Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Share

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Austin on Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:02 am

    GarryB wrote:The Russian government has committed itself to 70% all new state of the art equipment by 2020.

    Yes they mean 70 % of equipment overall in armed forces which does not mean each piece of equipment in every department will be 70 % new , it means some department will get 90 or 100 % new equipment some will be 60 % some will be 50 % but overall the armed forces will have average 70 % new equipment.


    This means the process of getting these new vehicles into service is fairly urgent because they will need to make an enormous number of these vehicles to fill all the roles they will be needed for.

    Yes for most part it would be but BTR-80a and BTR-90 are relatively new and will have another 15 - 20 years of life left depending when they were made and how well they would be maintained and used , more ever Armata/Boomerang will start coming post 2015 or even later so they will take time to set up production and numbers will gradually grow in years , I would expect the Armada will slowly replace T-72's to start with and not t-90 and Boomerang etc will replace the BTR-70/ older BTR-80 and BMP-2 and not the newer BTR-80a/90 and BMP-3 they still have atleast a decade of service life left.

    And by the time these would be replaced you would see some upgrade model of Armata and Boomerang replacing it.

    And i would expect the Armata/Boomerang to be quite well armed as these are newer and expensive system so they would have Netcentricity right from startup and new class of armament , as to how it will compatred with BMP or BTR we cant speculate there , need to wait as see.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 22, 2011 9:29 pm

    Yes they mean 70 % of equipment overall in armed forces which does not mean each piece of equipment in every department will be 70 % new , it means some department will get 90 or 100 % new equipment some will be 60 % some will be 50 % but overall the armed forces will have average 70 % new equipment.

    The old structure was three levels of combat readiness.

    The first line troops had all their gear and all their personel ready within hours to move. The second line troops had full gear but a lot of the gear was not state of the art and they had half their personel. To mobilise the second tier forces would take a week or two to get the personel and equipment ready and operational. The third line troops were skeleton forces with most of their kit in storage that was all previous generation stuff. It would take a month to mobilise such a force.

    The new structure is all ready forces so even though the forces are a fraction of the size of the old three tier forces in actual combat terms they are actually more ready to fight straight away than before.

    The point is that you are going to have units in the potential front line and you are going to have units in the backwaters. In 2006 despite the fighting in Chechnya the Army located there was considered second Tier at best and was not equipped with the best stuff. Now with Georgia being a problem that has probably changed... I can't say for sure, but the fact that there are photos floating around of T-90s deployed to Abkhazia and South Ossetia and lots of other new stuff I suspect their status has changed. The hubub about the Kirile Islands and the claims by Russia that it will start spending money in the Far East suggests to me that the shock of the attack in South Ossetia has made them realise how vulnerable the Far East is from a Japanese attack. 5 Years ago anyone would think a Japanese attack would be highly unlikely, but a bad economy... a bad economy forecast for the next 10 years, a radical government making promises to get into power... what might they do when they get it?

    What I am saying is that in areas where the perceived threat is highest the units will always get the best gear. The new model of the military forces however means that old equipment has less value because there are no skeleton forces that would be better armed with T-55s than nothing at all so most of the old stuff will have to go.

    When you start getting rid of the old stuff you need to buy new stuff or you will have no stuff.
    What you say is perfectly accurate... all units will not have 70 percent new stuff... one third of the units will have 100% new stuff and two thirds will have 50 percent new stuff... which means production of the new stuff needs to meet the requirements of one third of the forces.
    They will likely equip brigades at a time, and the production rate of light vehicles means that the light and medium brigades will most likely get their vehicles first and fastest.

    Yes for most part it would be but BTR-80a and BTR-90 are relatively new and will have another 15 - 20 years of life left depending when they were made and how well they would be maintained and used

    AFAIK there are very few if any BTR-90s in Russian Army service. The FSB and other government branches might have bought some but I rather doubt it is in mass production. I haven't seen it on exercise yet.
    The BTR-82 and BTR-82A are in production... no doubt to replace the BTR-60 and BTR-70 models in service first and then BTR-80 models next.

