How is BTR-82A comparable with Ukrainian BTR-4? Iraq and Thailand buy quite a number of them.

Yeah quite surprising BTR-4 has won good number of orders and Russia could not promote their BTR-90 or 82A.

Hopefully the Russian military will keep the factories so busy for the next few years they wont have the production floor space to care.
The Gilza should eventually be a much better vehicle than the BTR-80 series, and once its design is perfected I suspect there might be a cheap and an expensive version like the BTR-82/BTR-90 combination, but with the improved layout/exit options provided by the new layout.

With new production BTR-82s entering Russian service I suspect their biggest problem will be what to do with all those BTR-60s and BTR-70s and now BTR-80s they have. Being amphibious they will be rather useful to lots of military forces around the world. Donating them to countries and then getting spares support contracts would be a good way to get into new markets... especially with Russias no strings attached approach to weapons. Countries like Vietnam and Cuba etc could get them as gifts for old friends... we are talking about thousands of vehicles here... the vehicles in poor condition can become target range targets, or converted to civilian off road recreation vehicles.
The amphibious performance means countries that have soft and/or wet terrain will appreciate them... even if they traditionally buy from the west... a gift of free vehicles in reasonable condition will certainly lead to spares orders and ammo orders, and might lead to upgrade orders and perhaps later to follow on orders.
These free gifts could lead to orders for popular Russian weapons like small arms and light ATGMs (Metis-M sells very well AFAIK) and of course MANPADS seem to be hot items as well, though proliferation of decent MANPADS is a security issue.

Nice video of BTR-80a , seems its more than a stabilised gun update but a comprehensive one

Why does Russian army operate both BMP-3 and BTR-80/90 APC , both are APC so why operate two types ?