Future of Russian IFV/AFVs

I think the grenade launcher is a valuable addition... it has a large HE grenade with a tiny propellent charge which allows large amounts of ammo to be carried in a smaller volume of space than 30 x 165mm ammo.

Obviously the 30mm cannon round would be more effective with AP rounds and also the new air burst command detonated round would be more useful too, but the 30mm or a 40mm grenade launcher would be useful too...

flamming_python wrote:There is a version of that turret for the Typhoon-VDV vehicle but it's sans the 30mm grenade launcher to save weight

This full-version has the 30mm autocannon, 7.62 PTKM co-axial to the auto-cannon, and the 30mm grenade launcher

I think it was only mounted as a testing platform to see how it can function on such a light vehicle and to test para dropping capabilities and etc.

Serial production of the turret is already started so I am sure we will same exact turret on Typhoon family vehicles with 30mm AGS


Just as a comparison, Typhoon VDV has a different turret in the picture with a mortar. Also very interesting development as well as the rumors of 57mm on it...




Now real question is, will VDV become an actually wheeled force as well, these turrets bring them very close to IFV firepower and better protection than their tracked aluminum brothers in some cases.
VDV also not long ago tested para dropping of 17+ tone Kamaz trucks for logistic purposes, have tested buggies, ATVs and etc.

As pointed out earlier, a version with ATGM's would be usefull for VDV units. A basic dual Kornet launcher mounted externally as seen on the modernised BMD-2 turret would already be a signifant upgrade in firepower.
Another option would be a retractable launcher that can be reloaded under armor, but that would take up most of the space for the 30mm ammo. Such a variant could be armed with a HMG.

IMHO this looks a bit less advanced in design and layout than the mockups we have seen on the next generation vehicles (Epocha RCWS etc...). I do hope this is not a matter of cutting costs and going for a more basic design for mass integration. If the VDV does become a "wheeled force", than i do hope we will see the integration of more advanced turrets on those vehicles that can support them.

It seems many forces around the world are buying into the world of small wheeled armoured vehicles that have decent mine resistance and various levels of armour mostly protecting from 12.7mm. these vehicles are meant to be highly mobile (in terms of speed) reasonable off road ability, small arms and mine resistant protection and to be cheap allowing them to be bought and deployed fast. While most countries have opted to armed theirs with 7.62, 0.50cal, AGS Russia has really raised the bar and made then in all variants, as I previously stated IFV level of firepower, powerful ATGW capable of killing modern tanks, or thermobaric missiles to burn out buildings, even mortars, multiple MANPADS, the west as far as I am aware haven't went to this level yet. Export potential is high, and Russia enjoys the fact that it has a weapon for every threat and every price, for example if kornet is deemed too expensive for a customer they can offer Metis M, or konkurs, shturm. The vehicles themselves are fairly cheap if needed could be abandoned as long as the crew can escape to fight another day it's no big deal, and they don't carry sophisticated systems. The variants are almost endless. Russia initially was slow to start such vehicles and bought the iveco from Italy to begin with then quickly realised the potential and usefulness of such a vehicle then rapidly built various designs, to the point I would say they are up there at the top of the designers and certainly number 1 in terms of firepower. Now they just need to get them into service in decent numbers. I would imagine BDRM-2 will all be removed from service to make way for these, although maybe some will be kept for naval infantry for beach landings.

Does anyone have a list and numbers of the various types and variants in Russian service of these types of vehicles. There was talk a while ago that the iveco was given to border guards and to Syria although not sure how true.

There is an enormous difference in performance and costs between a tracked vehicle and a wheeled vehicle, and while tracked vehicles obviously have advantages on soft ground even they can get stuck, but on hard roads a wheeled vehicle can cover ground much faster.

Very early talk of armoured vehicle families for the Russian military included four types... Armata was heavy armour and tracked uses snorkles or bridges or shallow crossings, Kurganets was medium armour, amphibious and tracked, while Boomerang was medium armour Amphibious and wheeled 8X8... the Typhoon was supposed to be light and amphibious and wheeled and was to be a mix of 4x4 and 6x6.

It seems they are putting 82mm mortars and 30mm cannon on the 4X4 Typhoons, so perhaps 120mm mortars and 57mm guns on the 6X6 vehicles?

Is a 125mm smoothbore 6x6 possible?

The Sprut is an 18 ton vehicle, whereas the Boomerang is a 25 plus ton vehicle so a Boomerang with a T-14 turret should be expected, but on a 6x6 vehicle the T-14 turret might have too much recoil making the Sprut turret and Sprut low recoil gun the turret of choice for a 6x6 Typhoon model "tank".