    The final result of production I think will be a reserve of BTR-82 vehicles that will serve well as basic trainers and for exercises with the new recruits and for first line use in rear areas. The point is that most equipment in service is not just old, it has had use but has not been upgraded and maintained the way it should have been.

    For instance a lot of Su-27s in service now are just original bog standard Su-27s the same as they were when they entered service in the 1980s. In comparison aircraft like the Mig-21s and Mig-23 had dozens of models they were updated to throughout their service lives. From 2015 to 2020 the focus will move from updated and optimised old models like BTR-82 and BMP-3M and T-90AM to production of brand new models... namely Boomerang, Kurganets-25, and the Armata (which will not be like the T-95 UVZ was working on though it may share some of its features). Production of Typhoon should be very quick because it is a light vehicle and would be mass produced in fairly large numbers fairly quickly. Boomerang should be produced relatively quickly too... though a Kurganets type armament might increase costs and slow entry into service.
    The Su-27 had a similar problem in that the air frames were produced much faster than the radars and avionics so there was a large number of airframes waiting for electronic bits that took longer to make. A cheaper simpler armed Boomerang would make production cheaper and faster. The Armata chassis will be the slowest to get into service, but the economies of scale will help because each brigade type will be built around a chassis family so instead of having dozens of vehicle types for each unit there will be three main family types.

    I would expect the Armada will slowly replace T-72's to start with and not t-90

    Agree, but would suggest Armata will most likely replace the T-80s first with T-72s getting upgrades... perhaps the Russians will sell their T-80s to the Ukraine or South Korea or Cyprus... or all three. Being the gas turbine powered model they are the most expensive to operate.

    not t-90 and Boomerang etc will replace the BTR-70/ older BTR-80 and BMP-2 and not the newer BTR-80a/90 and BMP-3 they still have atleast a decade of service life left.

    On paper the Armata will likely replace the T-80 and the T-62 and T-64 and T-55/54, but in practical terms the Armata will replace T-90AMs and those T-90AMs will replace upgraded T-90S tanks and those T-90S tanks will replace upgraded T-90A tanks and those T-90A tanks will replace upgraded T-72 tanks. Any unit that had T-80s will likely also get them replaced... either with T-90AMs or Armatas.

    The same for the other vehicle classes, but it will be more complicated because you are changing from a Motor Rifle and Tank Brigade to Heavy, medium, and light brigades.

    A Motor Rifle Brigade would have a mix of tanks and BMPs and BTRs. A Tank Brigade of the same tier would have the same types of vehicles but in different mixes... the Tank Brigade having a larger proportion of tanks to IFVs and APCs.

    A heavy brigade will have all tank vehicles but what will the proportion of tanks be in such a formation? One presumes it will be tank heavy for fire power, but combat in cities and strong points needs manpower too. Perhaps it will be balanced evenly between tanks and IFVs.

    The Medium Brigade needs mobility as well as firepower and would probably have more IFVs than tanks.

    The Light Brigade needs mobility and fire power to compensate for lack of armour... it needs surprise and impact.

    In practical terms the new force structure is quite different from what was previously used, so I suspect the new units will be formed as the new equipment becomes available.

    The family concept of vehicles only works when all vehicles in the unit conform to the concept... having T-90AMs in a heavy brigade only really makes sense when all other vehicles in the brigade use the T-90 chassis.

    I rather suspect production right now will fill gaps and keep existing forces equipped but after 2015 as the new vehicles become available the old tank and motorrifle units will be replaced by a complete Heavy, Light, or medium brigade when the vehicles are ready. I suspect there will be a ratio of 1:4:6-8 in terms of heavy, medium, and light brigades as the mobile light units will have a variety of uses and no doubt will be cheaper to equip and operate. I suspect the light brigades will use UAVs and UCAVs extensively too.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Armored vechiles discussion

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 24, 2011 12:40 am

    Actually I remember reading an article about Russian ownership of the the Kurile Islands and it mentioned that there were units on the Kuriles that were still old formations based on the old MotorRifle and Tank units.

