Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  GarryB on Fri Dec 03, 2010 9:07 pm


    Russia to buy 10 Italian armored vehicles
    Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov
    13:05 03/12/2010
    © RIA Novosti. Sergey Guneev

    Russia will buy 10 Lynx light multi-role armored vehicles (LMV) from Italy's Iveco, Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov said on Friday.

    He said Russia would like to set up a joint venture to assemble LMVs in Russia after the purchase.

    Italian Defense Minister Ignazio La Russa confirmed the country's readiness to transfer production technology for LMV manufacturing in Russia and their subsequent sales to CIS states, Serdyukov's press secretary Irina Kovalchuk said.

    A Russian defense industry source said in August talks were underway on LMV assembly under license at the KamAZ automaker in Naberezhnye Chelny.

    In mid-March the Russian Defense Ministry dismissed media reports that it was planning to purchase up to 1,000 Iveco M65 LMVs.

    Italian LMVs have been used in Iraq, Afghanistan and other NATO missions abroad, where they have performed admirably.

    MOSCOW, December 3 (RIA Novosti)

    So they are actually buying 10 vehicles and the manufacturing capability to licence produce... and the right to sell to CIS countries so they might produce 2,000 but sell 800 to other CIS states.

    The production is going to KamAZ, which is an automaker. That is the truck maker right?

    A quick look at wiki says they make trucks and buses and the armoured vehicle they currently make is the BPM-97.

    (note BPM is not a mistake as its designation basically means armoured patrol vehicle, and not armoured troop transport vehicle like the BTR or MICV like BMP.)

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5673
    Points : 6079
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  Austin on Fri Dec 03, 2010 11:31 pm

    So a lay man question , between Tigr-M and Iveco M65 which is a better vehical in mobility,protection and cross country capability ?

    There must be some good reason why Russian have not opted for Tigr and opted for M65 , if engine is an issue then certainly Iveco is not coming with an Russian engine for sure.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  GarryB on Sat Dec 04, 2010 4:54 am

    There is a lot of talk about the modular armour packages of the Iveco, so I think perhaps they want a modern light armoured wheeled vehicle that is proven on the front line against various threats.

    Whatever they actually licence build will most likely be optimised for Russian conditions, so either they were after a light armour production technology, or a specific form of modular design they see as useful.

    They have said clearly they are no copiers and when they find a technology they want they will buy that technology and the production techniques needed to produce that technology.

    This might be them buying a new type of light armour for all of their light vehicles or perhaps a modularity design that they can apply to their other vehicles.

    Russia is a huge country and I could see an enormous need for large numbers of well protected light vehicles for all sorts of government and military uses.

    As mentioned above they might actually export some of the vehicles they make to CIS countries... perhaps they will donate 1,000 to Kazakhstan to use as border security vehicles and use the armour technology on their own vehicles they produce in the new factories made to produce the M65s.

    BTW if it serves in the Russian military it had better have a Russian engine, or had better get one quick. That seems to be the only problem with the Tigr and has been sorted on the Tigr-M.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sat Dec 04, 2010 4:28 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    So they are actually buying 10 vehicles and the manufacturing capability to licence produce... and the right to sell to CIS countries so they might produce 2,000 but sell 800 to other CIS states.

    The production is going to KamAZ, which is an automaker. That is the truck maker right?

    Italy said they are ready to transfer production. It did not say Russia accepted. So far all we have bought are 10 sample vehicles. If Iveco can't make the snow, it will have a short life here.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  GarryB on Sat Dec 04, 2010 8:53 pm

    If Iveco can't make the snow, it will have a short life here.

    I totally agree, but I think the Russian vehicle companies have enough experience to modify the basic design to allow it to handle deep snow/mud etc.

    This is not about buying a vehicle I think. This is about buying modern production technology and perhaps either a light armour technology and or modular design technology from Italy.

    Russian vehicles like the Tigr-M seem to be very good vehicles for their purpose but it is clear that the M65 has some good features too that the Russian military is interested in.