Both 125mm guns have the same performance and use the same ammo... perhaps a new unmanned low profile turret for the Typhoon could be developed with the long recoil 125mm gun that could also be tested on the Boomerang base as well... or 125mm might just be too much and maybe a long barrel 120mm gun/mortar could be the "tank gun"... or perhaps the Typhoon based gun vehicle might have a 57mm gun mount.

0nillie0 wrote:As pointed out earlier, a version with ATGM's would be usefull for VDV units. A basic dual Kornet launcher mounted externally as seen on the modernised BMD-2 turret would already be a signifant upgrade in firepower.
Another option would be a retractable launcher that can be reloaded under armor, but that would take up most of the space for the 30mm ammo. Such a variant could be armed with a HMG.

IMHO this looks a bit less advanced in design and layout than the mockups we have seen on the next generation vehicles (Epocha RCWS etc...). I do hope this is not a matter of cutting costs and going for a more basic design for mass integration. If the VDV does become a "wheeled force", than i do hope we will see the integration of more advanced turrets on those vehicles that can support them.

VDV fight as light infantry for the most part, so portable launchers they can take with them when they dismount makes more sense. These things also have paper-thin armor so its best not to get too attached.

The VDV as a whole will never be a wheeled service. The Taifuns are a substitution for old trucks and vehicles. Maybe a few units will be equipped only with such vehicles for special purposes, like peace keeping.

I think the DBM turret will be the way forward for the BTR-82A. Unmanned. All ammo is outside the vehicle an it comes with 2 ATGM´s. First version with "old" wire-guided ones.

If modernised with the new turret the old one could be used to modernize BMP-1´s.

The Typhoons are supposed to be an entire family of light wheeled vehicles with four by four and six by six versions depending on the role.

For the VDV it is all about fire power and mobility a the expense of weight and armour, so wheeled vehicles offer good speed and decent mobility and the capacity to use shared standardised turrets with remote weapons is a bonus too.

They will be at least MRAP standard protected, so better than the jeeps the SAS used during WWII in the desert.

Boomerang is too heavy, as is Kurganets.

The Typhoons are better armoured than those light four by fours they can load into Hips.

The rough US equivalent of the BTR-82 is the cuck truck, not the Stryker.

lyle6 wrote:The rough US equivalent of the BTR-82 is the cuck truck, not the Stryker.

Its funny how the croat retard just dismisses the massive firepower advantage that even the baseline BTR-80 has over the general dynamics shitbox. The whole "V hull" advertaisement is utter bullshit. If you take an actual look on the stryker's botton, its obvious that its flat. Not that a V hull would be of any help in an actual conventional conflict.

Then we see some cope about european powers having wheeled APCs with better armor while quietly omitting that the russians have more than a thousand 30mm gun armed BTRs while the euros probably have no more than 700 combined. So much for criticising the BTR-90 over cost effectiveness.

For the longest time the west has been spewing hate on the BTR series... if you look in the manuals of games like M1 Abrams and similar games the BTR is derided not only for its weaknesses but is held as proof if any were needed that the Soviet System was broken and bad and if they had a congress there is no way these things could get into service... ever.

This is of course ignoring their purpose... they are APCS and if you have ever seen one you will see how small they actually are and angled as well.

In comparison an M113 was a box made of aluminium that defensive hand grenades could sometimes penetrate from close range and you had to expose yourself to use the HMG on the top.

Sometimes comments slipped through... one American testing them said they were the ultimate RV (recreation vehicle) that you could drive cross country and it just bounced over all sorts of terrain that would stop a truck for instance in that weight class.

The BTR-60 was designed to be cheap... they didn't even create a new engine for it... they just took two widely used truck engines of the time and put them together because one on its own was not powerful enough to move a 12-14 ton vehicle. I seem to remember the original engines were about 90hp so the two together were about 180hp... still not great but it was not a race car and with good gear ratios it was fine.

It was designed to be cheap and it was... the engines were widely used and parts were easy to find in both directions... for the trucks and for the BTRs.

That is not to say they were super reliable... each engine powered the wheels on its side and they were always over heating or getting maintenance... but they were cheap and simple and being wheeled could ride over land mines that would cut a track and stop a BMP.

The armour was not great, but no worse than the armour on the M113 or the FV432 British equivalent.

They were highly mobile, could get up to quite high speeds and on roads were excellent... very low maintenance in terms of the running gear compared with a tracked vehicle, though the engines gave problems.

The point is that when the Soviets were using BTR-60s and 70s the west was using trucks which are not armoured and not amphibious and don't have a turret mounted machine gun or two.

The 14.5mm HMG is more like a 20mm cannon with less HE power but better penetration against armour than a 20mm or a 50 cal, plus a rifle calibre machine gun.
You had to load them one belt at a time but didn't need to leave the armour protection to do it or to fire it.