    I believe it was an artillery machinegun support unit they were particularly talking about but they seem to suggest that other Russian units had already been changed to brigade units.

    Their final heavy/medium/light equipment will not start entering service till 2015 onwards so I am wondering what they have done.

    A heavy brigade right now will not have heavy APCs unless they have built some on the sly.
    Equally medium brigades would be almost all BMPs because the BTRs in service and in production now (ie BTR-80 and previous models in service and BTR-82s in production) don't match the BMPs in armour... except the BTR-90 and its production is supposedly on hold till Boomerang replaces it.
    The light brigades could be Tigrs and Volks and BTR-82s with perhaps the odd BMP-3 for firepower till the Typhoons are finally ready.

    The point is that current brigades will have a mishmash of vehicles that will vary from region to region greatly.

    The intial focus should be on C4IR systems in upgraded current vehicles so current brigades can train to operate the way they will operate in the future.
    Hardware can be tested like communication and sensors, and all the little upgrades like new ERA and new APS systems can be put into full scale production and experience gained. The money earned with sales to integrate ARENA for example should generate the funding and design and production experience to further develop the system and make it more capable while improving the performance of the fleet straight away and investing in the future of the system to make it more capable in the future.

    As such I would probably say 1,500 is the limit for the T-90AM including upgrades of existing T-90s to T-90AM standards. Of the 5,500 other tanks I would say keep the T-80 in service for another 4 years and then they can be replaced first by the first Armata tanks. It should be kept in mind that equipping a heavy tank brigade is not just about Armata tanks, but Armata chassis for every main vehicle in a heavy brigade so even if they spend a lot of money on the Army in the 2015-2020 period I don't think that the entire fleet of heavy brigades will be fully equipped because for every tank there will be a dozen other vehicles that use tank chassis.
    For the 5,000 tanks minus the available T-80s... lets assume there are 2,000 T-80s in good condition... that leaves 3500 T-72s of which 1,500 could be upgraded.

    This means that in 2015 when Armata presumably becomes ready for production the Russian Army will have paid for 1,000 T-90AM tanks and T-90S and T-90A upgrades, which they can keep using with upgrades till Armata is produced in numbers to replace them. The 1,500 T-80s are expensive to operate but need only minor upgrades... perhaps fitting it with the new V-99 engine might make it cheaper to operate, but we don't want to spend too much money on it as it can be the first to go as it has little parts commonality with the T-72/T-90 series and so with Armata would be a third different tank type. And 1,500 upgraded T-72s leaving 2,000 un-upgraded T-72s.

    The T-72s and the T-80s will be used for small scale exercises and training while the T-90s and upgraded T-72s will be used on big exercises and during conflicts if there are any. This means the majority wear and tear will be on the older models which will be scrapped or donated to an ally in 2015.

    According to the CFE agreement... which Russia has signed but has said will not honour till other participants have signed and started honouring the Russian forces are allowed something like 2,000 operational tanks with 4,000 in storage in European Russia so perhaps I need to revise my numbers with some more T-90s and perhaps more T-72s for the Far East including vehicles used for training and in operational storage for real conflicts.

    Either way there is a balance where upgrades and new vehicles need to be bought, but not so much money spent so that when the new vehicles are available there is no money left to build them. You need enough upgrades and new build vehicles to keep the factories working, keep the workforce trained and tooled with the latest production equipment and methods, and of course the subcontractors making 125mm ammo and ERA and ARENA active protection systems making products so they can earn the money to develop and improve their products.
    Having ARENA in production and service means to a potential customer that there will be an ARENA 2 and it will get better.