    The two they bought a while back were tested cross country etc so we can assume that the ten new vehicles they want to order might perhaps be for target practise to test their armour performance against various types of dangers... mines, IEDs, various calibres of small arms and HMGs and perhaps even light cannon and RPGs.

    Their armour is modular so they will need ten to test the various configurations of armour.

    If the armour performs well then buy the licence to produce it and you get the armour technology. If the modular design works out well then buy the licence to produce it and you get the modular technology. If the Tigr-M or other Russian product is better then you can just say thanks but no thanks confident that your soldiers already have a good vehicle.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  medo on Sun Dec 05, 2010 5:04 am

    More interesting is, that Russian army will next year also evaluate Centauro and Freccio IFV, as some sources said. I wonder if those vehicles will be Italian for evaluation or Russian MoD buy them and which vehicle will they compare with, maybe BTR-90?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  GarryB on Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:25 pm

    They will likely buy some and give them a good test too to compare what is made locally with them.

    If these Italian vehicles have fundamental advantages... much better armour, better modularity, more efficient manufacturing process, etc etc then they will most likely start licence production.

    Of course if they test a BTR-90 equivelent against the BTR-90 and find the only advantage of the Italian version is better armour then they might buy the new light armour technology and apply it to the BTR-90 instead of making the new Italian vehicle. If the Italian vehicle has better armour and better entry and exit and better this and better that then you might just find they produce the Italian vehicle with Russian arms and engines.

    Russias wheeled brigades will need a wheeled "tank" with firepower, now that role might be satisfied by the BTR-90M with the BMP-3 turret with a 100mm rifled gun, 30mm cannon and tube launched guided missiles, or they might demand a full 125mm gun like the SPRUT in a wheeled vehicle. Shouldn't be impossible.

    Or they could go a different way because light brigades shouldn't be fighting tanks and go for a 57mm automatic gun as the "tank" vehicle that can't really take on enemy first line tanks but with a new modern APFSDS round could deal with any enemy IFV from the front at fairly long range. The added bonus would be laser homing shells could deal with UAVs and point targets at long range.

    A problem the Russian armed forces had in Georgia was dealing with UAVs... obviously the BUK could bring them down but it is rather expensive. The Igla would have trouble dealing with them especially if they are flying high (5,000-6,000m) especially due to their small IR signature, and towed anti aircraft guns in 23mm just can't reach high enough. A boosted 57mm guided cannon shell might do the trick. Pantsir could also do the job of course as IR signature is not so important as it could use radar or day optics.
    UAVs are only going to become more common and more of the threat.

    Regarding which vehicles they will compare them with, I would say Typhoon, Boomerang, and Kurganets-25 as these will be the next generation Russian vehicles. For licence production remember they have to build the factories and produce the tooling and train a workforce and buy the raw materials needed etc etc.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  medo on Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:38 pm

    I think the only problem with BTR-90 is, that it doesn't have back doors, but side doors. Maybe this make it worse for IFV or APC role, but as a vehicle it could serve in other roles with SPRUT-SD turret or ATGMs as tank hunter, as air defense vehicle, as CP, as communication vehicle, etc, where is no need for back doors and is better armored than older BTR-80.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  GarryB on Mon Dec 06, 2010 5:18 pm

    I have spoken to some soldiers who say that armoured vehicles often get attacked from behind and that side doors are actually a good idea when fire is coming from the front, the rear or one side that the other side can be used to exit and is safer from enemy fire.

    I have also heard from those who have been in a BTR series vehicle that the side exits are small and hard to get out of with a lot of kit on.

    AFAIK the BTR-82/A vehicles are stopgap vehicles while the company redesigns the vehicle for a rear ramp exit. Personally I think hydraulic two piece side doors would also be a good idea with the bottom opening down like a step and the top opening up to give plenty of room to get out. Hydraulics would allow heavy armoured doors be used so they don't create armour weak points... I would want 50 cal protection all round plus slat armour for RPGs.
    I would put the engine up front and have a large ramp door at the back also with hydraulic opening and closing and 50 cal protection.