Later versions replaced the twin engines with a newer 260hp engine which simplified the transmission and made them much more reliable, though in hot and high conditions in Afghanistan there were still some problems, but they were ironed out.

They are not intended to be fought from... the troops are supposed to fight on foot with the BTR following from behind providing support fire with its guns.

Armour is acceptable without being too heavy... I suspect the replacement wont be the Boomerang, but a 6 wheel version of the Typhoon.... the Boomerang will have BMP or better levels of protection but the mobility and low cost operations of a wheeled vehicle.

Ironically not long after reading how terrible wheeled vehicles were in games like A-10 and Apache Hokum, it turns out the west started to appreciate the LAV series of wheeled vehicles and then they started to lay off the design a bit and appreciate that Soviet troops in these vehicles would be in trucks or walking without them.

There was a similar revelation about smoothbore main tank guns after western countries started to adopt them... suddenly they were accurate enough all of a sudden.

Well from my experience our battalion was once assigned as a mechanized battalion (in the British army infantry regiments rotate from being in the light role (trucks and landrovers), mechanized (Saxon apc now replaced with mrap), and armoured (warrior ifv).

In my time we were assigned light role, mechanized role, the rest of my service was in Cyprus and northern Ireland (different ball game altogether where we were it was too dangerous to use vehicles only on foot or heli drop, vehicle movement was banned)

The Saxon apc was shit, originally designed for the streets of Northern Ireland to which it was OK for the role. But take it out in the field it was dangerous and often overturned so much so that during exercises it was a rule that only the driver and commander( who sat in the open hatch/gpmg cupola, Everyone else had to de-bus this was done when going down slopes or any area where there was a risk of it overturning. I was using a command variant and while bouncing along on bumpy fairly flat ground the command station inside which was held in with spring bolts bounced out and crushed me and another guy luckily no serious injuries and if it wasn't for us wearing helmets our heads would have most likely popped like a watermelon. Very dangerous vehicle. The mobilty was shit armoured only against 7.62mm although not close range, and only a 7.62 gpmg for fire power. It was embarrassing and this was in 2002. I am not Sure when they were removed from service but I believe they were replaced by various mrap type vehicles. One odd thing was while out battalion was equipped with Saxon apc our recce platoon was given scimitar which was tracked and was armed with 30mm rarden cannon and 7.62mm gpmg which was good firepower for such a small vehicle.

Anyway the soviets/ Russians had far better range if vehicles, the BTR-60/70/80 are better on mobility, armour, space inside, firepower and could also swim. A British mechanized battalion up against a Russian mechanized battalion armed with BTR 80 would we have gotten out ass kicked. I remember when BTR -90 came out we were all thinking let us hope we never have to face it.

As garryb stated people often forget the role of a BTR and just focus on firepower and armour as if they are comparing it to a IFV or MBT

d_taddei2 wrote:Well from my experience our battalion was once assigned as a mechanized battalion (in the British army infantry regiments rotate from being in the light role (trucks and landrovers), mechanized (Saxon apc now replaced with mrap), and armoured (warrior ifv).

In my time we were assigned light role, mechanized role, the rest of my service was in Cyprus and northern Ireland (different ball game altogether where we were it was too dangerous to use vehicles only on foot or heli drop, vehicle movement was banned)

The Saxon apc was shit, originally designed for the streets of Northern Ireland to which it was OK for the role. But take it out in the field it was dangerous and often overturned so much so that during exercises it was a rule that only the driver and commander( who sat in the open hatch/gpmg cupola, Everyone else had to de-bus this was done when going down slopes or any area where there was a risk of it overturning. I was using a command variant and while bouncing along on bumpy fairly flat ground the command station inside which was held in with spring bolts bounced out and crushed me and another guy luckily no serious injuries and if it wasn't for us wearing helmets our heads would have most likely popped like a watermelon. Very dangerous vehicle. The mobilty was shit armoured only against 7.62mm although not close range, and only a 7.62 gpmg for fire power. It was embarrassing and this was in 2002. I am not Sure when they were removed from service but I believe they were replaced by various mrap type vehicles. One odd thing was while out battalion was equipped with Saxon apc our recce platoon was given scimitar which was tracked and was armed with 30mm rarden cannon and 7.62mm gpmg which was good firepower for such a small vehicle.

Anyway the soviets/ Russians had far better range if vehicles, the BTR-60/70/80 are better on mobility, armour, space inside, firepower and could also swim. A British mechanized battalion up against a Russian mechanized battalion armed with BTR 80 would we have gotten out ass kicked. I remember when BTR -90 came out we were all thinking let us hope we never have to face it.