    ARENA as it is already is useful against the RPG which is amongst the most prolific threat on the battlefield which alone makes it worth it.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Austin on Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:36 am

    Looking at this video on BMP-3M , its pretty awesome even of old
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjJzvwPLb84

    I am just wondering of Bomerang or what ever replaces BMP-3 what kind of firepower should it have.

    Would replacement of 30 mm Anti Aircraft gun with 57 mm and replace 100 mm Gun with 105 mm gun or even a 120 mm MG with guided projectile capability ?

    Just imagine if a 120 mm or 105 mm caliber gun can fire Verba like missile with true fire and forget capability , that would significantly upgrade its anti-aircraft and anti-missile capability.

    With a small MMW radar like you see on Mi-28N or Ka-52 and IR/TI/EO sensor to back it up

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:13 am

    I am just wondering of Bomerang or what ever replaces BMP-3 what kind of firepower should it have.

    Boomerang is the wheeled replacement for the BTR, the Kurganets-25 will likely be the BMP replacement... and will likely be called BMP-4.
    Boomerang might be called BTR-95 or perhaps BTR-100 or something.

    They are not planning for now, they are planning for the future so it really depends on what they know about western IFV armour programs.

    I have heard rumours they were working on a 45mm gun that had a 57mm S-60 gun as competition using new ammo including guided shells.

    The performance of the HE shells for these two guns might determine the future of the armament as a good HE shell might make the HE thrower portion of the armament redundant so it might be equipped with a single gun and have a grenade launcher in support.

    Another possibility could be a 100mm rifled gun as fitted to the BMP-3 for indirect HE fire support. With a larger heavier vehicle is could easily possible they might decide on a 120mm gun mortar system which seems to be very popular for Airborne forces on the 2S9 and other vehicles.

    Of course they might go for mixed firepower with half the vehicles armed with high velocity 45mm or 57mm guns and the other half retain the 30mm cannons and 100mm guns of the BMP-3 to give the force more flexibility in firepower.

    Another option might be to let the tracked Kurganets-25s keep the 30mm and 100mm rifled guns and put the high velocity anti armour weapons on the wheeled Boomerangs.

    The thing is that if they can put 125mm guns on the BMD-3 chassis like Sprut then it should be even easier to do the same to these new much larger and heavier vehicles too.

    105mm main guns are very unlikely as Russia has not used that calibre historically a 100mm high velocity gun could be an option but 125mm would be more potent and already developed for the Sprut.

    The large calibre weapon needs to be low velocity to allow a curved trajectory to hit targets behind cover so the 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3 and the 120mm gun mortar are ideal with large HE shells but relatively low velocities. Standard HE rounds will be much cheaper than any missile yet have direct fire accuracy a a heavy payload.

    A useful addition might be laser homing HE shells for the 100mm or 120mm gun and gun/mortar giving them pinpoint accuracy when needed.

    The BMP-3s are already to get Catherine Thermal sights which should provide night and all weather viewing to 8-10km.

    I would suspect BMP-4 gets at least as good if not better.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Austin on Wed Jun 29, 2011 3:39 am

    One of the reason why BMP-4 needs heavy firepower is because US is going to go for heavy Infantry Carrier , I think similar to Israel by compromising its amphibious capability for better protection and perhaps firepower.

    Abrams is Model for Army Infantry Carrier

    Some discussion on mp.net here link

    Seems like US will improve its existing M1 and hence we could see new Tanks,ICV and SPH based on M1 chasis and in similar weight category.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Austin on Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:32 am

    Since this is a 25T BMP-4 and taking into account that US would move towards a larger ICV , here is what i would see in new BMP

    1 ) Upgrade from current 30 mm rounds to 57 mm round firing smart ammo
    2 ) 100 mm MG should do quite well , they must improve the ballistic characteristics and develop new and improved intelligent ammo like better HEAT to penetrate heavy US ICV
    3 ) Chassis that has integrated MMW Radar and integrated EO/TI system that can track ground vehical and aircraft.
    4 ) Most important best crew comfort and protection possible.
    5 ) Light ERA and Active protection system from all kind of missile including top attack
    6 ) Improved range , higher speed both on land and on water over BMP-3M
    7 ) Improved amphibious capability over BMP-3M

    Thats my list its quite modest and low risk approach with incremental and major improvement where needed and required.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 29, 2011 9:04 pm

    The best way for a BMP-4 to take out a vehicle with ABRAM like armour is a diving top attack weapon.

