Future of Russian IFV/AFVs

Werewolf wrote:The question i have is, how will be the elevation of the gun of kurganetz25, effectivley enough to have some partial AA capability?

if they made the gun external its sure to have more than adequate depression and elevation. prolly cheaper that way too.

damn, can't wait for Armata BMP, any IFV today and in the foreseeable future would just scratch the paint job of the thing if they fire at it from the front .

Given the utter lack of new 57mm rounds, especially anti-armor ones....I find that curious.

The existing 57mm ammo is powerful and few vehicles use it currently.

Obviously for anti IFV use it needs upgraded ammo and the 57mm rounds had plenty of room for improvement. New materials larger HE capacity and for a modern IFV APFSDS rounds and laser guided HE shells.

I remember reading the 57mm was chosen because the extra space in the shell allowed laser guided shells to be rather more effective, but the rounds themselves are enormous... they might have reduced the size and made them more telescope like.

BTW problems making 45mm telescope rounds seems a little suspicious as they made 23mm telescope rounds several decades ago fora special aircraft gun.

The question i have is, how will be the elevation of the gun of kurganetz25, effectivley enough to have some partial AA capability?

the elevation limits of a gun are determined by its positioning within the turret and the turret shape.

The 30mm cannon on the BMP-2 has 73 degree elevation because it doesn't have an enormous long breach block that has to be elevated and depressed in a shallow turret.

Tunguska uses external guns to allow good elevation, but a deeper turret like in most artillery vehicles would have the same effect.

GarryB wrote:

Given the utter lack of new 57mm rounds, especially anti-armor ones....I find that curious.

The existing 57mm ammo is powerful and few vehicles use it currently.

Obviously for anti IFV use it needs upgraded ammo and the 57mm rounds had plenty of room for improvement. New materials larger HE capacity and for a modern IFV APFSDS rounds and laser guided HE shells.

I remember reading the 57mm was chosen because the extra space in the shell allowed laser guided shells to be rather more effective, but the rounds themselves are enormous... they might have reduced the size and made them more telescope like.

BTW problems making 45mm telescope rounds seems a little suspicious as they made 23mm telescope rounds several decades ago fora special aircraft gun.

The question i have is, how will be the elevation of the gun of kurganetz25, effectivley enough to have some partial AA capability?

the elevation limits of a gun are determined by its positioning within the turret and the turret shape.

The 30mm cannon on the BMP-2 has 73 degree elevation because it doesn't have an enormous long breach block that has to be elevated and depressed in a shallow turret.

Tunguska uses external guns to allow good elevation, but a deeper turret like in most artillery vehicles would have the same effect.

I agree with garry here, 57mm is a decent round and powerful enough to take out AFV's Russia has had this in service for decades so the production equipment is already there, its just a matter of upgrading the ammo to specific needs rather than starting from scratch with 45mm, would surely be cheaper to upgrade 57mm than to design a new calibre and pay for new production equipment.

Well, there's no Soviet 57mm APFSDS round. The AP variant is nothing to scoff at, but it's inefficient for its size compared to modern armor piercing munitions. Even so, if you were to field a BMP using the old AP rounds, it would still be better armed than 99% of all BMPs out there. Fortunately developing a APFSDS round based on the conventional 57mm round wouldn't be much of a challenge.

About telescopic rounds, they're not without their problems, so I wouldn't be so quick to jump on the CTA bandwagon.

To maintain ballistic parity with conventional ammo of the same caliber, the propellant load is notably higher and has to be densely packed around the projectile by a increased factor of almost 1/3 vs conventional rounds. As such, their burn is less efficient and dirtier. They produce higher heat, significantly degrading barrel life and increasing the probability of barrel failure. While the round is easier for mechanized handling, its' larger diameter and heavier compared to rounds of the same caliber and performance. The gap between the round case and the cone of the barrel permits blowby of the propellant gas similar to the gap between the cylinder and forcing cone of a revolver, further decreasing efficiency. On top of that, telescopic rounds are more expensive to manufacturer.

It's not all candy and roses, you end up trading raw performance, cost, and service life for improved ammo handling.

From the DOD: http://www.dodig.mil/Audit/reports/FY96/96-164.pdf

IMO it's smarter to stick to upgrading the current 57mm round with better projectiles. Make a long range, hard hitting APFSDS round, and a laser guided HE round with a decently sized warhead. Keep the ballistic performance, and count on the unmanned turrets to increase the spacial efficiency of the vehicle.