As garryb stated people often forget the role of a BTR and just focus on firepower and armour as if they are comparing it to a IFV or MBT

Well, the brits had the spartan, scimitar and scorpion light tanks and APCs during the 70s, which was enough for recon in force I guess.

GarryB wrote:

Armour is acceptable without being too heavy... I suspect the replacement wont be the Boomerang, but a 6 wheel version of the Typhoon.... the Boomerang will have BMP or better levels of protection but the mobility and low cost operations of a wheeled vehicle.

The Typhoon-K MRAP would be an ill-fit for a BTR-82 replacement. It could hardly match the characteristics of the BTR-82 let alone surpass it, except of course on mine protection. Like all other MRAPs its a glorified bus, and frankly has not much business in a near peer conflict.

The Bumerang though while a perfect fit, I can't imagine it would be cheap even if its wheeled - too many features on one hull - even has APS on it.

Taifun´s are mainly a replacement for unarmoured trucks. Not for APC´s. But GarryB is also right, because as he pointed out the BTR series was developed as replacement for simple trucks to transform infantry units into motorised rifle units. Therefore the Taifun is somehow a replacement, also the current versions are not amphibious. The real ancestor of the Taifun is the BTR-152, which was also a armoured tuck.

Bumerang will replace the old BTR series only in first line units, that´s why I think that the BTR-82 and his upgrades will be around for a while.

Hole wrote:Taifun´s are mainly a replacement for unarmoured trucks. Not for APC´s. But GarryB is also right, because as he pointed out the BTR series was developed as replacement for simple trucks to transform infantry units into motorised rifle units. Therefore the Taifun is somehow a replacement, also the current versions are not amphibious. The real ancestor of the Taifun is the BTR-152, which was also a armoured tuck.

Bumerang will replace the old BTR series only in first line units, that´s why I think that the BTR-82 and his upgrades will be around for a while.

You'd have to look far and wide to find regular formations in the Russian Army that went back to using unarmoured trucks as their mode of transport. Even the consolidated National Guard should have no problem finding BTRs for their use given the abundance of the stuff - and they are the ones who would most appreciate an MRAP.

Well, the brits had the spartan, scimitar and scorpion light tanks and APCs during the 70s, which was enough for recon in force I guess.

During the 1970s their APC was the FV432, which was basically a British M113 that was made of steel instead of aluminium.

Sounds better but it really wasn't.

The aluminium was much thicker in the M113 than the steel used in the FV432 so in practice the aluminium was thicker and more rigid even though it was not as hard.

For very light vehicles like the BMD aluminium is used because the same weight in steel would be flimsy and useless.

Think of it in an extreme example... say steel and plastic... by weight a 2mm thick steel frame vs say a 50mm thick resin plastic... by weight the same but the plastic is thick enough to be much stronger, while as a frame having only 2mm of steel means it is not rigid and would flex and buckle when driven cross country.

Obviously aluminium is closer to steel in weight but the equivalent weight of aluminium makes it able to be made stronger and more rigid even if it is not more bullet resistent.

The Typhoon-K MRAP would be an ill-fit for a BTR-82 replacement. It could hardly match the characteristics of the BTR-82 let alone surpass it, except of course on mine protection.

The Typhoon has armour to stop small arms up to HMG from a specific range... the BTR-82 is not better armoured than that... neither vehicle is designed to slug it out under enemy fire... both are essentially truck like battle taxis that are amphibious and have better cross country than a truck.

The Bumerang though while a perfect fit, I can't imagine it would be cheap even if its wheeled - too many features on one hull - even has APS on it.

Boomerang is 10 tons heavier than a BMP and likely has rather better armour and is certainly not comparable to a BTR of any type or form.

Taifun´s are mainly a replacement for unarmoured trucks. Not for APC´s.

But the Typhoons include APC versions, the equivalent of which would be the BTR series of APCs... the other models replacing other truck versions/uses.

Bumerang will replace the old BTR series only in first line units, that´s why I think that the BTR-82 and his upgrades will be around for a while.

Keep in mind that there were lots of different vehicles within all army units that were BTR based... from engineer and recon vehicles to radio and other support variants.

The BTR-82 will be around for a long time because it is cheap and simple and effective for a lot of roles where something better is not needed, but right now BTR-82s are used in motor rifle and also tank divisions... whether for APC use or the other support roles including jamming and recon etc etc.

The future Army units will be Armata, Kurganets, and Boomerang based, which I guess means the actual replacements for BTR-82s will be armata and Kurganets and Boomerang vehicles with Kord turrets like this (vehicle turret on the right):



This shows the size difference of the Boomerang and BTR-80 and some MRAPs:

Kurganmashzavod (part of the High-Precision Systems holding of Rostec State Corporation) is the only company in Russia that produces infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) used by armies in dozens of countries around the world. The company's executive director Pyotr Tiukov told TASS in an interview about how the military operation in Ukraine affects further modernization of the BMPs coming off the plant's assembly line, about the tank fire control systems developed by the plant that are superior to foreign analogues, and also about the interest of foreign customers in the Manul BMP platform and the weapons that can be installed on it.