    With a 100mm calibre limitation then slip rings to prevent excessive gyroscopic force and a fairly long round with seeker in the nose, front warhead, and then rocket motor to extend range and over come drag and increase average missile velocity, and in the rear another full calibre warhead.

    The front warhead is a 100mm calibre warhead with a modern metal liner but a hole through the centre for the rear warhead to pass through first.

    Behind the front warhead is a small metal shield to protect the front warhead.

    An extended spike at the nose will set off the rear warhead to detonate through the hole in the front warhead and start penetration of the armour. The front warhead will then detonate with a shorter focal length and continue the penetration through the roof of the target though the explosive used will have aluminium powder mixed in to give an incendiary effect too.

    A few side thrusters will fire in the last 10-20m of flight to make it difficult to intercept and also ensure the missile hits the dead centre of the target.

    MMW radar guidance would probably suffice.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Austin on Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:15 pm

    Kamaz Taifun


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jul 04, 2011 7:26 pm

    A while back there was a discussion about buying cheap BTRs for use in a post apocalypse survival scenario.

    If your budget can stretch this sort of vehicle would be much better for such a purpose.

    It has a Mad Max look to it.

    (Mad Max was a series of three Australian films set in a post apocalyptic Australia... which was ideal really cause they could just film it in Sydney... Twisted Evil Twisted Evil )

    Klingsor
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 7
    Points : 7
    Join date : 2011-06-12

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Klingsor on Tue Jul 05, 2011 8:53 am

    Austin wrote:Kamaz Taifun


    That´s some bad ass m'f'in' truck!


    Last edited by Klingsor on Tue Jul 05, 2011 8:54 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : spelling)

    Pugnax
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 110
    Points : 105
    Join date : 2011-03-15
    Age : 52
    Location : Canada

    Russian Army

    Post  Pugnax on Wed Jul 06, 2011 12:24 am

    Nice truck ,no anti IED boat hull shape,no armoured cupola panels....still building for 1982 arent we boys?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:59 am

    The BTR-60 has a boat shaped hull and it is not anti IED.

    And just from that photo you can see how high the side of the truck is compared with the height of the axles... I would assume a V shaped hull to pull that off.

    No armoured panels?

    What do you think the bolts are for?

    Pugnax
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 110
    Points : 105
    Join date : 2011-03-15
    Age : 52
    Location : Canada

    Russian army

    Post  Pugnax on Wed Jul 06, 2011 11:29 pm

    Garry i was merely reflecting that a v shaped boathull construction seems to be the most survivable design,S.African Apcs are very successful as is the Lav design.Entire wheel assemblies get blown off but crew survival is very superior to a flat bottomed BMP/BMD or early BTRs.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jul 07, 2011 1:05 am

    If you look carefully at the photo... particularly the gap between the front wheels and how the front set of wheels with their axle are low enough to hide the second set of wheels from the angle the photo is taken suggests to me very low set wheels and a very low set axle.
    Now look at the side of the vehicle, which seems very high compared to the axle line of the wheels.

    Combine low mounted wheels and axles with high mounted body and when you join the dots you get a V shaped hull...

    Pugnax
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 110
    Points : 105
    Join date : 2011-03-15
    Age : 52
    Location : Canada

    Russian Army

    Post  Pugnax on Thu Jul 07, 2011 1:28 am

    I stand corrected.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Austin on Thu Jul 07, 2011 6:20 am

    Pugnax,GarryB while we are at this discussion please check this post

    MRAP Details

    Pugnax
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 110
    Points : 105
    Join date : 2011-03-15
    Age : 52
    Location : Canada

    Russian Army

    Post  Pugnax on Thu Jul 07, 2011 11:29 pm

    Nice link ,ty for sharing! Very Happy

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:27 pm

    I stand corrected.

