Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16285
    Points : 16916
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 12, 2011 12:33 pm

    Can't say I am not happy with this, the Russian vehicle makers just need time to put together a better vehicle with Russian parts or parts Russian can licence produce.

    I have read some articles criticising the ceramic armour used how it was added to the chassis rather than part of the vehicle structure which leaves some vulnerable points and offers no protection for the engine at all.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3189
    Points : 3279
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  medo on Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:26 pm

    Isn't Volk vehicle in the same level of protection as vestern counterparts and produces completely from russian parts? On the other hand I think Border guard have better decision to buy french Panhard vehicles. French vehicles have only french components and they could give licence for a whole vehicle.

    Pervius

    Posts : 249
    Points : 271
    Join date : 2011-03-08

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  Pervius on Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:52 pm

    It says alot of Russia if they can't even make their own Armored Infantry Mobility Vehicle.

    It's not rocket science. They've got the Italian ones to look at as well as the Up-Armored American Humvee's to look at.


    Sketch something on paper and make it. To heck with everyone else though. Make it a HALF TRACK. V Hull to protect from IED's.

    Half Track is better Armored Car. Especially with world tire production in China....no need for many tires during war.

    HalfTrack Armored Car would out race on the street a Up-Armored Humvee any day. Plus it could go offroad and frame wouldn't twist like a pretzel from all the weight of Armor.

    US Armored Car is only pretty CNN Queen. Very expensive to maintain, poor engine, can't handle weight of the armor.

    Kamaz Chief was right to leave job. Medvedev wants pretty CNN queen military instead of cheaper functional military. Computers on a Diesel engine? Come on...

    No man with brains puts a computer on a diesel engine.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16285
    Points : 16916
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:31 am

    It says alot of Russia if they can't even make their own Armored Infantry Mobility Vehicle.

    After 20 years of no funding the Russian military has suddenly decided it wants light mobile armoured vehicles of new design, and within the space of a few years we have seen a large number of indigenous designs shown and they are starting to go into service.

    This is not a case of Russia not being able to make a vehicle.

    This is a case of a successful Russian company not wanting to be forced to build and Iveco design because the Italian company that makes the vehicle doesn't own the design rights to all the components so if the Russian company makes the vehicle including the foreign components it might be subject to sanctions from the US. It knows the US companies wont cooperate in the manufacture because US companies are subject to US law that can and does get changed overnight by Congress.

    This is not Kamaz saying it can't build these vehicles, it is say it doesn't want to put itself in the position of getting sued or embargoed.

    It's not rocket science. They've got the Italian ones to look at as well as the Up-Armored American Humvee's to look at.

    Uparmoured Humvees are crap... the Humvee was too heavy to start with and the extra armour has made them useless... even the American forces admit that.

    Kamaz isn't talking about developing their own vehicle, they are saying they don't want to licence produce this Italian vehicle because Iveco doesn't own the patents and manufacturing licences for all the parts and has no right to sell them to Kamaz.

    Half Track is better Armored Car. Especially with world tire production in China....no need for many tires during war.

    Halftracks are dead. Their mobility is limited by their wheel component and their tracked component makes them expensive to buy and operate. Fully tracked and fully wheeled vehicles make much more sense.

    US Armored Car is only pretty CNN Queen. Very expensive to maintain, poor engine, can't handle weight of the armor.

    To paraphrase something I read recently: "It says alot of the US if they can't even make their own Armored Infantry Mobility Vehicle."

    Kamaz Chief was right to leave job. Medvedev wants pretty CNN queen military instead of cheaper functional military. Computers on a Diesel engine? Come on...

    No man with brains puts a computer on a diesel engine.

    Actually the Tiger-M has computerised engine control that manages heat sensors throughout the engine so even in very low temperatures they can safely start the engine without shattering it, or having to built a fire under it...

    Isn't Volk vehicle in the same level of protection as vestern counterparts and produces completely from russian parts? On the other hand I think Border guard have better decision to buy french Panhard vehicles. French vehicles have only french components and they could give licence for a whole vehicle.

    There is also the BPM-97 at 10 tons is rather heavier than the Iveco, but the Tigr-M and Volk and even Vodnik are in the same weight range.
    I think the SPM-3 Medved is in the same 10 ton weight class as the BPM-97.

    In many ways any and all these options would be better than the Iveco, but they really don't have anything in the very light PVP range at the moment.