- Mr. Petrovich, to what extent in the last year has the demand for your BMPs increased worldwide and in Russia? Can we say that the special military operation in Ukraine has created a great demand for them?

- With the start of the special military operation in Ukraine, a significant increase in the state defense order became noticeable. The Russian Ministry of Defense is interested in supplies of Kurgan military equipment, as well as spare parts for it.

Foreign deliveries continue: customers from the Middle Eastern states are buying spare parts for BMP-3, and CIS countries and India are buying spare parts for BMP-2. All the negotiations on military-technical cooperation are conducted by Rosoboronexport which appreciates active interest of foreign countries to Kurganmashzavod products.

- Have you received any proposals from the military on possible modernization of BMPs which are used during the special operation in Ukraine? Perhaps some old developed projects of BMPs became actual and the military is ready to buy them? If so, tell us more about them.

- All the military proposals on the resumption of the production of the earlier generation BMPs or their overhaul with the elements of modernization are being carefully studied. But we have to understand that the price of such vehicles will be much higher than that of the new serial production vehicles, such as BMP-3 and BMD-4M. Both Kurganmashzavod, Rostec State Corporation, and the Russian Ministry of Defense are striving for a reasonable mutual understanding in their approach to shaping the army's needs for military equipment.

Based on the results of the use of the BMP-3 in the special operation in Ukraine, it was decided to reinforce the vehicles with an additional protection system (grids and armor shields). By the way, issues of military equipment modernization taking into account combat use are already being worked out by our design bureau to include changes in the new generation products.

- What feedback do you receive from the military on the combat use of your products during special operations? How do the products manufactured at your plant perform? Which of them proved to be highly effective?

- Kurganmashzavod's armored vehicles have long ago proven themselves in various conditions of use, including during military operations. The military have no complaints about the BMP-3. The reviews are very good. They confirm that our "three" is the most modern machine in its class.

The second and third generation infantry fighting vehicles, upgraded airborne combat vehicles and airborne armored personnel carriers help in special operations in Ukraine to destroy defensive structures, suppress enemy fire points and, most importantly, save the lives of our guys, the military.

And for us, the factory workers, the participation of our equipment in the special operation is also a test of the reliability of the equipment, the correctness of the implemented ideas, an additional opportunity to make certain improvements in the design of vehicles.

- Have the state tests of the modernized 125-mm self-propelled anti-tank gun 2S25 been completed? How did the results of the tests show the water-carrying qualities of the light tank and the results of the fire test on water? When is the launch of serial production of the vehicle for the Russian Armed Forces planned?

- The state tests of the 2S25 upgraded 125 mm self-propelled anti-tank gun have been completed as planned, in the first half of the year 2022. At the moment design documentation is being corrected to be considered by the inter-departmental commission and assigned the O1 designation. After that a decision will be made whether the model can be adopted by the Russian Army.

During the state tests the vehicle showed high water-carrying qualities during inspections in the Black Sea water area, demonstrated the possibility of transportation by large landing ships, and the capabilities of the weapons system afloat.

SPTP 2S25M, based on its name, is designed to fight enemy tanks and has powerful weapons for this - a 125-mm cannon, which is an analogue of tank guns. During numerous shooting tests, the characteristics of the machine in terms of hit accuracy in various operating modes were confirmed.

Tests proved that the SPTP 2S25M is not inferior to the firepower of T-90 tanks, and in terms of mobility on land and water it is at the level of the BMD-4M. The armament complex provides for the use of modern armor-piercing sub-caliber, cumulative, high-explosive fragmentation shells, as well as ammunition with remote detonation. The range of hitting targets with direct fire is up to 5 km.

Now the company has started preparations for serial production of this machine, the technological processes are being worked out, the necessary equipment is being selected and manufactured, and negotiations with the OEMs are underway.

- Are there any plans to create a wheeled tank with a 125 mm self-propelled anti-tank gun compartment? If so, have the works on the creation of such a vehicle started?

- We have not received the Terms of Reference from the Ministry of Defense for the creation of such a vehicle, so it is impossible to estimate the demand for the vehicle so far. Moreover, it is too early to talk about the export contracts for the wheeled tank, first we have to start deliveries of the tracked SPTP.

It is assumed that the wheeled vehicle with the combat compartment from the 2S25M SPTP will be export-oriented. In the Russian Armed Forces such vehicles are less likely to be used, since traditionally priority is given to tracked chassis, based on the peculiarities of our geography.

