Future of Russian IFV/AFVs

That's a very interesting concept. I wonder if there are thermobaric "Bulat" missiles to go with the (presumably) normal HEAT type.

Cyberspec wrote:
57mm round for the main gun

Are you sure that thing looks like the amunition for a 57mm grenade launcher and not a 57mm cannon.

In the BMP-3 with new Epoch turret, does anyone know what the 2 guns in the sides of its front are? They look oviously not 7.62 gun.

My problem with this mock up module is that the "Bulat" launchers appear to be blocking the line of sight of the commanders sight, assuming its a panoramic sight.
This is not the only turret which has this issue.

Looks to me like the Bulat launchers are retractable and therefore should not be a problem and they will likely pop up and fire and then pop back down.

I guess the saying "there's no free lunch" applies here....unless the launcher retracts inside the turret, which I don't think it does. But remember, the turret is unmanned

Just looking at the model image they look like they drop down and slightly forward with side doors closing over top to retract.

It would not be the first retractable ATGM system for them... the BRDM family had all retractable missiles on the AT-3 model and the AT-4/5 model too.

There doesn't seem to be much public info on the missile

57mm round for the main gun

That is the 57mm grenade launcher round.... so very powerful HE capacity but not so good armour penetration performance unless they have a HEAT model but even then its penetration would be modest.

That's a very interesting concept. I wonder if there are thermobaric "Bulat" missiles to go with the (presumably) normal HEAT type.

I would guess yes, but on that platform if the main 57mm gun is a grenade launcher then that would be more effective in the HE role than missiles, which I would expect due to the low velocity of the 57mm gun will be the main anti armour protection.... Bulat for anti light armour and Kornet for anti heavy armour and aircraft probably, while soft targets would be engaged with the 57mm gun.

I wonder if that retractible pack of Bulat has a reload option that can be used when the system is retracted... no crew in the turret, but the BRDM-3 could carry extra missiles inside in addition to the 5 on the external launcher so presumably they could be reloaded too.

In the BMP-3 with new Epoch turret, does anyone know what the 2 guns in the sides of its front are? They look oviously not 7.62 gun.

They could be PKT barrels just sticking out further than normal, the muzzle device looks like the PKT cone and not like the current Kord shaped muzzle device...

Firing from such low positions I would expect a 30 cal MG would be more likely, though a 40mm grenade launcher would be useful too but the barrel is clearly not a large calibre grenade weapon.

Note the rear turret mounted grenade launcher on the BMP-2 upgrade looks like a 40mm Balkan grenade launcher with a longer barrel rather than a 30mm grenade launcher.

GarryB wrote:Note the rear turret mounted grenade launcher on the BMP-2 upgrade looks like a 40mm Balkan grenade launcher with a longer barrel rather than a 30mm grenade launcher.

They said that was AG-17 30mm grenade launcher (with longer barrel, I think), not 40mm.

http://www.arms-expo.ru/news/aviasalony_i_vystavki/vystavka_oboronekspo_2014_boevoy_modul_berezhok_budet_predstavlen_v_ekspozitsii_konstruktorskogo_byu/?sphrase_id=4802000

That looks like a very thin barrel... maybe it is a sleeve over the real barrel?

In fact the inside of that barrel is not rifled so it must be a sleeve... check out the barrel of the AGS-30 which is not as thin as this and is clearly rifled:




Bit of a shame if it is only 30mm, their latest 30mm round has a range of 2.1km but the new 40mm grenades reach 2.5km with standard rounds and carry a much larger HE payload... plus there are no shell stubs to eject on firing and the body of the grenade launcher is much narrower and more compact.

So much so I would think the new Balkan 40mm grenade launcher could be mounted any where that a PKT coaxial MG could be mounted as long as you can fit the much larger ammo.

I think they still use the 30mm grenade lauchers because of large stock of both guns and ammunitions.

I agree, for the moment the inferior but in service 30mm grenades do make sense, But the new 40mm grenades are rather more powerful and have better range... and for these sorts of weapons range is very important as it is very useful to sit 2km away from a target pretty much outside small arms fire range and pummel them with these rounds.

The use of the 57mm grenade launcher is very clever for the new infantry vehicle the only drawback is lack of anti armour performance.

Previously the 30mm cannon and the Ataka missiles mean not that good armour penetration and only about 4 heavy punch accurate shots with HE at extended range.