    Pervius

    Posts : 249
    Points : 271
    Join date : 2011-03-08

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  Pervius on Sat Aug 13, 2011 4:40 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    Half Track is better Armored Car. Especially with world tire production in China....no need for many tires during war.

    Halftracks are dead. Their mobility is limited by their wheel component and their tracked component makes them expensive to buy and operate. Fully tracked and fully wheeled vehicles make much more sense.

    Tracked vehicles are cheaper to build. Did you notice there's nobody in the US making tires. All in China now. So if the US went into a lengthy multi-year war with China.....how would they have tires?
    A Half Track can easily handle many tons of weight for an armored car. Anything with tires on it can't handle weight of armor and ballistic glass, off road.

    US Up-Armor Humvee was originally designed for Columbian drug lords. The US Army saw it and liked it so much they wanted some for themselves. The problem is....they can only handle the weight on roads. The minute you try to offroad with it the frame twists into a pretzel. You buy many many many parts....even have to replace frames. So.....half track is cheaper.


    As I said, fully loaded with armor a halftrack could easily pass an Up-Armor on the highway....plus outperform off the road.

    Italian armored car is pretty CNN queen. It can't tow anything a military would need. It can't haul anything a military would need. It's a tiny armored coffin..any explosion and your skull will hit the side glass and your head will crack open. You can't be wearing full gear/helmet and even get into the drivers seat of the Italian armored coffin.


    """"""""Actually the Tiger-M has computerised engine control that manages heat sensors throughout the engine so even in very low temperatures they can safely start the engine without shattering it, or having to built a fire under it..."""""""

    Engine Block heater, battery heater for a diesel.....doesn't need computerised tech. These plug in block heaters existed for decades before computerised cars. No diesel engine needs a computer. Without ships full of money the US wouldn't be able to use their over complicated computerised diesels. Hordes of contracted mechanics....

    Go get the armored Italian coffin car and try to tow a Howitzer...offroad. Can't do it. It's just a pretty CNN drama queen car with no military purpose. Maybe it would make a good CIA/KGB/OMON special forces vehicle to sneak in, assassinate....and get out quick. But there were already armored cars for that purpose. Armored Japanese Hilux pickup is what everyone is using in Afghanistan...doesn't stand out as an armored car. Italian armored coffin maybe wouldn't stand out in Europe went shooting starts there for urban warfare.

    avatar
    NationalRus

    Posts : 634
    Points : 645
    Join date : 2010-04-11

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  NationalRus on Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:12 am

    are my english skills betryeing me but what exactly s it now, they "refuse" to obey a goverment order and contract or they "can't" build it becouse of legal issues?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16285
    Points : 16916
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 14, 2011 11:15 am

    Tracked vehicles are cheaper to build.

    You can't say that.

    Different vehicles in different roles REQUIRE different levels of mobility.

    A tank for instance needs to be able to operate on any terrain so tracks offer the best compromise in mobility and cost. A transport vehicle that operates on good roads tracks would never be considered because wheels are cheaper than any track layer and offer all the mobility needed.

    In maintainence alone a track is much harder to keep running than a wheeled vehicle, at to that the wear and tear on roads and increased fuel bill because it spends more time in lower gears than a wheeled vehicle and tracks are several times more expensive than wheels.

    The whole point of the BTR series armoured vehicles was a troop transport that was still armoured and amphibious, but it had to be cheap so it was 8 wheeled.
    They even made it high maintainence by putting in two engines that were each too underpowered to run the vehicle because it was cheaper than developing a new engine.
    The BTR-80 had a more powerful engine available so they used that which simplified the design.

    Did you notice there's nobody in the US making tires. All in China now. So if the US went into a lengthy multi-year war with China.....how would they have tires?

    Most computer hardware is not made in the US either... even if it is designed by US companies it is made in Taiwan or China or Malaysia or South Korea. China isn't the only country in the world making tires.

    A Half Track can easily handle many tons of weight for an armored car. Anything with tires on it can't handle weight of armor and ballistic glass, off road.

    A Halftrack has tires.

    Some of the heaviest vehicles in the world are actually wheeled.

    US Up-Armor Humvee was originally designed for Columbian drug lords. The US Army saw it and liked it so much they wanted some for themselves. The problem is....they can only handle the weight on roads. The minute you try to offroad with it the frame twists into a pretzel. You buy many many many parts....even have to replace frames. So.....half track is cheaper.