Zivo wrote:Well, there's no Soviet 57mm APFSDS round. The AP variant is nothing to scoff at, but it's inefficient for its size compared to modern armor piercing munitions. Even so, if you were to field a BMP using the old AP rounds, it would still be better armed than 99% of all BMPs out there. Fortunately developing a APFSDS round based on the conventional 57mm round wouldn't be much of a challenge.

About telescopic rounds, they're not without their problems, so I wouldn't be so quick to jump on the CTA bandwagon.

To maintain ballistic parity with conventional ammo of the same caliber, the propellant load is notably higher and has to be densely packed around the projectile by a increased factor of almost 1/3 vs conventional rounds. As such, their burn is less efficient and dirtier. They produce higher heat, significantly degrading barrel life and increasing the probability of barrel failure. While the round is easier for mechanized handling, its' larger diameter and heavier compared to rounds of the same caliber and performance. The gap between the round case and the cone of the barrel permits blowby of the propellant gas similar to the gap between the cylinder and forcing cone of a revolver, further decreasing efficiency. On top of that, telescopic rounds are more expensive to manufacturer.

It's not all candy and roses, you end up trading raw performance, cost, and service life for improved ammo handling.

From the DOD: http://www.dodig.mil/Audit/reports/FY96/96-164.pdf

IMO it's smarter to stick to upgrading the current 57mm round with better projectiles. Make a long range, hard hitting APFSDS round, and a laser guided HE round with a decently sized warhead. Keep the ballistic performance, and count on the unmanned turrets to increase the spacial efficiency of the vehicle.

I fully back with what you have said, it is smarter to upgrade 57mm and like you said it wouldn't be a challenge, why Russia would even consider anything else I don't know. And once the 57mm has been upgraded there won't be many AFV's that it couldn't take out.

Well, there's no Soviet 57mm APFSDS round.

No Soviet one... no... because for the Soviets it was an anti aircraft gun.

The will certainly be a Russian APFSDS round simply because they are adapting it as an anti IFV weapon.

The AP variant is nothing to scoff at, but it's inefficient for its size compared to modern armor piercing munitions.

Again it was an anti aircraft round so adequate for its design role, but not adequate for the role of anti modern IFV round... so to compete with the new 45mm round it would need to have been developed.

Fortunately developing a APFSDS round based on the conventional 57mm round wouldn't be much of a challenge.

Would suggest new ammo has already been developed as they seem to have chosen the calibre already.

IMO it's smarter to stick to upgrading the current 57mm round with better projectiles. Make a long range, hard hitting APFSDS round, and a laser guided HE round with a decently sized warhead. Keep the ballistic performance, and count on the unmanned turrets to increase the spacial efficiency of the vehicle.

I totally agree and would actually go a step further and add an APHE round for use against light vehicles like MRAPs... instead of punching small holes in targets with APFSDS and HEAT an APHE round would have a much higher kill performance against light troop transports and would be devastating against aircraft. You could give it a sophisticated fuse so it penetrates barriers and explodes inside bunkers and aircraft/vehicles... a devastating round...

I would also think that the old 57mm shell could offer future growth with necking it out to a 65 or 70mm calibre round with even heavier rounds for the future as the original shell is a bottle neck design...



Second from the right.... 57 x 347SR.

I fully back with what you have said, it is smarter to upgrade 57mm and like you said it wouldn't be a challenge, why Russia would even consider anything else I don't know.

the 45mm was developed over a long period of time... I seem to remember them taking about replacing all 30 x 165mm weapons in the the Navy, Army, and Air Force with the 45mm round.

The Il-102 competition for the Su-25 reportedly had the option for a belly mounted 45mm or 57mm gun for the anti tank role.

Would suggest new ammo has already been developed as they seem to have chosen the calibre already.

Well, they modernized the gun, designated the BM-57 on the ATOM BTR. It could be argued that the 57mm was undergoing planned modernization for at least a few years. All prior to any recent development choices.

I totally agree and would actually go a step further and add an APHE round for use against light vehicles like MRAPs... instead of punching small holes in targets with APFSDS and HEAT an APHE round would have a much higher kill performance against light troop transports and would be devastating against aircraft. You could give it a sophisticated fuse so it penetrates barriers and explodes inside bunkers and aircraft/vehicles... a devastating round...