    The first photo posted was not a good angle to see really.

    Thanks for the extra photos Austin... even from the side and rear there is no obvious V shape... we would need a shot from the front from low down, ...not that I am having second thoughts BTW Smile

    Pugnax
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 110
    Points : 105
    Join date : 2011-03-15
    Age : 52
    Location : Canada

    Russian Army

    Post  Pugnax on Sat Jul 09, 2011 1:03 am

    The high profile of successful anti-mine boat hull designs is what first made me skeptical.The philosophy of low vis/profile units pervaded the Soviet era and into the Russian era as well.The high boat hull flips over easily,indeed many of CDN Lav casualties are reported linked to roll overs at speed on thoroughfares.Maybe a new technology can disipate shock and trauma,allowing for a lower profile to be utilized ,ie a liquid shock absorber insert?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 09, 2011 9:26 pm

    I know many in the west criticise the BMP-3 for its layout with the strange exit setup at the rear where they have to open a set of doors and then a set of roof hatches and then the main back doors to get out because unlike the BMP-1 and BMP-2 the engine in the BMP-3 is mounted in the rear and the exit tunnels/trenches basically allow the troops to escape out the rear over top of the engine.

    The reason was amphibious capability.

    In the earlier BMPs the frontal armour was designed to stop 20mm cannon rounds from 100m or more so the frontal armour was about 40mm of steel equivelent. This means the engine could be mounted at the front of the vehicle on the right hand side with two crew positions on the left hand side... the front position is the driver and the rear position is the commander with the gunner in the single person turret. In practise however the commander often kicked the gunner out of the turret so they could sit in the turret and get an all round view, though it meant they had to operate the weapons... which clearly was not ideal.
    The BMP-2 had the same layout except the turret was enlarged to hold two crew side by side... the commander and the vehicle gunner. This meant another soldier could sit in the front of the vehicle beside the front mounted engine and behind the driver.

    The problem was that when the BMP-3 was ready for service the much thicker frontal armour plus the extra weight of the very large turret made the front of the vehicle too heavy. Some models of the BMP-2 with extra armour exhibited very poor performance in the water including nose diving into banks.

    To make the BMP-3 retain its amphibious capability they had to shift the engine to the rear... which introduced the problem of how to get the troops out the rear of the vehicle... the resulting method is not ideal as they have to climb over it, but it means they keep the firepower, the extra frontal armour, and the amphibious capability.

    With as many rivers and streams as there are in Russia the amphibious capability is valuable enough to keep where possible... and there is certainly no reason why a V shaped hull could not be used for an amphibious vehicle design.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Austin on Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:39 am

    Some update on Armata

    http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/6209/

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jul 18, 2011 11:24 pm

    So it is as we suspected.

    Armata is a military concept of a family of unified heavy vehicle chassis design that was passed to UVZ. Presumably the other families concepts will be passed to the relevant producers... Kurganets-25 to the makers of BMPs and Kangaroo to the makers of BTRs and the light vehicle to the makers of Volk and Tigr-M.

    The purpose of the Armata family base vehicle is to standardise wheels and suspension and track components, engine and transmission installation, control elements of chassis, driver control interface, onboard electronics and systems, life-support system.

    Chassis construction:
    There are two layout options for the chassis, with engine and transmission at the front and at the rear of the vehicle... the difference in such arrangement aside all components are the same as listed above.

    Transmission:
    Suspension 6 rolling wheels, controlled on the blade shock absorbers, the differential mechanism of turning with the hydraulic gear shift. 12- stepped automatic gearbox with the possibility of manual switching. Control elements: steering control, the change-gear lever and pedal of gas and brake. (note no manual clutch).

    New diesel engine... clearly not a gas turbine and not combined electric drive as it uses a transmission.