My own suggestion of using the BMP-3 turret armament was mainly based on the serious HE power of the HE rounds, plus the guided missiles (8 of which carried meant decent protection from armour).

There was a model shown of a new BMPT that had a 120mm mortar plus small gatling gun and grenade launcher which were surmised to be a 23mm 6 barrel gatling and a 40mm or 57mm grenade launcher.

This was even better than my choice as it had a 120mm mortar firing powerful HE rounds but also guided Gran missiles and Kitilov missiles as well as shells as would be a very powerful hard hitting weapon.

This package makes up for the lack of a heavy calibre weapon in terms of anti armour by having long range Kornet missiles (4 ready to fire) plus a retractable launcher for short range guided missiles that could probably hold a dozen or so mini missiles.

Most importantly the main gun is a 57mm grenade launcher with huge HE fire power... its lack of anti armour performance is compensated by the guided missiles carried.

I wonder if they have guided 57mm grenades? There should be space for them I would think...

They can continue to put 30mm grenade launchers on new and upgraded vehicles, but as the new 40mm grenade launchers become more widely produced they can eventually swap them over to the new weapons as the new 40mm Balkan grenade launchers are rather compact weapons, though the ammo magazines will need to be reshaped and new feed belts fitted for the newer ammo.

There have been so many things over the last decade that they decided wasn't worth the money, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that the Balkan wasn't installed. Besides, small grenade launchers occupy a rather strange niche for IFVs. They are indirect fire weapons that are much less powerful than mortars and have a rather short range. They don't outrange ATGMs, and small arms stop being useful against a BMP-2 at distances much less than 2 km. There's really not much an AGS-30 can do that the 2A42 can't.

I'm glad that that BMPT model wasn't taken seriously. It shouldn't be.

I agree, for the moment the inferior but in service 30mm grenades do make sense, But the new 40mm grenades are rather more powerful and have better range... and for these sorts of weapons range is very important as it is very useful to sit 2km away from a target pretty much outside small arms fire range and pummel them with these rounds.

Max range is rarely the typical range of engagement of any kind of weapon.

Interlinked wrote:There have been so many things over the last decade that they decided wasn't worth the money, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that the Balkan wasn't installed. Besides, small grenade launchers occupy a rather strange niche for IFVs. They are indirect fire weapons that are much less powerful than mortars and have a rather short range. They don't outrange ATGMs, and small arms stop being useful against a BMP-2 at distances much less than 2 km. There's really not much an AGS-30 can do that the 2A42 can't.

I'm glad that that BMPT model wasn't taken seriously. It shouldn't be.

Grenade launchers can do what cannon can not do efectively: in direct firing that are specially used in urban wars to deal with targets behind hardened walls or under trenches.

kopyo-21 wrote:Grenade launchers can do what cannon can not do efectively: in direct firing that are specially used in urban wars to deal with targets behind hardened walls or under trenches.

Grenades won't be better than cannon shells for targets in trenches unless a grenade lands directly inside the trench. Air burst rounds are needed for both types of weapons to be effective. Grenades may be useful in urban areas, but it is much better to have the dismounted infantry set up an AGS-30 at an elevated vantage point to provide overwatch.

Interlinked wrote:

kopyo-21 wrote:Grenade launchers can do what cannon can not do efectively: in direct firing that are specially used in urban wars to deal with targets behind hardened walls or under trenches.

Grenades won't be better than cannon shells for targets in trenches unless a grenade lands directly inside the trench. Air burst rounds are needed for both types of weapons to be effective. Grenades may be useful in urban areas, but it is much better to have the dismounted infantry set up an AGS-30 at an elevated vantage point to provide overwatch.

No, the Russiannarmy calculation shows that 2A42 gun needs to fire at least 100 rounds to damage a fixed ATGM under trench and 150 rounds if that target moving. The ineffective 30mm guns in ground attake make BMPT-7 can not protect tanks and that is reason army continues delaying to buy Teminator-2.

On an old fire control computer? It isn't just the gun you know.

kopyo-21 wrote:No, the Russiannarmy calculation shows that 2A42 gun needs to fire at least 100 rounds to damage a fixed ATGM under trench and 150 rounds if that target moving. The ineffective 30mm guns in ground attake make BMPT-7 can not protect tanks and that is reason army continues delaying to buy Teminator-2.

100-150 rounds? I am very interested in seeing these calculations done by the Russian Army, if you don't mind sharing. BTW what kind of moving target would require 150 rounds from a 2A42? Moving targets are typically considered as being out in the open and not in trenches.