The 57mm system will have a reduced ammo count compared to current BMP's, using smart fused rounds to increase the effectiveness of each shot will be important.

It could be argued that the 57mm was undergoing planned modernization for at least a few years. All prior to any recent development choices.

They have been working on the 57mm gun for a while... there is a new turret upgrade for the PT-76 that has a 57mm gun as a replacement

they had information about laser guided 57mm shells for the gun at this website:

http://www.kbtochmash.ru/press-centre/articles/articles_2.html

But as you can see the page no longer exists.

I found it again in the Russian portion of the updated site in the Press section under articles:

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sandbox=0&tl=en&u=http://kbtochmash.ru/press-center/articles/articles_26.html&usg=ALkJrhhGuqGlaUBUgYKQX5jgGrvAMVKL7Q

The main factor in the possible selection and adoption of a 57 mm round ,as mass produced caliber for AFV's main weapon , is without any doubt its widely increased performance against aerial targets (obviously no IFT would ever boast the 30mm enormous rate of fire , such as those provided by twinned 2A38M autocannon , necessary to assure reliable destruction of different kind of airborne target by part of rounds in the today 30 mm caliber ).

In substance the main advantage provided by 57 mm ,as main IFV weapon , will be exploited at maximum against aerial targets , as already explained by Oleg Sienko in its interview about ATOM's gun ,


"Он оснащен скорострельной корабельной артустановкой калибра 57 мм, естественно, адаптированной к сухопутной машине. Пушка отличается высокой скорострельностью и точностью стрельбы на дальности до 16 км. Она может уверенно поражать не только наземные цели, но и воздушные. В ПВО Сухопутных войск сейчас нет артустановок калибра выше 30 мм. Между тем наши расчеты показали, что именно 57 мм пушки должны хорошо работать практически по всем типам беспилотных летательных аппаратов."



http://www.arms-expo.ru/news/aviasalony_i_vystavki/gendirektor_uralvagonzavoda_oleg_sienko_svoimi_vagonami_my_gordimsya_ne_menshe_chem_tankami/  

is its high performances against any kind of unmanned aerial vehicles. 


The combination of :

1) Higher muzzle velocity.

2) Much lower exposure to in-flight environmental factors.

3) Much increased effective engagement range.

4) Very expanded volume for single round guidance (in particular beam riding )

5) Much increased space for special payload and fuse (in particular fir HEAD-like warheads)


render the features offerer by this caliber best exploited just to destroy subsonic UAV and PGM and in particular subsonic cruise missiles and glide bomb weapons way before them get a chance to deliver their submunition payload., retaining or increasing contemporameously also the anti-IFV/helicopter capabilities offered by 30 mm autocannon.

At today the main problem is cost and initialization of the entire production cycle of the new round, its different guidance and different warhead payload.

Another advantage would be its use at sea against sea skimming anti ship missiles.. 57mm guns are in service in the Russian Navy so rather than putting the round into production it is in fact upgrading existing ammo production.

I rather doubt they will go for the 57mm gun replacing all 30mm because an APC would be better with lighter armament to allow more troops to be carried.

I agree with all that, but would add that because Russia has a relatively small population for a large country and its military forces will be relatively small in regard to the area it needs to protect, that mobility, both in terms of strategic mobility... in other words putting a couple of light and/or medium brigades in aircraft and flying them across the country at short notice will be a major requirement, and moving around within the theatre of operations will be very important too... so while these forces will be defensive they will actually also be suitable for world deployment and global domination... Smile (An added perk rather than an initial design consideration.) Smile

here comes and play the ability to every factory of weapons to create weapons under strict conditions. meaning when you have this kind of problems you try for example to make a tank engine that carry more weight at same fuel consumption. meaning resources like fuel and missiles must be carefully used. means also specific weapons for a teritory like this must be made. for example a surface to surface missile could make the job of 50 tanks whit a lot of infantry troops.and missiles for every distance. every weapon has its improvement points in wich if those improvements are achieved give a big efficiency overall the entire army. means every piece of weapon matter. cause all put toghether give the army.

Werewolf wrote:Either it is a different turret than the MBT version or due the cover around the turret and only profile picture of the tank we are decieved by the looks.

It is probably just the core of the turret just as ugly as the Merkawa turret stripped of its applique armor.

i still have questions for the vehicle next to armata

George1 wrote:

Werewolf wrote:Either it is a different turret than the MBT version or due the cover around the turret and only profile picture of the tank we are decieved by the looks.