The range of tasks that can be solved by such a wheeled vehicle is very limited. The advantages can be in range and speed on highways, hard ground, flat terrain, and dry dirt roads. Therefore, in some armies of the world such vehicles are used for reconnaissance, local low-intensity conflicts, peacekeeping and counter-terrorist operations. But in off-road conditions, in the autumn-spring muddy roads, in mountains and wooded areas the wheeled vehicles are seriously inferior to tracked vehicles in cross-country ability. The wheeled tank is not in any way capable of replacing the main battlefield tank as the main attacking power of ground troops, as it does not provide the same level of protection and cross-country capability.

The most likely markets for wheeled vehicles would be in the Middle East and Africa.

- Has India shown any interest in the upgraded 2S25 125 mm self-propelled anti-tank gun? And customers from other states? Do you have any concrete orders (contracts)?

- We are currently developing the upgraded 2S25 125 mm self-propelled anti-tank gun for the Russian Airborne Troops, but the foreign customers will definitely be interested in it, too. We mainly focus on the markets of India, South-East Asia and the Middle East. The Rosoboronexport is in charge of the needs for the vehicles and the evaluation of the possibilities of military and technical cooperation in this field.

Since the machine has only passed state tests, the final package of normative design documentation is being formed now, after which it will be possible to talk about concluding specific contracts.

The tests proved that the 2S25M SPSV is not inferior to the firepower of the T-90 type tanks and is on a par with the BMD-4M in terms of mobility on land and water. The armament package provides for the use of modern armor-piercing sub-caliber, shaped charge and high-explosive projectiles as well as remotely detonated ammunition.

- The upgraded version of the 2S25M SPTP has a unique fire control system (FCS). Can you tell us about its advantages and how it is superior to Western competitors?

- Indeed, our "self-propelled" vehicle is equipped with the latest digital fire control system. The whole armament complex has a number of advantages. This is a tank gun of 125-mm caliber, capable of using all modern types of ammunition. It is also a two-plane stabilised, remotely mounted machine gun which enables the commander inside the vehicle to deliver effective fire from the ground and on the move independently of the main armament.

The main components of the fire control system are the Sosna-U combined gunner's sight and commander's panoramic sight (PCP) in the form of a functionally complete multi-channel sighting system ensuring the gunner and commander high efficiency of the weapon due to a wide observation range at all times (daytime, limited visibility and night) and high precision of stabilizing the line of sight in two planes. The Sights are capable of firing all types of ammunition, including guided missiles. Both sights are equipped with automatic target acquisition and tracking devices. In case the main sights are damaged, there is a duplicate sight; it is an optronic sight with a vertically stabilized field of view and autonomous power supply.

Judging by the range of capabilities and tasks that the 2S25M SPSS has to deal with, it is possible, without false modesty, to claim that Russia has already created several modifications of its tank SPSS that not only match the world class level, but even surpass it.

- In February 2022 it was reported that preliminary testing of the new BT-ZF armored personnel carrier was nearing completion. Have they been completed and what was the result? What timeframe is set for the start of mass production of the BT-ZF? Has a contract for the delivery of the BT-3-ZF been signed with the Ministry of Defense?

- The preliminary tests of the BT-3F have been conducted in full. The normative and technical documentation is being prepared now in order to assign the "O" prefix to the vehicle. However, it should be understood that foreign deliveries will also be affected by the international situation.

Deliveries of the BT-3F to the Russian Ministry of Defense are possible only after the state tests, which the military department plans to conduct. The volumes of possible deliveries are currently being discussed.

- Has the Arctic version of the BT-ZF started arriving in the troops? If not, when might it happen?

- The Arctic version of the BT-3F is only a variant of the main vehicle that has only passed preliminary tests. That is why its delivery is possible not earlier than the end of all the planned stages of development, including the field operation of the base model.

- Has the company started to equip BMP-3 with the complex of active protection in the process of modernization? Have such vehicles been supplied to the troops?

- Nowadays the vehicles with the additional protection sets are being supplied to the armament of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. The effectiveness of such a solution was confirmed during the special military operation in Ukraine. The issue of equipping the BMP-3 with the active protection system is being studied.

- The BMP-ZF and BT-ZF Marine Support Vehicles were on display at the IDEX 2021 international arms exhibition. Have orders for these products appeared? If so, have deliveries begun?

- There is interest on the part of foreign customers to supply the BMP-ZF and BT-ZF Marine support vehicles, especially among the countries of South-East Asia. But the situation with the coronavirus pandemic has practically eliminated the possibility of direct dialogue on military-technical cooperation. And, moreover, it has caused considerable economic damage to potential customers. That is why we have to renew and intensify our work in the area of military-technical cooperation.