    To fit the side exits I would put a larger gap between the middle wheels.
    A proper V shaped hull with spaced armour to add buoyancy for river crossings without preparation and I would keep the BTR-82 style turrets but because they would not enter service till 2015 or so I would give them QWIP optics sensitive in long, medium, and short wave IR and from IR through the visible light spectrum to UV so it can be used day and night. QWIP optics should end up being similar in price to the photon detector chips in digital video cameras rather than the $20-60K US prices of thermal imagers today.

    What I have described above might be what the light new chassis called Typhoon is, as the Kangaroo and Kurganets-25 will likely be BMP-3 like vehicles (perhaps wheeled and tracked respectively or maybe not).

    Of course Typhoon might just be a bit simpler and not have the side doors... it really comes down to analysis of Russian and Soviet experience in combat and peacetime and what works and what doesn't.

    The rear ramp is most likely and V shaped hull also likely too.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  medo on Tue Dec 07, 2010 11:49 am

    BTR-82/A is not IFV, but APC to carry troops near front line and not to support troops on battle field. For that role back door is not that necessary and the side doors are good enough. After all a lot of helicopters in that role have side doors (I know, not a good comparison). BMPs must have back door to protect troops while exiting in battle field. What is actual role of BTR-90? Is it a wheeled IFV like BMPs or an APC like BTR-80? With Berezhok turret it is armed as IFV and have better armor than BTR-80, but that still does not mean, it will do a role of IFV.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  GarryB on Tue Dec 07, 2010 10:15 pm

    BTR-82/A is not IFV, but APC to carry troops near front line and not to support troops on battle field.

    You are quite right in theory but in practise there is no difference.

    There are no vehicles that carry troops that will go blazing into enemy territory with soldiers firing from inside them... that was tried with the first BMPs in the Middle East and was a disaster.

    All so called IFV deploy troops short of the front line and retreat a bit and give covering fire when the troops meet trouble.

    The 30mm cannon on the BTR-82A like the one on the BTR-80A and the BMP-2 is for direct fire support of ground troops. The 14.5mm HMG of the BTR-82 and BTR-80 is for the same thing... the Soviets and Russians use the 14.5mm HMG like the west uses a 20mm cannon... its performance is similar but trades some shell weight for penetration performance.

    The main difference these days is the wheeled vs tracked difference and this determines mobility options.

    For that role back door is not that necessary and the side doors are good enough.

    During an ambush you still want your troops getting out of the vehicle fast when they need to, because being in a vehicle when the enemy has plenty of anti armour weapons is like bunching up when the enemy has lots of artillery.

    After all a lot of helicopters in that role have side doors (I know, not a good comparison).

    It is an excellent comparison and proves my point exactly. The Hind has a small cabin with side doors and for recovering one downed pilot or two it is fine. When you are deploying a platoon however it is seconds on the ground that count so even though they have less armour Mi-8 and Mi-17 helos are used to deploy troops because less aircraft are needed for any number of troops and side and rear exits means less time on the ground wetting yourself for the pilot.

    What is actual role of BTR-90? Is it a wheeled IFV like BMPs or an APC like BTR-80? With Berezhok turret it is armed as IFV and have better armor than BTR-80, but that still does not mean, it will do a role of IFV.

    For the light brigades the vehicles need to be fast and mobile and deploy troops fast. They also need to provide direct fire support because there will be no tanks or BMPs or other heavier vehicles there. I would think a mix of vehicles would be preferred that some troops will be in vehicles like the Tigr-M perhaps with a Kord in a remote roof position for fire support, along with BTR-82/As for troop transport... they will drop off troops and retire 500m to provide direct fire support etc, and also some BTR-90Ms with 100mm gun and 30mm gun and missiles. There should also be a wheeled air defence vehicle too and perhaps a few mortar carriers etc etc. Needs to be fast an mobile with enough firepower to overwhelm quickly.

    All just my opinion of course.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5673
    Points : 6079
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  Austin on Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:43 am

    "Tiger" vs. "Lynx"

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  medo on Fri Dec 24, 2010 3:21 am

    Austin wrote:"Tiger" vs. "Lynx"

    Thank you for the link. Some points here are actually true. If Russian MoD need to import foreign vehicles, it would for sure be better to import German Dingo or Suisse Eagle, than Italian junk. After all Italian know how is how to build beautiful thing without any quality. Just look at Fiat car. I had one and it was a junk.

