Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Share

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2126
    Points : 2241
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  higurashihougi on Fri Nov 28, 2014 9:01 am

    Lightweight chassis has its advantages in the agility and speed, with the prefeerable tactics of hit-and-run. I would prefer a design and combination which is as less bulky as possible.

    I still like the ATGM/autocannon combination. Small caliber autocannon is cheap and cost-effective to deal with light vehicles and soft target, and helo, and you can carry more ammunition, and it does not suffer from jamming or whatever. Meanwhile ATGM will be reserved for dealing with tanks.

    Or you can substitue a number of ATGM with thermobaric rockets.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15445
    Points : 16152
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GarryB on Fri Nov 28, 2014 10:22 am

    That low-pressure, low-velocity 100mm cannon of the BMP-3?

    With a powerful HE charge it would be effective against a wide range of soft targets... for armoured targets it could carry a quad launcher for Kornet-M.

    Ofc it would be good for the HE capabilities - but that's what the IFVs and BMPTs are for.

    depends on the situation of course... a very high mobility light wheeled vehicle would be able to deliver useful HE capability but wouldn't be that good against a well equipped enemy.

    I would see it as a gun platform rather than a tank killer... is mobile direct fire support... 7km range HE rounds would be adequate there.

    The high-velocity 57mm + Kornet-M configuration sounds like the best one to me. Although - that might be the one given to the IFV - leaving the Typhoon MBT with the 100mm cannon indeed.

    A light unit expecting light enemies perhaps the MBT will have the high velocity 57mm gun and Kornet M, while the IFV might have a 30mm cannon and perhaps 30mm grenade launcher for high rate of fire and high fire power.

    It is said that, this is the reason why the BMPT design like Terminator is going to be the future of tank.

    BMPT does not replace tanks... it replaces vulnerable infantry that support tanks so the tanks and BMPT can go places where infantry in the open would be too exposed and vulnerable.

    I do agree however that in some circumstances the BMPT might be a better choice to support an infantry unit than a MBT... like when there is no prospect of enemy MBTs which means 125mm main tank guns are not so necessary, but a nice powerful 120mm rifled gun/mortar or 100mm rifled main gun would be powerful direct fire support weapons.

    So the best option IMO is either the Sprut's 125mm cannon if it can be adapted with modern materials to reduce weight and so on.
    If not - then a new, high-pressure, high-velocity 100mm smoothbore gun. Should definitely be compatible with a light wheeled chassis without unbalancing the vehicle, diminishing its amphibious capability or anything like that.

    It is an issue that has been grappled with for some time... and I prefer the Soviet answer... if you have a light recon type unit how do you give it the firepower to deal with enemy MBT level armour... the answer... you include MBTs with it.

    In other words if you expect to encounter enemy MBTs then  send a medium unit or heavy unit and not a light one.

    The 25 ton class Kurganets and Boomerang should easily be able to use the 125mm gun in the MBT role as the Sprut already carries such a weapon.

    With the lighter Typhoon it just needs the fire power to deal with similar vehicles (ie light) or the speed to run away. Add extra artillery units and even if the Typhoon MBT with a high velocity 57mm gun can't deal with an M60A3 or T-72 it should be able to call in top attack 152mm artillery rounds that will obliterate anything that third world country can muster.[/quote]


    Last edited by GarryB on Fri Nov 28, 2014 10:17 pm; edited 1 time in total


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2126
    Points : 2241
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  higurashihougi on Fri Nov 28, 2014 2:19 pm

    @Garry: I do not think that at the moment, BMPT can replace tanks. But I think at the time when the technological level has reach the sufficient level, the ATGM can be reliable enough to be the main way for dealing with heavy armour instead of tank ammunition and at that time BMPT can be the main player.

    For a number of people, ATGM is one of the most important element of a BMPT, and as you can see, they think this is the key for the future dominating role of BMPT instead of tank cannon + turret traditional MBT. They also see the families of unmanned turret vehicles is one step ahead for fulfilling that model.