It is probably just the core of the turret just as ugly as the Merkawa turret stripped of its applique armor.

i still have questions for the vehicle next to armata

"Derivation" 57mm AA gun.

TR1 wrote:

George1 wrote:

Werewolf wrote:Either it is a different turret than the MBT version or due the cover around the turret and only profile picture of the tank we are decieved by the looks.

It is probably just the core of the turret just as ugly as the Merkawa turret stripped of its applique armor.

i still have questions for the vehicle next to armata

"Derivation" 57mm AA gun.

so russian military in 2020s has need of a new AA gun mounted in vehicle?

George1 wrote:

TR1 wrote:

George1 wrote:

Werewolf wrote:Either it is a different turret than the MBT version or due the cover around the turret and only profile picture of the tank we are decieved by the looks.

It is probably just the core of the turret just as ugly as the Merkawa turret stripped of its applique armor.

i still have questions for the vehicle next to armata

"Derivation" 57mm AA gun.

so russian military in 2020s has need of a new AA gun mounted in vehicle?

It's an advanced anti-IFV gun with laser-guided shell capability, which should enable it to be a cost-effective SHORAD capable of defeating helicopters, drones, and PGM's.

George1 wrote:

TR1 wrote:

George1 wrote:

Werewolf wrote:Either it is a different turret than the MBT version or due the cover around the turret and only profile picture of the tank we are decieved by the looks.

It is probably just the core of the turret just as ugly as the Merkawa turret stripped of its applique armor.

i still have questions for the vehicle next to armata

"Derivation" 57mm AA gun.

so russian military in 2020s has need of a new AA gun mounted in vehicle?

The best way to bring down aircraft is to force them to operate at low altitude using strategic SAMs, then gun them down with dense SHORAD hidden near target areas.

The model has the hatches in a different location compared to the tank in the video. You can see one of the crew standing in the hatch. Either the model does not correspond to the actual product, or this is not the right tank. The tank in the video has a narrower hull. So perhaps the model is not realistic as it seems a bit too wide.

kvs wrote:The model has the hatches in a different location compared to the tank in the video.  You can see one of the crew standing in the hatch.   Either the model does not correspond to the actual product, or this is not the right tank.   The tank in the video has a narrower hull.   So perhaps the model is not realistic as it seems a bit too wide.  

It's my opinion that the shape of the tarp, and the shape of the turret on the model are similar. The small bustle, the "crest" in line with the gun, and the side protrusions that may be the secondary weapons indicate to me that there's a strong possibility the Russian military selected KBTM's turret proposal.

But, there's other possibilities. The side protrusions may be the radars, and the bustle may be nothing more than a large storage bin.

Speaking about 57 mm gun, which previous 57 mm gun and ammunition are they basing the new gun on? The 57 mm AA gun/ammo, or the 57 mm anti-armor gun/ammo? Because the the 57 mm anti-armor gun/ammo is significantly more powerful than the AA gun. The 57 mm anti-armor round is 57 x 480R mm, as opposed to the smaller 57 mm AA gun/ammo which is 57 x 348SR mm...

http://russianammo.org/Russian_Ammunition_Page_57mm.html


57 x 480R mm anti-armor round:

Inert practice round





Different 57 x 480R mm warheads in order of UBR-271, UBR-271SP, UBR-271K and UBR-271P


















VS


57 x 348SR mm


various 57 x 348SR mm shells and their inner cut-outs:

http://russianammo.org/z57s60he.jpg
http://russianammo.org/z57s60s1.jpg


http://russianammo.org/z57s60ap.jpg
http://russianammo.org/z57s60s2.jpg


http://russianammo.org/z57s60tp.jpg
http://russianammo.org/z57s60s3.jpg




...Considering that it's main objective is to be an advanced anti-IFV gun and it's AA role is complimentary, it only makes sense to base the newly designed 57 mm shells on the anti-armor shells dimensions (57 x 480R) vs the weaker AA shell (57 x 348SR). Unless they create a new and different shell dimension of 57 x (XXX), which makes my question irrelevant.

magnumcromagnon wrote:
...Considering that it's main objective is to be an advanced anti-IFV gun and it's AA role is complimentary, it only makes sense to base the newly designed 57 mm shells on the anti-armor shells dimensions (57 x 480R) vs the weaker AA shell (57 x 348SR). Unless they create a new and different shell dimension of 57 x (XXX), which makes my question irrelevant.

