Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #1

Vann wrote:Russia is not really taking seriously USA . Is relying too much in their nuclear weapons

Preliminary analysis of the Kurganets-25 family by Defense Update
http://defense-update.com/20150509_kurganets-25bmp-btr.html#.VU6L9ZOC29c

Cyberspec wrote:

Vann wrote:Russia is not really taking seriously USA . Is relying too much in their nuclear weapons

It's true that Russia isn't ready for a full large scale conventional war BUT neither is NATO prepared to fight in Russia's backyard...if there was some crisis tomorrow, Russia can deploy in a matter of 2-3 days something like 100 000-200 000 men while according to some analysts, it would take Nato several months to do the same

___________

Russian army now two and half million,
200 000 can be thrown since one end of country in another for floor day

The APC carries a smaller remotely-operated turret (2), mounting a single 14.5 mm heavy machine gun (14.5mm or 12.7mm ??)

The vehicle retains the same active protection system ‘ring’ used on the BMP, but does not include the heavier Afghanit the BMP uses.

Instead, it’s infra-red spotlight (4) is mounted at a higher level, and can serve both as a forward looking counter-measure and a signalling element, displaying numerical symbols backward, thus enabling communications with the infantry squad or other vehicles without relying on radio communications (similar to using flags).

If coupled to the laser warning system on the vehicle, such a device could act as an unaided ‘blue force identification’ mechanism, responding to laser signals with a coded message. It would probably operate in visible and thermal bands, enabling both day and night operation.

click

   

Cyberspec wrote:An interesting hypothesis from the Defence Update analysis

The APC carries a smaller remotely-operated turret (2), mounting a single 14.5 mm heavy machine gun (14.5mm or 12.7mm ??)

The vehicle retains the same active protection system ‘ring’ used on the BMP, but does not include the heavier Afghanit the BMP uses.

Instead, it’s infra-red spotlight (4) is mounted at a higher level, and can serve both as a forward looking counter-measure and a signalling element, displaying numerical symbols backward, thus enabling communications with the infantry squad or other vehicles without relying on radio communications (similar to using flags).

If coupled to the laser warning system on the vehicle, such a device could act as an unaided ‘blue force identification’ mechanism, responding to laser signals with a coded message. It would probably operate in visible and thermal bands, enabling both day and night operation.

click

alexZam wrote:Ok. Got something useful...

Book. wrote:

alexZam wrote:Ok. Got something useful...

It is like Bmp 3

KomissarBojanchev wrote:If such a large vehicle can only carry 6-8 troops respectively then there is some large waste of space, given the unmanned turrets should be more compact. The much smaller BMP-1 could carry 8 soldiers while the even tinier M113 could carry 10, or also a 105mm howitzer. If the number of passengers is true this is clearly a heavy troop carrying capacity downgrade.

Also why wasn't fitting an AGL considered for both the IFV and the APC? The BTR-80 can easily be quipped with a 30mm one while the BMP-2 berezhok already has one integrated. Not keeping such a weapon on the new generation platform is very dissapointing.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:If such a large vehicle can only carry 6-8 troops respectively then there is some large waste of space, given the unmanned turrets should be more compact. The much smaller BMP-1 could carry 8 soldiers while the even tinier M113 could carry 10, or also a 105mm howitzer. If the number of passengers is true this is clearly a heavy troop carrying capacity downgrade.

Also why wasn't fitting an AGL considered for both the IFV and the APC? The BTR-80 can easily be quipped with a 30mm one while the BMP-2 berezhok already has one integrated. Not keeping such a weapon on the new generation platform is very dissapointing.

Understand that the K-25 is a completely different paradigm. It is better protected, and the troops firepower, individual protection and thus total supplies has dramatically grown. Never mind that the troops need to be able to haul more people on a pinch etc. Having To reload the 4 9M133's means 4 more tubes at least in the hull. That takes place, more ammo takes place etc...

flamming_python wrote:Yep I agree, the APC's carrying capacity is amoebic, if the report of a 8-man capacity is true then nothing justifies it. The turret doesn't (or shouldn't) go into the hull; all that space should be free, and the actual vehicle is high, long and wide.
Should carry 10-11 at the very LEAST. That's to say a full squad and preferably extra space for 1-2 as well and/or ammo/supplies.