    Any vehicle designed as a car and then having tons of armour added without strengthening the structure properly will fail... unless the vehicle was over built in the first place.

    The real answer is to redesign the vehicle from scratch to allow for enormous weight increases... than means stronger frame and structure and transmission and engine improvements to allow for much more weight.

    The original concept of a half track was to develop a vehicle that was as simple to drive as a truck, but with the cross country mobility of a tank. The problem was that it also had the maintainence and running costs of a tank.

    The point is that a fully tracked vehicle can have a steering wheel and automatic transmission and be as easy to drive as a truck but with much better mobility.

    There is no reason to bother with half tracks now.

    As I said, fully loaded with armor a halftrack could easily pass an Up-Armor on the highway....plus outperform off the road.

    And cost 5-10 times more in maintainence and operating costs.

    Italian armored car is pretty CNN queen. It can't tow anything a military would need. It can't haul anything a military would need. It's a tiny armored coffin..any explosion and your skull will hit the side glass and your head will crack open. You can't be wearing full gear/helmet and even get into the drivers seat of the Italian armored coffin.

    These vehicles will not replace APCs... their purpose is not to perform missions of BTRs, their mission is better compared to BRDMs and even light unarmoured light vehicles like UAZ-469s. In many ways the Iveco is just an armoured SUV and that is what was required of it.

    In this case however they haven't got the licence production rights to all the components... otherwise it is exactly what they wanted.

    This vehicle is not for frontline military use, it is for police and paramilitary units to deploy and operate in. A recon unit might use it... remember the BDRM-2 was bulletproof and that was all but it was expected to operate all over the battlefield.
    The new Kornet-M system is based on this sort of light armoured vehicle.

    It is not safe from IEDs but then neither are tanks.

    Engine Block heater, battery heater for a diesel.....doesn't need computerised tech. These plug in block heaters existed for decades before computerised cars. No diesel engine needs a computer. Without ships full of money the US wouldn't be able to use their over complicated computerised diesels. Hordes of contracted mechanics....

    Well the Tigr has a computer to manage the engine and other systems on board the vehicle. Does it need them? Of course not. But it doesn't need a steering wheel either... they could go back to the old fashion levers.
    It will work better with a steering wheel and the engine will operate better with fuel flows monitored and temperatures checked.

    Go get the armored Italian coffin car and try to tow a Howitzer...offroad.

    They were not going to use it to tow weapons... they have plenty of MTLBs that can tow guns of all kinds plus carry crews and a load of ammo inside too.

    This Italian vehicle with all its foreign parts is selling well internationally and seems to be popular. It is not a tank nor is it an artillery tractor.

    are my english skills betryeing me but what exactly s it now, they "refuse" to obey a goverment order and contract or they "can't" build it becouse of legal issues?

    They are refusing to build it because they don't have the licence to build all the necessary components. They can build those components but will be subject to international legal action if they do. If the government makes them build them then they can blame the government and the government can sort it out.

    The thing is that Kamaz has a lot of business in the west for its trucks and other vehicles and I rather doubt they want to risk that by making what is basically an Italian vehicle.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3189
    Points : 3279
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  medo on Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:33 pm



    Modernized KAMAZ Vystrel-M from Russian army 19th motorized Brigade.

    Maybe Kamaz more likes to produce modernized vystrels in their production capacities, which is their own product, than Iveco LMV. But if MoD ordered and buy LMVs, than maybe any other company like GAZ could build them if Kamaz refuse.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16285
    Points : 16916
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 15, 2011 2:53 pm

    AFAIK the Iveco contract was for ten vehicles with an option for large scale production of several thousand.

    The BPM-97 is in the 10 ton weight class so it is really too heavy to consider a direct replacement of the Iveco M65, but then the Volk in the 7.5 ton range and the Tigr-M in the 5-6 ton class is much closer in terms of weight and performance.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16285
    Points : 16916
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 16, 2011 6:54 am

    BTW as the name suggests the BPM-97 is a patrol armoured vehicle rather than an APC replacement for the BTRs.

    The Iveco is more of an armoured SUV for use as a light patrol vehicle.

    Tigr is pretty much the same and in the Tigr-M version seems to be all Russian.