I think shorter round is more likely, it's compatitible with soviet era 57 mm naval guns.

...Considering that it's main objective is to be an advanced anti-IFV gun and it's AA role is complimentary, it only makes sense to base the newly designed 57 mm shells on the anti-armor shells dimensions (57 x 480R) vs the weaker AA shell (57 x 348SR). Unless they create a new and different shell dimension of 57 x (XXX), which makes my question irrelevant.

AFAIK the 57mm anti aircraft round was revived as a replacement for the 76.2mm guns on the PT-76 with an upgraded turret that would allow simple upgrades of this and other vehicles including older BMPs.

As such they have revived the old calibre which, while very powerful, still has plenty of growth potential with larger HE charges and better penetration with APFSDS rounds.

magnumcromagnon wrote:Speaking about 57 mm gun, which previous 57 mm gun and ammunition are they basing the new gun on? The 57 mm AA gun/ammo, or the 57 mm anti-armor gun/ammo? Because the the 57 mm anti-armor gun/ammo is significantly more powerful than the AA gun. The 57 mm anti-armor round is 57 x 480R mm, as opposed to the smaller 57 mm AA gun/ammo which is 57 x 348SR mm...



...Considering that it's main objective is to be an advanced anti-IFV gun and it's AA role is complimentary, it only makes sense to base the newly designed 57 mm shells on the anti-armor shells dimensions (57 x 480R) vs the weaker AA shell (57 x 348SR). Unless they create a new and different shell dimension of 57 x (XXX), which makes my question irrelevant.

Well it's not true. Zis-2 57x480 cartridge is dead. Well to be fair this cartridge was also used in various semi-clandestine post war AT guns as well as the ASU-57 (whose gun is in fact one of those non adopted AT guns, just saw it in moscow in park pobedy by the way, impressive low silouette gun).

You forgot to mention that rounds you mentioned are WW2 vintage things, every AP round of 57mm you could find in soviet army post war and still now in depots are the BR-271M APCBC (with greatly improved penetration over all WW2 BR-271 designs, something like 130mm penetration at 300m) and BR-271N HVAP, this bad boy having 200-220mm penetration at 300m vs vertical armour. These were the 2 rounds of anti armour used in ASU-57 and the Zis-2 guns still in service after the war.

The AA cartridge also gives 1000m/s velocity, and it's the way to go. When mounted on this case, the BR-271M APCBC is called BR-281U, and no HVAP was ever mounted on this cartridge though it was perfectly doable if needed.

Compact and fat the AA cartrige gives the power of the outdated Zis-2 oversized cartidge, like 7.62 nato equates or surpases .30-06 for example. As used in AZP S-60 57mm AA gun, the ZSU-57-2 SPAAG and the naval gun which i don't remember the name...

By the way all russians designs of AFV 57mm gun up to date use the 57x348mm cartridge, and everything in the future will do.

cracker wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:Speaking about 57 mm gun, which previous 57 mm gun and ammunition are they basing the new gun on? The 57 mm AA gun/ammo, or the 57 mm anti-armor gun/ammo? Because the the 57 mm anti-armor gun/ammo is significantly more powerful than the AA gun. The 57 mm anti-armor round is 57 x 480R mm, as opposed to the smaller 57 mm AA gun/ammo which is 57 x 348SR mm...



...Considering that it's main objective is to be an advanced anti-IFV gun and it's AA role is complimentary, it only makes sense to base the newly designed 57 mm shells on the anti-armor shells dimensions (57 x 480R) vs the weaker AA shell (57 x 348SR). Unless they create a new and different shell dimension of 57 x (XXX), which makes my question irrelevant.

Well it's not true. Zis-2 57x480 cartridge is dead. Well to be fair this cartridge was also used in various semi-clandestine post war AT guns as well as the ASU-57 (whose gun is in fact one of those non adopted AT guns, just saw it in moscow in park pobedy by the way, impressive low silouette gun).

You forgot to mention that rounds you mentioned are WW2 vintage things, every AP round of 57mm you could find in soviet army post war and still now in depots are the BR-271M APCBC (with greatly improved penetration over all WW2 BR-271 designs, something like 130mm penetration at 300m) and BR-271N HVAP, this bad boy having 200-220mm penetration at 300m vs vertical armour. These were the 2 rounds of anti armour used in ASU-57 and the Zis-2 guns still in service after the war.