    Vehicle types to be created based on this chassis (which is important as the other families will likely have the same equivalent versions too):

    -Tank
    -a BMP/BTR or troop transport
    -a BMPT or fire support vehicle (hooray!!)
    -Command and control vehicles (with tank level armour... likely with basic light armament but more radios and perhaps control equipment to control UAVs or at least receive their data feeds
    -Tube and Rocket artillery support vehicles like Coalition (note Coalition is likely the 65 ton machines they talk about)
    -Air defence vehicles with perhaps a mix of Pantsir-S1 turrets and maybe even gun only 57mm gun armed turrets with AESA radars and IR optics and guided shells
    -support vehicles like the BREM recovery and repair vehicles which need the power to drag a vehicle its own size or larger off the battlefield and mine clearing and perhaps recon vehicles, ambulance vehicles perhaps even frontline transport of ammo or fuel or equipment etc.

    ... so at least 7 different vehicles based on the one platform

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 23, 2011 2:13 am

    Just realised that we need to add another system to the Armata family... TOS.

    I guess we can split them up into chassis versions: one with the engine at the back, turret in the centre (manned or unmanned) and the crew in the front of the tank and the other with the engine and driver in the front, perhaps a small manned or unmanned turret in the centre and compartment in the rear for troops etc.

    So with the engine at the rear would suit:
    - Main Battle Tank
    - BMPT fire support vehicle
    - Tube and Rocket artillery support:
    + Coalition (152mm tube)
    + TOS (rocket thermobaric and incendiary)
    + Perhaps a version of the new Hurricane system with two centrally mounted rocket pods like TOS?
    - Pantsir-S1 probably doesn't need easy rear exit so it can go here and any developments using 45mm or 57mm guns with guided shells could probably go here too.
    - support vehicles:
    + BREM recovery and repair vehicle
    + Mine clearing vehicle
    + recon platform able to operate underwater to recon riverbeds etc.


    The vehicles that would benefit from a front mounted engine include most of the vehicles that require easy access or entry and exit to the contents of the vehicle:

    - BMP/BTR or troop transport
    - Command and control vehicles (with tank level armour... likely with basic light armament but more radios and perhaps control equipment to control UAVs or at least receive their data feeds.
    - support vehicles:
    + ambulance vehicles
    + frontline transport vehicle for ammo or fuel or equipment etc.

    Of course the fact that currently the MSTA is based on a tank chassis with the engine at the rear is largely because it is tank based and there were no front mounted engine options.
    Perhaps with the choice they might go for front mounted engine models of tube and rocket artillery.

    There is also the possibility of adding new artillery vehicles... currently the 120mm gun mortar seems very popular so there might be a heavy model of the Vena for example.
    They used to have a very capable 160mm towed mortar in service that fired very useful 40kg bombs that might be useful for heavy armour use... most targets have frontal cover but few have top cover hard enough to stop a 40kg HE shell. In forests or cities a vertical plunging round is rather more effective than a faster travelling flatter shooting round from a large gun.
    Note the BMP-2 upgrade has both a 30mm grenade launcher on the roof of its turret and a 30mm high velocity auto cannon in the front of its turret.
    It would appear that both cancel each other out... why would you want a 30mm low velocity grenade launcher when you have a high velocity cannon in the same calibre.

    The simple fact is that the high velocity 30mm cannon would not be able to engage targets behind a small ridge or low hill or sand bank effectively, while the much lower velocity 30mm grenade launcher will happily lob grenades over such an obstruction. Conversely if an enemy helo appeared or a enemy light vehicle then the high velocity and armour piercing rounds of the auto cannon mean hits are more likely and the damage will be greater, so for different targets you want different weapons.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3054
    Points : 3152
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  medo on Sun Jul 24, 2011 1:14 pm

    Armata family is really big. I only miss BMO-T there, but I don't think army really need them in larger numbers.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 7:09 pm


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 09, 2016 7:09 pm