    Iveco LMV M65 is not an APC, but just an armored car and for that job Tiger, new Volk and after all Vystrel are not worst than M65, if not better. Buying 10 of them for testing and comparing with other vehicles is good, but buying 1000s of them, I don't think this is smart idea.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  GarryB on Fri Dec 24, 2010 9:51 pm

    As Vlad pointed out the Italians have said they are ready to sell and allow a transfer of technology for Russian production, but I hope the Russian military either accept it or not based on the safety of Russian military personnel and the improvement of the Russian military industrial complex rather than a political deal to curry favour with a NATO country.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 09, 2011 9:06 pm

    Found this vid:

    http://visualrian.com/images/item/357018

    (wont let me embed the vid so had to give link above).

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  medo on Sun Mar 13, 2011 3:12 am

    http://russiamil.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/popovkin-provides-more-details-on-armaments-program/

    Russian army will buy 2 Centauros and 2 Freccias for trials.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5673
    Points : 6079
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  Austin on Fri Apr 01, 2011 10:01 pm

    Some ballistic protection offered by Tigr/Tigr-M I found ( via artjomh/mp.net)

    All army Tigrs are 3rd protection class (protection up to 9 mm and 5.45 mm, but not against "enhanced penetration" 5.45)

    GAZ-233001 (baseline) - 3rd class
    GAZ-233014 (basic army Tigr) - 3rd class
    GAZ-233034 (basic police SPM-1) - 3rd class
    GAZ-233036 (uparmored police SPM-2) - 5th class (protection against up to 7.62 mm SVD rounds, regular ones)

    VPK-233114 (Tigr-M) is 6A protection class, but the vehicle is still in prototype stages, so it is unknown if 6A is the baseline, or the uparmored version. Class 6A protects against armor piercing 7.62mm rounds (SVD).


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 01, 2011 10:19 pm

    Last I remember reading about the subject weren't they interested in the Volk, and the Tiger-M because the earlier model Tigers had US owned Canadian made Cummins diesel engines?

    The VPK-233114 Tigr-M and the VPK-3927 Volk both have Russian engines and other improvements.

    Of course both are larger and heavier than Iveco and the PVP... but with the Russian military... who knows... they might just buy them all.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5673
    Points : 6079
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  Austin on Fri Apr 01, 2011 10:48 pm

    I would suppose the Military would be more interested in having Russian engines while the production run of Police and Paramilitary organisation would be comfortable with Cummins engine because they must have ordered significant amount of Cummins engines with perhaps local assembly.

    Well if they sell to global customers they can atleast offer a choice between two proven and inservice engine , which is good for customers.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5673
    Points : 6079
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  Austin on Sat Apr 02, 2011 10:06 pm

    Here is a nice Video of Volk reco vehical , it has active suspension and is computer controlled Smile


    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  medo on Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:29 am

    I think both Tiger-M and Volk are great vehicles. I wonder if Russian army will more use Volk as APC or as armored truck for battlefield logistics, for which it could be excellent. It could carry food, medics, ammo, etc to the place, where troops actually need them.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5673
    Points : 6079
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  Austin on Sun Apr 03, 2011 4:45 am

    http://img819.imageshack.us/f/vpk3927family.jpg


    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5673
    Points : 6079
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  Austin on Sun Apr 03, 2011 5:43 am

    Photos:
    VPK-3927 Volk-1 Russia
    VPK-39272 Volk-2 Russia
    VPK-39273 Volk-3 Russia


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 03, 2011 8:05 pm

    Looks like a good vehicle to me...

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  medo on Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:53 am

    It seems Volk have the same modular design as Vodnik have. But I think it would be smart to built Volks intended only for logistic duties and separate Volks as armor vehicles for different duties and not to mix them. Logistic in battlefield is also very important and it needs its own vehicles and Volk is very suited for that.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:08 pm


      Current date/time is Wed Dec 07, 2016 5:08 pm