    The vehicle that KBP shows with twin 4 round Kornet-M launchers seems to be a Tigr-M, which would make it a good example of the sort of roles it would perform... the sort of thing the BRDM was used for.

    At 5-7 tons that is about right. At 10 tons the BPM-97 is getting close BTR weight of 14 tons, though the new BTRs will be in the 25 ton class (ie Kangaroo family of wheeled vehicles).
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3189
    Points : 3279
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  medo on Tue Aug 16, 2011 3:47 pm

    GarryB wrote:AFAIK the Iveco contract was for ten vehicles with an option for large scale production of several thousand.

    The BPM-97 is in the 10 ton weight class so it is really too heavy to consider a direct replacement of the Iveco M65, but then the Volk in the 7.5 ton range and the Tigr-M in the 5-6 ton class is much closer in terms of weight and performance.


    I know that Vystrel is not a replacement for Iveco LMV, but it is Kamaz product and maybe Kamaz want to produce their own Vystrel and not just putting together components of Iveco LMVs. Maybe Kamaz would be more interested, if they could produce all components for LMVs, but it seems there is a problem for licence of non-Italian components.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16285
    Points : 16916
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 17, 2011 6:32 am

    I am pretty sure that Kamaz has the capacity to make over one and a half thousand Ivecos over the next 5 years as planned and also make plenty of Vystrels and other vehicles too.

    The simple fact is that Kamaz realises that while it has permission to licence produce the M65 from Italy that the vehicle is made of parts from other countries including Germany and the US and so while they have Ivecos permission to make the vehicle they don't have permission to make the foreign components too.

    The foreign components include the ceramic armour and the engine so without those components the vehicle is pointless, and worse still if they made them without permission the makers of the components could sue Kamaz, which would be bad for business and might effect their sales performance in certain vehicle markets where they currently make a lot of money.

    The US engine alone could result in the engine maker going to congress and getting an import ban on all Kamaz products into the US. Germany could do the same with the EU.

    And for what?

    So that Kamaz can licence produce an Italian vehicle?

    I am sure they would rather make Russian vehicles.

    Personally I think the best solution would be to make the ten vehicles for the contract and then sell them to an existing user of the vehicle type cheaply to recover some of the costs and then mass produce something like the Tigr-M or a Russian equivelent where there are no licensing issues.

    With the French PVP... this is in a much lighter weight range... and there are less likely to be issues with foreign components because the French tend to use French components.

    If the Russian industry can make a comparable vehicle then put that in production, otherwise make buy the licence for the PVP.

    Tovarish

    Posts : 1
    Points : 1
    Join date : 2011-08-19

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  Tovarish on Fri Aug 19, 2011 5:51 am

    from the start i wondered how would they be able to pull this off? Why would USA/NATO want to transfer their technology to Russia? now i wonder what did US promise Italy in return for the lost opportunity? They could use some money, Berluskoni a good friend with Putin he would not let him down like this unless pressured into it.

    On the other hand - really, what is the point for Russia to spend money in Italy, when they can produce their own armored vehicles, even with the "old school" steel armor without any ceramics or any other lightweight materials (let it be based on large Ural/Kamaz chassis). The IVECO is not really designed for the Russian soldier and the way Russians conduct their operations, does not fit the threat and tactics used by their enemies. Russian's tiger although not so powerful or exotic as far as materials used can handle same tasks as IVECO (maybe with some modifications to Tiger)

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16285
    Points : 16916
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:49 am

    More importantly the Tigr is able to cross rough country and deep snow better than the Iveco as shown during tests.

    The Tigr-M has a better engine that is Russian and should have even better performance.

    I have not seen specs for the Tigr-M anywhere but the original Tigr seems to be the same weight or lighter than the Iveco.
    avatar
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 1938
    Points : 2103
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  Cyberspec on Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:39 am

    medo wrote:Modernized KAMAZ Vystrel-M from Russian army 19th motorized Brigade....

    Apparently that's a border guard vehicle.

    Upgraded Vistrel



    ...




    Pics and video are from the 2 tower blog with lots more stuff on the Vistrel

    Arrow http://twower.livejournal.com/614112.html

    .
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16285
    Points : 16916
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 21, 2011 8:40 am

    Thanks for the photos, vid and link.

    From the photos it is interesting with those air filters above the rear doors, this vehicle clearly has an NBC system.
    Would like it better if they fitted the new BTR-80A type turret rather than the old BTR model.