GurKhan posted this table with results from state trials of the BMPT on the average number of rounds needed in combat conditions (firing on the move, day/night and by different crew). At distances of more than 1.5 km, 24 high explosive rounds are needed from the 2A42 to eliminate an ATGM team in a trench, and 29 rounds are needed to eliminate an infantry squad inside a trench. The 2A42 is not ineffective in ground attacks. I'm sure you have noticed that the unmanned "Epoch" turret for the Kurganets and Bumerang and the T-15 all mount a 2A42, and the 2A72 - which fires the same ammunition - is mounted in the BTR-82A, Uran-9, BMP-3, and many others.

But the real question is: How many rounds from an AGS-17/30 are needed to defeat the same targets? It is irrelevant if 100 rounds or 24 rounds are needed from a 2A42 to defeat an ATGM in a trench. What we need to know is if it takes fewer or more rounds from a 30mm grenade launcher.

Here it is @Interlinked

http://otvaga2004.ru/armiya-i-vpk/armiya-i-vpk-vzglyad/bmpt-s-30-mm/

The 30mm cannons generally are good but when firing down, its error is high. The tank guns are the same. That is one of reasons you see Israel install the 60mm motar in their tanks and now Russia equips 30mm & 57mm grenage launchers for their IFV.

They don't outrange ATGMs, and small arms stop being useful against a BMP-2 at distances much less than 2 km. There's really not much an AGS-30 can do that the 2A42 can't.

2A42 ammo is huge and when the target is not armoured its velocity is ineffectual. You could carry 30 odd 30mm grenades in the size space you would fit 5 rounds of 30 x 165mm ammo.

Max range is rarely the typical range of engagement of any kind of weapon.

Normally yes, but in Iraq the US used more 40mm grenades than they used 7.62 x 51mm ammo and that was because the open terrain meant they could see enemy troops at great distances but with the grenade launcher spreading fragments around the place they are much more effective even a max range than a bullet... at 2km there was not much the Iraqi troops could do in return.

Grenades won't be better than cannon shells for targets in trenches unless a grenade lands directly inside the trench. Air burst rounds are needed for both types of weapons to be effective.

The shell walls create the fragments so the low velocity grenades landing near vertically have a better fragment pattern than high velocity shells.

Also most targets will be behind frontal cover... not many of them have top cover so plunging fire is often more effective than high velocity direct fire.

A high rate of fire means lots of fragments very quickly to make up for lack of pinpoint accuracy and relatively small payload per grenade.

The 100mm gun with a big HE round or this 57mm grenade launcher also with a big HE round would be rather more effective at taking out ATGM teams in trenches or in the open...

GarryB wrote:2A42 ammo is huge and when the target is not armoured its velocity is ineffectual. You could carry 30 odd 30mm grenades in the size space you would fit 5 rounds of 30 x 165mm ammo.

GarryB wrote:
The shell walls create the fragments so the low velocity grenades landing near vertically have a better fragment pattern than high velocity shells.

This is only true for standing targets in an open environment, and the first instinct of anyone on the receiving end of any kind of explosive ordnance is to lie low on the ground. If the target is lying prone or inside a trench, it hardly matters whether they are being bombarded with 30mm shells or 30mm grenades. Most of the fragments will be flying over their heads either way. Even large caliber artillery shells with a plunging trajectory are not very lethal against infantry covered in foxholes or in trenches, which was why air bursting fuses were designed in the first place.

GarryB wrote:
Also most targets will be behind frontal cover... not many of them have top cover so plunging fire is often more effective than high velocity direct fire.

Frontal cover like brick or concrete walls, sure, but that's about all. Besides, experience in Syria has shown that infantry hardly operate out in the open in urban areas, even if they are behind some sort of cover. Both sides are well aware of the threat of artillery and mortar fire, so everyone tries to minimize the time they spend outdoors. It's true that anti-tank weapons like ATGMs, RPGs and SPGs are often set up on rooftops, but they are also often set up to fire through apartment and office windows, so having a low velocity grenade launcher is only useful for one scenario and not the other. A serious long-term solution would have to involve programmable fuses. Sticking an AGS-30 to a BMP-2 may be useful in some circumstances, but it's not viable in the long term, and it doesn't have to be, since it's still just a cost effective modernization, after all. Having an extra 300 grenades to play with doesn't hurt, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that the AGS-30 on the "Berezhok" turret is not the new norm for Russian IFVs. So far, the only Russian IFV to have an automatic grenade launcher is the BMP-2M.