The AA cartridge also gives 1000m/s velocity, and it's the way to go. When mounted on this case, the BR-271M APCBC is called BR-281U, and no HVAP was ever mounted on this cartridge though it was perfectly doable if needed.

Compact and fat the AA cartrige gives the power of the outdated Zis-2 oversized cartidge, like 7.62 nato equates or surpases .30-06 for example. As used in AZP S-60 57mm AA gun, the ZSU-57-2 SPAAG and the naval gun which i don't remember the name...

By the way all russians designs of AFV 57mm gun up to date use the 57x348mm cartridge, and everything in the future will do.

This supposing that a enemy IFV will come that close.....

victor1985 wrote:

cracker wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:Speaking about 57 mm gun, which previous 57 mm gun and ammunition are they basing the new gun on? The 57 mm AA gun/ammo, or the 57 mm anti-armor gun/ammo? Because the the 57 mm anti-armor gun/ammo is significantly more powerful than the AA gun. The 57 mm anti-armor round is 57 x 480R mm, as opposed to the smaller 57 mm AA gun/ammo which is 57 x 348SR mm...



...Considering that it's main objective is to be an advanced anti-IFV gun and it's AA role is complimentary, it only makes sense to base the newly designed 57 mm shells on the anti-armor shells dimensions (57 x 480R) vs the weaker AA shell (57 x 348SR). Unless they create a new and different shell dimension of 57 x (XXX), which makes my question irrelevant.

Well it's not true. Zis-2 57x480 cartridge is dead. Well to be fair this cartridge was also used in various semi-clandestine post war AT guns as well as the ASU-57 (whose gun is in fact one of those non adopted AT guns, just saw it in moscow in park pobedy by the way, impressive low silouette gun).

You forgot to mention that rounds you mentioned are WW2 vintage things, every AP round of 57mm you could find in soviet army post war and still now in depots are the BR-271M APCBC (with greatly improved penetration over all WW2 BR-271 designs, something like 130mm penetration at 300m) and BR-271N HVAP, this bad boy having 200-220mm penetration at 300m vs vertical armour. These were the 2 rounds of anti armour used in ASU-57 and the Zis-2 guns still in service after the war.

The AA cartridge also gives 1000m/s velocity, and it's the way to go. When mounted on this case, the BR-271M APCBC is called BR-281U, and no HVAP was ever mounted on this cartridge though it was perfectly doable if needed.

Compact and fat the AA cartrige gives the power of the outdated Zis-2 oversized cartidge, like 7.62 nato equates or surpases .30-06 for example. As used in AZP S-60 57mm AA gun, the ZSU-57-2 SPAAG and the naval gun which i don't remember the name...

By the way all russians designs of AFV 57mm gun up to date use the 57x348mm cartridge, and everything in the future will do.

This supposing that a enemy IFV will come that close.....

that was purely speaking about early 50s AP rounds... of course any 57mm weapon chosen will come with modern APFSDS ammo, but it will still be possible to use those old ammunitions, which honestly are enough to kill plenly of APC and IFV.

Russian Fighting 'Vehicle of Future' to Become Multirole Digital Unit

According to the Kurganmashzavod arms plant, Russia created a concept of 'infantry fighting vehicle of the future' which will be a highly mobile multirole digital unit.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Russia has developed a concept of "infantry fighting vehicle of the future," which will become a multirole digital unit, executive director of the Kurganmashzavod company said Tuesday.

"We have created a concept of 'infantry fighting vehicle of the future.' It will be specified on the results of design and experimental work on Kurganets-25 [modular tracked platform]. I can not reveal it for obvious reasons. I will only say that it will be highly mobile multirole digital unit," Aleksander Klyuzhev told RIA Novosti.
Robots
© Photo: Youtube/Rokossovskiy Konstantin
Russian Military Robot Prototypes to Hit Production by Next Year
He added that advanced infantry fighting vehicle would be able to solve tasks on its own and within a tactical group.

The Kurganets-25 modular tracked platform was developed by Kurganmashzavod for the needs of the Russian Armed Forces. Russia's new types of infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, based on the Kurganets-25, are set to be introduced in 2020.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20151222/1032128824/russia-fighting-vehicle-future-multirole-digital-unit.html#ixzz3v2RQTcTW