    Perhaps the new turret has too much below it to fit...
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16285
    Points : 16916
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 21, 2011 8:57 am



    From the link above, this vehicle could be the APC and air defence vehicle... I wonder if this might be the family vehicle for the Light Brigade units?
    They might replace the 125mm gun armed version with a Tigr-M with Kornet-M missiles?

    I see there is a version with the BTR-80A/82 type turret with a 30mm cannon, so it is good it can use that turret too.

    ie:

    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3189
    Points : 3279
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  medo on Sun Aug 21, 2011 1:08 pm

    Excellent photos of Vystrels with Strela-10 and BTR-82A turret. I think in one of shows (MAKS or any other) they also show Vystrel equipped with BTR-82A type of turret with twin barrel GSh-30 gun and two Igla missiles.

    It looks like border guards Vystrels use turrets with machine gun and AGS. Is this turret stabilized to fire on the move?

    Anyone know how many Vystrels are actually Russian MoD, interior army and border guard? After all it is very useful vehicle based on standard Kamaz truck, what is also fine for logistics. I don't think it is worse than Iveco LMV, although it is heavier and not in the same class.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16285
    Points : 16916
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 21, 2011 1:16 pm

    It looks like border guards Vystrels use turrets with machine gun and AGS. Is this turret stabilized to fire on the move?

    All depends on whether it is the BTR-80A or the BTR-82A turret I guess.

    I don't think they would use a patrol vehicle for delivering fire on the move very often however so they might not be able to justify the expense.

    Of course if the old BTR-80A turret is no longer produced they might justify just making one standard turret... the actual difference of course is the stabilising systems.

    I hope they do as along with stabilised gun it has single 14.5mm calibre belts and other nice things too.
    avatar
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 1938
    Points : 2103
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  Cyberspec on Sun Aug 21, 2011 2:38 pm

    medo wrote:Anyone know how many Vystrels are actually Russian MoD, interior army and border guard? After all it is very useful vehicle based on standard Kamaz truck, what is also fine for logistics. I don't think it is worse than Iveco LMV, although it is heavier and not in the same class.

    Not sure about overall numbers in all services, but I think the border guards are the main user. AFAIK it isn't in widespread use in the Army. It's more of a trial batch with a couple of units. The upgraded version is a result of the trials. The recon section of the Brigade stationed in South Osetia has them and they are equipped with a mini UAV



    avatar
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 1938
    Points : 2103
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  Cyberspec on Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:50 am

    medo wrote:Is this turret stabilized to fire on the move?

    I forgot to add....yes it's stabilised.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16285
    Points : 16916
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 22, 2011 7:35 am

    Nice.

    Reminds me a little of the BTR-152 actually, but with fewer wheels and better internal arrangement.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3189
    Points : 3279
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  medo on Mon Aug 22, 2011 4:28 pm

    I don't think they would use a patrol vehicle for delivering fire on the move very often however so they might not be able to justify the expense.
    [quote]


    Maybe not that often on the move, but they could fire warning shots to the vehicle or group of people on the move and stabilization give better accuracy when firing, that you don't kill people or do border incident, when it is not needed. Also it could give better self defense capabilities for violent places like North Caucasus.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16285
    Points : 16916
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 22, 2011 4:58 pm

    A moving target is harder to hit... particularly with unguided weapons like RPGs so I am happy for whatever the reason is.

    Hopefully they just took the BTR-82s turret as is, which means some night vision and stabilised optics too... though nothing like the BMP-3M level thermals of course.
    avatar
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 1938
    Points : 2103
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  Cyberspec on Thu Aug 25, 2011 8:35 am

    Came across pics of promo material for YMZ diesel engines for various vehicles, including military ones.




    - 215 hp for Tiger-M, SPM-1/2 (red)

    - 240 hp for Volk (blue)

    - 300 hp for 'perspective military vehicle' (unmarked)





    - 312 hp for SPM-3 (red)

    - 350 hp for Typhoon 4x4 (blue)

    - 450 hp for Typhoon 6x6 (green)


    Hopefully they just took the BTR-82s turret as is, which means some night vision and stabilised optics too... though nothing like the BMP-3M level thermals of course

    It's fully stabilised.

    Optical Sight? .. camera?



    Sponsored content

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Aug 18, 2017 8:54 am