GarryB wrote:
The 100mm gun with a big HE round or this 57mm grenade launcher also with a big HE round would be rather more effective at taking out ATGM teams in trenches or in the open...

The angle of impact of the 100mm rounds fired from a 2A70 isn't very steep except when it is used for indirect fire, and indirect fire is only for distances of 4 to 6.5 km or more, depending on whether you're firing 3UOF17 or 3UOF19 rounds. Plus, they designed a proximity fuse for the 3UOF19 shell so that it could be used for air bursting. Just some food for thought.

I stumbled onto this image a few days ago. It is form back when people were still tyring to imagine what the T-14 Armata would look like.

The one gun on the side of the turret is clearly the 2a42 while gun that ocupies its place in the lower image seems to be the same one as on the modified BMP-3 model shown above.



I seems to be an enlarged grenade launcher of 57mm caliber designed as an alternative to 30mm autocannon and I seems to be what th new 57mm grenades are for.



I personally have doubts that such a weapon would be an effective IFV main gun as vastly superior high velocity 57mm guns that have the added benefit of being effective against light armor are already in existence as is the tooling required to make them but it could be a great secondary weapon for MBTs as shown in the CG image of it mounted on a hypothetical tank turret.

Interesting...good pick up

Base on the Epoch remotely controlled & above-hull turret, Russia will equip different main guns for different missions. Epoch can be installed not only on T-15 Amatar but also on BMP-3 and BMP-2 hulls.

Sofar, it is equipped the 2A42 30mm gun and now the Ags-57 57mm generade launcher. Let see if it will/can be equipped the 2A90 57mm gun in near future.

Up to every mission, they will use the IFVs with suitable weapons (main gun) or combine a group of IFVs with different weapons (main guns) to support each others and deal with different targets.

Regarding to IFV with new Epoch turret above, besides the 57mm grenade launcher with 3.1kg shell (vs. 2.8kg of S-60/68 or 2A90 57mm gun), it has 8 small guided missile Bulat on the top of turret to deal with light armoured and other soft target. For tanks or heavy armored, it has 4 ATGMs. The BMP-3 version also has 2 12.7mm gun installed in 2 sides of its nose.

So it seems to me they are going for short range compact guided Anti armour missiles for use against armour, and full sized ATGMs for heavy armour and shifting the purpose of the main gun armament to anti personel and and hard target like bunkers etc.


Sounds pretty sensible if you can get the mini missiles to penetrate most IFVs, then the rest is just HE rounds which are always more effective in some roles than MG fire.

Okhotnik combat module for Taifun armored vehicles gets new upgraded machinegun

https://tass.com/defense/1246393

Interesting new remote machine gun...

Would add that since the posts above were posted we have since found that the 57mm grenade launcher actually has a high velocity APFSDS round for anti armour use, so the grenade launcher is actually probably better able to penetrate enemy armoured vehicles than the 2A42 and 2A72 30mm cannon.

Looking at the images of the 57mm grenade above it is quite easy to see that the complete round is roughly about 5 calibres long... just using your fingers on the image. The round is about 60mm calibre so five calibres is roughly 300mm long for the entire round.

Being almost 60mm calibre this grenade is much wider than the 30x165mm standard round of the 2A42 and 2A72 30mm auto cannons, so replacing the stub cartridge case for the HE round with a 300mm long shell case with a very long narrow dart shaped penetrator and the rest with propellent you can immediately tell the 57mm round can both carry a longer penetrator than any model 30mm cannon, but also have space for rather more propellent as well, so it is pretty safe to assume an APFSDS round in the 57mm grenade calibre will vastly out perform any 30x165mm calibre cannon round.

The basic problem is that it will have a totally different trajectory to the HE round with a heavy slow HE bomb and a slight very high speed AP round, you could not fire them in a mixed belt... which would be OK because a target will suit one type of ammo or the other but likely not both.

Modern vehicles will have aiming reticles that are computer generated anyway so the massive difference in trajectory should not be an issue.

Note you could do exactly the same thing with the 23mm cannon round in the 23 x 115mm round which already has a good heavy HE projectile but could be adapted to an APFSDS round too for good armour penetration use in a helicopter mounted weapon or an anti material rifle.

Take a look at the picure on the left side. A vehicle of the DT series for the arctic with the new turret.