    The BMPT weapon combination of ATGM/Shmell + 30mm autocannon (HE and AP ammo) + grenade launcher, I think, provide superior capability in dealing with both hard and soft targets, and very close range AA tasks (anti helicopter, etc). Given if the ATGM is reliable enough.

    Back to the lightweight chassis, I still prefer ATGM and small caliber auto-gun rather than a bulky cannon with big turret.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15445
    Points : 16152
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GarryB on Fri Nov 28, 2014 10:43 pm

    @Garry: I do not think that at the moment, BMPT can replace tanks. But I think at the time when the technological level has reach the sufficient level, the ATGM can be reliable enough to be the main way for dealing with heavy armour instead of tank ammunition and at that time BMPT can be the main player.

    A tank has two primary uses... one is to fight enemy tanks for which its high velocity heavy calibre main gun is critical. The other is direct fire support for infantry on an armoured platform with very heavy armour... a sort of mobile bunker with heavy artillery gun fitted.

    When the enemy does not have its own heavy armour then the heavy gun on a MBT is used for HE rather than anti armour use so in that case a 100mm rifled low pressure gun can do the job.

    Keep in mind these vehicles will be net centric with data coming in from UAVs and satellites and aircraft and a range of ground platforms and will have excellent communications and sensors and also state of the art NERA and ceramic armour as well as the new replacement for Shtora and of course a new APS system that will probably deal with top attack weapons and APFSDS rounds too.

    In addition to high mobility they should have good situational awareness and be able to choose when to fight and when to call in air or artillery.

    In Iraq Abrams tanks were destroyed by IEDs as small as 50kgs exploding near them... imagine a 40kg 152mm guided artillery shell landing on its turret roof. Or a 130kg 240mm round from a Tulip...

    For a number of people, ATGM is one of the most important element of a BMPT, and as you can see, they think this is the key for the future dominating role of BMPT instead of tank cannon + turret traditional MBT. They also see the families of unmanned turret vehicles is one step ahead for fulfilling that model.

    Sorry but they are WRONG.

    the ATGMs fitted to the BMPT wont be fitted with HEAT warheads... the BMPT is a tank support vehicle... it supports tanks. Tanks are excellent at fighting other tanks... that is their main purpose. The BMPT wont be fighting other tanks it will be fighting the enemy infantry supporting the enemy tanks.

    The ATGMs on the BMPT will be for hitting point targets out to 5-6km range... including aircraft and ATGM missile teams.

    There is enormous scope for remote unmanned vehicles but there will need to be unmanned MBTs, BMPTs, etc etc. Of course it would be stupid to have unmanned IFVs and unmanned APCs for obvious reasons, which is why you need unmanned BMPTs as they will deal with the enemy infantry and light armour, while the MBTs will deal with enemy heavy armour.

    The BMPT weapon combination of ATGM/Shmell + 30mm autocannon (HE and AP ammo) + grenade launcher, I think, provide superior capability in dealing with both hard and soft targets, and very close range AA tasks (anti helicopter, etc). Given if the ATGM is reliable enough.

    The BMPT supports tanks with 125mm smoothbore main guns... it has not capability against heavy armour.. the ATGMs will all have HE warheads.

    I suspect the BMPT will change to Kornet-M missiles to extend its anti aircraft capability to 10km... a capability it was designed for and is being attached to Pantsir units as a cheap short range missile against UAVs etc.

    Back to the lightweight chassis, I still prefer ATGM and small caliber auto-gun rather than a bulky cannon with big turret.

    The 100mm gun of the BMP-3M is a powerful and fairly accurate weapon and the new missiles being developed for it appear to be the size of the standard HE rounds so instead of being limited to 8 missiles and 40 odd HE rounds ready to fire it should have the potential for perhaps 48 rounds ready to fire with up to 48 guided missiles or 48 cheap HE frag rounds.