Also the Russian Ministry of Defense has a great interest in BMP-3F and BT-3F. A number of BMP-3s (from the troops) were upgraded to the level of the navy variant, and then the vehicles were tested in the units of the Russian Navy. The vehicles showed their best side, and today units of the Baltic and Pacific fleets are already operating these vehicles.

As for the BT-3F, I have already said above, the vehicle will soon, after the completion of all documentary work, be able to enter export markets.

- It was informed at the forum Army-2021 that the newest Manul infantry fighting vehicle will be the platform for the deployment of new weapon systems. Could you tell us which complexes they are talking about and when they will be available?

- The Manul BMP platform is currently undergoing development work, taking into account the requirements of the Ministry of Defense based on the results of the operation of the armored vehicles in Ukraine. Only after all the necessary tests have been passed will it be put into mass production. This will take at least three years. But already today we can say about the versatility of the platform, on which it will be possible to install the entire range of military equipment - multiple rocket launchers, barrel- and barrelless artillery systems, SAMs, create special vehicles, radiochemical protection and medical purposes.

- Is there any interest on the part of the Defense Ministry and foreign customers in this machine?

- There is interest on the part of foreign customers. We see significant export potential in the Manul BMP, as its tracked platform concept reflects modern trends in the development of armoured vehicles. This is the front arrangement of the logistics equipment, the equipment of the rear ramp for quick troop hastening and, of course, the modularity of the design.

- At what stage is the implementation of the project for the introduction of flow production principles at Kurganmashzavod production facilities?

- Our company was initially created for mass production of infantry fighting vehicles. For instance, BMP-2 was produced up to 2.000 vehicles per year, that is why flow production has always been used at Kurganmashzavod. And today, our vehicles are manufactured using this form of work organisation.

- What equipment will the enterprise present at the forum "Army-2022" for the first time? Tell us about some of the novelties.

- All the machines that we will demonstrate at the forum can be called novelties in their own way. Thus, the participants and the guests of the forum will see the upgraded 125-mm self-propelled anti-tank gun 2S25 in a new configuration. The SPTP will be equipped with the additional set of additional protection, increasing resistance to damage by ammunition. At the same time, the vehicle will maintain the same level of buoyancy and stability in the water.

Another feature of the SPTP 2S25M is an optronic suppression system. It provides protection from approaching missiles or laser irradiation. To reduce the driver's fatigue, the vehicle is equipped with video cameras that provide an all-round video view when the vehicle is moving, including reversing.

This improved export version of the 2S25M 125mm self-propelled anti-tank gun, we hope, will become the center of attraction for foreign guests at the "High-precision systems" stand of the Rostec State Corporation, where the lion's share of the exhibition space is occupied by the full-scale models of the Kurganmashzavod.

Also with a set of additional protection will be presented an armored personnel carrier BT-3F. This version is offered by us against the background of the demand for a special military operation. To see such a variant of adaptation of BT-3F for different combat missions, I think, will be of interest to everyone.

A joint project between Kurganmashzavod and VNII Signal (both companies are part of Rostec State Corporation's High-Precision Systems Holding Company) is a robotized BMP-3 with Sinitsa combat module.

This robotic vehicle with the firepower of BMP-3 is equipped with a state-of-the-art sighting system. Combat module "Sinitsa" provides 360 degree view at any time of day and night with the possibility of sighting shooting, it is equipped with a mechanism for loading anti-tank guided missiles, automated digital fire control system.

Signal specialists installed a set of equipment in the vehicle body and inside the combat compartment, which made it possible to robotize the functions of the driver and gunner. It is possible to see this machine in action at the demo, where BMP-3 "Sinitsa" will be controlled remotely.

Another novelty of Kurganmashzavod, which we are proud of as it is a dual-purpose product, is the TM-140A Aurora transport vehicle. It demonstrates the first stage of technical improvements of the tracked all-terrain vehicle, currently being developed by the SKBM JSC designers and implemented by Kurganmashzavod PJSC. It has touched the exterior and interior of the cabin. New design, improved ergonomics create conditions for comfortable work of the driver and passengers.

Due to the use of composite materials the thermal and noise insulation has been improved, autonomous air and liquid heaters and air conditioning have been installed.

The second stage of renewal of TM-140A "Aurora", work on which in JSC "SKBM" is almost completed, touched the modernization of the running gear of the vehicle. The third stage will include a new domestic engine YAMZ-536, automatic gearbox and hydrostatic steering mechanism, which will increase the average speed of the snowmobile and reduce fuel consumption. All this will increase the machine's service life and its main technical, economic and ecological characteristics.