    Experience with the BMP-1 with its 73mm gun and the BMP-2 and its 30mm cannon has shown the Russians that it is useful to have light auto cannons and also heavier guns firing heavier more powerful HE rounds too. For a lot of targets the 30mm is ideal, but for other targets it lacks weight and impact while its rate of fire is of no use. A much heavier round makes sense, but lighter higher velocity rounds in an automatic weapon are also useful.

    In many ways the BMP-3M was the BMPT in that it could support its infantry unit against enemy infantry forces but has some self defence capability against tanks it was not designed to fight tanks.

    The BMPT on the other hand has no capability against enemy heavy armour... but it also doesn't need it because it is designed to operate with tanks which can deal with enemy tanks.

    To put it in perspective I remember a photo in a British military magazine from the 1980s that showed a Bradley firing a TOW missile stating that it could kill a Soviet tank out to 3.75km. At the time they didn't realise that was not 100 percent likely, but they did comment that the enemy could be a T-80 firing back APFSDS rounds at 1.8km/s and that while launching the TOW and guiding it the Bradley would have to remain stationary while the T-80 could be moving and fire 2-3 rounds in the time it takes the TOW to reach it.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  George1 on Sat Nov 29, 2014 2:45 am

    as far as i know, French army deploy these vehicles in overseas missions in african countries. It is like a light tank easy to be transferred by sea and air in long distances

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15445
    Points : 16152
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Would Russian army have a use of "wheeled tanks" like french army? ERC-90 and AMX-10RC

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 29, 2014 9:33 am

    And also in COIN type operations against enemies fairly lightly equipped.

    Against a third world inexperienced T-55 tank crew in a typhoon with a 100mm rifled gun with tube launched 100mm HEAT missiles you would have a good chance of winning due to both better training and superior all weather day/night optics as well as better communications. In addition you could jam their comms or listen in and gain further advantage.


    Further to what I said above, the use of the ATGMs on the BMPT in my opinion is a fault... I think they would be rather better off with a more powerful gun like the 100mm gun from the BMP-3 and if they want a higher rate of fire from their 30mm cannon instead of just fitting two guns fit the twin barrel gun from the F model Hind. It would actually be lighter than the two 2A42 cannon they use and would have a much higher rate of fire. Having 40 x heavy HE shells is much better than having 4 ATGMs with HE warheads.

    BMP-1 had heavy HE fire power but was lacking against aircraft and other targets the 30mm was effective against.

    BMP-2 had good rate of fire fire power but lacked HE punch against buildings and bunkers and soft area targets... the 30mm HE is no mortar shell.

    BMP-3 had both HE power and rate of fire fire power.

    The model BMPT based on the armata seems to have taken it a step further with a long barrelled rifled gun mortar in 120mm calibre, plus a 40mm grenade launcher and 23mm 6 barrel gatling gun.

    The 120mm gun/mortar can fire a range of shells and mortar rounds and guided missiles of the Gran and kitilov range of laser homing missiles which offers good range and HE power against a range of targets in the direct fire and indirect fire modes.

    A 40mm grenade launcher offers the chance to use smaller lighter ammo on less critical targets that don't require a 120mm shell.

    The 6 barrel gatling offers a higher velocity round that will get to the target area quicker with a good HE payload to deliver a cluster of rounds around the target aim point.

    Effective range in the ground to air role would probably only be 2km max, so a guided 120mm round would likely be more effective, but against a target like an ATGM team it would be devastating.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  George1 on Sat Jan 31, 2015 9:50 am

    Russia to Produce World's Best Mechanized Infantry, Says Manufacturer



    The Deputy CEO of Concern Tractor Plants claims that Russia will produce an infantry fighting vehicle which will feature capabilities which are superior to those of foreign models.