On the 18th of August it turns 35 years after the Ministry of Defense of the USSR adopted for service the BMP-3. The technical solutions applied to this vehicle were so revolutionary that up to now this vehicle has not lost its modernization potential and remains the best in its class. Today the BMP-3 is supplied to the Russian Army under the state defense order. And we are proud that it is our plant that builds this reliable combat vehicle.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4570963.html

I was surprised to learn that some Russian army units still use BMP-1 . That thing shouldn't be in active use anymore, even less so, in Ukraine.

OSA and Shilka units are still being used... ironically it is naval infantry units that use a lot of old equipment because submarines have been the priority... as they should have been of course.

With their new helicopter carriers being built however their armour and support vehicles are going to get a massive revamp I would expect too.

Having said that upgrades of M113s remain in use in the US and look at their budget... at least the BMP-1s in Russian service have upgraded turrets with 30mm auto cannons fitted... these are not the same vehicles used in the 1970s and 80s.

caveat emptor wrote:I was surprised to learn that some Russian army units still use BMP-1 . That thing shouldn't be in active use anymore, even less so, in Ukraine.

There isn't a massive difference between armour on the BMP-1 and BMP-2, both have been given upgrades as Garry said with 30mm gun and kornet or Metis M added. The vehicles are still capable and a lot of people often overlook what the vehicles intended purpose is. The Greeks upgraded theirs by adding a Zu-23-2 and found it to be rather good and upgraded more some years back. And the platform itself can still be used elsewhere such as command vehicles, etc. The UK still 432, and as Garry stated USA still use M-113. Russia still uses MT-LBas well because of its versatility. SOSNA-R has been mounted on BMP-3 and MT-LB and there is no reason why they couldn't mount it on BMP-1 if they wanted it would be a good platform for such. There's always a use for good platforms.

Not a single word about Kurganets-25...okay to be honest the article is about the modernization of BMP IFVs.

So one question...is the BMP Manul a deep modernization of old BMPs or a complete new model? From what I've read is that the test will last 3 years and when it will go in mass production...what does mass prodcution mean? Mass upgrade or additional new BMPs? And what will happen to Kurganets-25? Maybe it sounds like it will be mass production for export market?!

A prototype of the B-18 infantry fighting vehicle with the Epoch combat module

October 31st, 2:19 pm

A video from Kurgan has been circulated showing a prototype of the B-18 infantry fighting vehicle manufactured by JSC "Kurgan Machine-Building Plant", which is a modified chassis of the BMP-2 with enhanced protection, equipped with a design developed by JSC "Instrument Design Bureau named after.

A prototype of the B-18 infantry fighting vehicle, which is a modified chassis of the BMP-2 with enhanced protection, equipped with a design developed by JSC "Design Bureau of Instrument Engineering named after. Academician A. G. Shipunov "unmanned combat module TKB-973" Epoch "(32B01). Kurgan, October 2022 (c) frame from a video from social networks

Judging by the video, the Epoch module is installed on this sample in a simplified configuration, without a number of sensors and elements of the fire control system and without a launcher of the new Bulat guided missile system developed by the KBP with small-sized missiles. At the same time, the 57-mm automatic low-ballistic gun and Kornet-D ATGM launchers were retained.

Recall that the BMP-2 (B-18) model with the Epoch combat module installed was first demonstrated in August 2017 at the Army-2017 International Military-Technical Forum, together with the B-19 BMP model, which is the installation of the module " Epoch" on the BMP-3 chassis.

At the Army-2017 forum, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation signed a contract with the holding JSC NPO High-Precision Complexes and part of the last KBP for the delivery in 2019 of an experimental batch of BMP-3 (B-19) with the Epoch combat module. This experimental batch of B-19 infantry fighting vehicles of 12 units was actually delivered to the Ministry of Defense in 2020, and in September 2021, three delivered B-19 vehicles were demonstrated during the Zapad-2021 exercises at the Mulino training ground in the Nizhny Novgorod region.

Recently, there has been no information about the development of the B-18 project based on the BMP-2 in open publications, however, in the speeches of the management of JSC "Kurgan Machine-Building Plant" they mentioned"military proposals for the resumption of production of infantry fighting vehicles of an earlier generation or their overhaul with elements of modernization."

It must be admitted that the appearance of the prototype B-18 once again testifies to the ongoing chaos in Russia in recent years in the programs for the development of armored vehicles, which led to the appearance and parallel development and testing of a simply phantasmagoric number of samples without any practical result in the form of mass serial production and entry into the troops.



Model BMP-2 (B-18) with the installation of an uninhabited combat module "Epokha" in the exposition of the International Military-Technical Forum "Army-2017", August 2017 (c) otvaga2004.mybb.ru and vestnik-rm.ru



https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4605885.html