    MOSCOW, January 30 (Sputnik) – Russia will produce an infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) with superior capabilities to foreign models, the deputy CEO of the Concern Tractor Plants holding said Friday.

    "We will produce new IFVs, the technical characteristics and price of which will be the best in the world. Another good fighting vehicle, the Puma, is made in Germany. Our IFV is not inferior to the Puma in terms of technical and tactical characteristics but is superior in swimming capacity," Alexei Losev said.

    He stressed that one of the main advantages of the Russian IFV over European models is its ability to overcome water obstacles.

    The vehicle will participate in the Victory Parade on Red Square in Moscow on May 9 alongside other new military vehicle models.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150130/1017575304.html#ixzz3QO3kbd2L

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sun Feb 01, 2015 2:12 am

    According to Gur Khan, 45 mm gun which was in competition against 57 mm gun, lost out because they had some difficulty creating telescopic 45 mm ammo:

    The effectiveness of 57-mm automatic cannon

    I need to find some further confirmation on this claim, and of course it could be a mis-translation.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  TR1 on Sun Feb 01, 2015 2:30 am

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

    I am not sure he is right that the 45mm has been sunk. Just because Epoha-lite has been shown with 2A42 does not mean it cannot be up-gunned when the gun is ready.

    Just looks like Khlopotov musing, nothing more.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Feb 01, 2015 2:33 am

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

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sun Feb 01, 2015 3:10 am

    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 Cool.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15445
    Points : 16152
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GarryB on Sun Feb 01, 2015 9:57 am

    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.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    d_taddei2
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 732
    Points : 892
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sun Feb 01, 2015 6:22 pm

    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.

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Zivo on Sun Feb 01, 2015 9:54 pm

    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.

    d_taddei2
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 732
    Points : 892
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Mon Feb 02, 2015 12:17 am

    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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15445
    Points : 16152
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:57 am

    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.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Zivo on Mon Feb 02, 2015 9:39 pm

    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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15445
    Points : 16152
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 03, 2015 8:34 am

    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 West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 733
    Points : 916
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Feb 03, 2015 7:32 pm

    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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15445
    Points : 16152
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 04, 2015 8:05 am

    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.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    victor1985
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 852
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  victor1985 on Sat Feb 07, 2015 10:40 am


    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.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  George1 on Mon May 04, 2015 11:19 pm

    Armata T-15 will be BMPT Terminator replacement if i guess right?

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Werewolf on Tue May 05, 2015 12:57 am

    George1 wrote:Armata T-15 will be BMPT Terminator replacement if i guess right?

    IMO, the T-15 looks weak armored when you look at the engine compartment and i hope it is not BMPT replacement, because right now it does not look like it would be capable to drive along side of T-14's and taking hits from Tanks.

    I really hope the BMPT is the version with GSh-6-23 gatling or 30mm 2A42.

    kopyo-21
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 46
    Points : 48
    Join date : 2013-08-21
    Location : Bangkok - Thailand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  kopyo-21 on Tue May 05, 2015 8:17 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    George1 wrote:Armata T-15 will be BMPT Terminator replacement if i guess right?

    IMO, the T-15 looks weak armored when you look at the engine compartment and i hope it is not BMPT replacement, because right now it does not look like it would be capable to drive along side of T-14's and taking hits from Tanks.

    I really hope the BMPT is the version with GSh-6-23 gatling or 30mm 2A42.

    Totally agreed.

    I would expect they replace 2 2A42 guns by 2 Gsh-30K that can adjust the rate of fire either 300-400 rpm or 2000-2,600 rpm. One gun will fire HE rounds to handle soft or arial targets while the other one will fires APFSDS rounds to cope with armored tagets. One more Ags-40 grenade launcher controled by commander will support 30mm HE rounds by lope more powerfull 40mm HE rounds on station targets within 2,500m range.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  George1 on Tue Dec 22, 2015 10:00 am

    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


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    Sponsored content

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 10:33 am


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:33 am