Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Share

    hoom
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 233
    Points : 235
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  hoom on Wed Jul 13, 2016 10:44 pm

    Isn't it most likely that the 57mm version would be with the Baikal turret or a version based on it?

    AA isn't the primary task so twin barrels is not necessary.
    Killing other modern APC/IFVs & infantry behind/through cover would be main task. (but also better range & bigger bang can be better AA than a 30mm)

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jul 14, 2016 6:20 am


    Actually rate of fire is relevant. But not for long series but bursts. Fire control with current state of electronics/optics is not limiting factor but ability to move barrel in stabilized way is.

    I disagree... this gun is supposed to be able to fire at about 300rpm, so we are talking about 5 shells a second... with guided shells unless the targets are very close together firing in a burst just means if the first shell gets a direct hit the other shells would need to be guided to targets very close to the previous target or wont have the energy to manouver and hit a different target in the time available... it is rather more likely that a single shot or two shot burst will be fired at a single target... two shells should be plenty for almost any aerial target in terms of damage.

    I just wonder is 57mm based system swill have additional AGTMs?

    On the IFV it would need an anti tank capability so I would suspect yes.

    Equally the Kornet-EM has been adopted by air defence units in its HE version as a cheap simple light missile for targets like small drones that don't require a full power SAM. Now the 57mm rounds might make more sense but I suspect a combination of a 57mm gun and either Kornet-EM and or SA-22 missiles might be a standard loadout.


    First, rate of fire does make sense, it is an important factor to be reckoned with, so it is totally relevant.

    I think that the 2*57 mm configuration would be similar to the 2K22 "Tunguska" (if it will be ever made).

    This config would be useful for countering incoming bombs or other guided/unguided free-falling airborne projectiles that are posing direct threat to friendly troops or the system itself. This could be executed with the use of combined electro-optically/ radar guided 57 mm shells with a radio-controlled fuse and a HE-Frag (High Explosive fragmentation) warhead. And believe me, the high rate of fire and the guided shells combined would have an amazing hit probability.

    High rate of fire is only useful for fire and forget guided munitions.

    With laser beam homing or laser beam riding guidance with relatively high velocity shells you would likely only be firing one or two shells at each target engaged... you would then wait for a result before firing further shells... Having two guns only makes sense if each target requires multiple hits... and considering the size of the 57mm rounds I rather doubt that.

    The scheme of its use would look like this:

    1. The surveillance radar detects the incoming threat.

    2. The radar adjusts the electro-optical aiming system (and the guns) onto the target.

    3. The aiming system measures the target's distance, height, speed and direction of flight, thus calculating its predicted flight path.

    4. When the necessary calculations were made, the fire control system fires the cannons.

    5. The electro-optical aiming system (likely with the help of a laser rangefinder), measures the shells' distance from the cannons, and also the shells'distance to the target in every split second, thus fine tuning the fuse before impact/explosion.

    6. In the close proximity of the target, the fuse detonates the HE-Frag warhead, creating a cloud of fragments, which is surely obliterates any incoming bomb, and severely damages or even immediately kills enemy attack helicopters/drones or even low flying CAS (Close Air Support) aircraft, maybe even cruise missiles etc.

    I would expect search and tracking radar for all weather day night use and for the most part (for the air defence model) with EO backup and alternate detection and tracking.

    So it would be more like:

    1. The surveillance radar detects the incoming threat and continues to scan for other targets while the turret turns to the target to be engaged thereby pointing the tracking radar at the target.

    2. The tracking radar acquires the target and projects the targets location when fired shells arrive on target. It then aims the barrels to direct the shells to that intercept point. It would also allow the EO system to view and confirm the target as a valid hostile target.

    3. The cannons can then be fired with guided shells able to manouver to compensate for any flight path changes made between firing the rounds and impact.

    5. There is no need to fine tune the fuse... it can simply be set to go off when the shell gets within a certain range.

    6. When the target is being tracked the EO component can examine the target to determine the type. A bomb or missile target would require a direct hit or very near miss to ensure destruction... a large aircraft target could use proximity fuse with broader settings. Terminal guidance should ensure direct hits are normal against all but the smallest targets.

    2. Low rate of fire. Even the ZSU-57-2 had a fire rate around 120 rpm, and the single barrel AZP S-60 had an even less, around 105-120 rpm cyclic, and a 70 rpm sustained firing rate.

    The ZSU-57-2 had AZP S-60 cannon... of course each gun will fire at a lower rate than a system with two cannon.

    The main limit to the firing rate was the huge 4 round clips the ammo was loaded into the guns with and the manual loading. The new gun reportedly fires at a cyclic rate of 300 rpm which is better than the ZSU-57-2s 240rpm.

    But again it does not need a high rate of fire... it gets its high hit probability from having guided shells not from its rate of fire.

    Isn't it most likely that the 57mm version would be with the Baikal turret or a version based on it?

    That is the proposed IFV turret... it would need search and tracking radar for air defence roles...

    AA isn't the primary task so twin barrels is not necessary.
    Killing other modern APC/IFVs & infantry behind/through cover would be main task. (but also better range & bigger bang can be better AA than a 30mm)

    AA is not the primary task of that turret... for use on an IFV its primary task is to be able to penetrate enemy IFVs and to support infantry and to be able to kill tanks in self defence.

    With the BMP-1 the 500m minimum range of AT-3 meant the main gun had to be able to kill tanks so the 73mm gun was primarily the short range anti tank weapon... and it could kill M60 tanks easily enough.

    With the BMP-2 the AT-4/-5 launcher had a minimum range of about 30m so the main gun just needed to support infantry and kill M113s.

    It was found the 73mm gun had heavy HE capacity while the light 30mm cannon was good against other targets so both systems were kept in service and their replacement combined decent HE capacity and light auto cannon in the 100mm/30mm combination.

    For the next gen IFV the 30mm is not powerful enough against NATO IFVs so the 57mm gun has been developed.

    The fact that the 57mm calibre makes guided shells possible and practical means that not only will it be used with the new IFV, but will likely also be used for air defence to replace the 30mm calibre guns.

    The 30mm lacks armour penetration for use against enemy IFVs but it also lacks performance against very small targets like drones where large numbers of rounds would need to be fired to assure a hit on a small target, whereas a single proximity fused HE shell in 57mm could probably do a much better job... especially if it has guidance.


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

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

    Benya
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 170
    Points : 174
    Join date : 2016-06-05
    Location : Budapest, Hungary

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  Benya on Thu Jul 14, 2016 7:02 am

    hoom wrote:Isn't it most likely that the 57mm version would be with the Baikal turret or a version based on it?

    AA isn't the primary task so twin barrels is not necessary.
    Killing other modern APC/IFVs & infantry behind/through cover would be main task. (but also better range & bigger bang can be better AA than a 30mm)

    Actually this is the BMP-3 "Derivatsiya", which is I think a mobile testbed for the 57 mm Baikal turret, or maybe a prortotype of a future BMP-3 upgrade. Here no radar can be seen, so it will most likely to be an IFV turret. I heard that an air defense system with 57 mm gun(s) are in development.

    hoom
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 233
    Points : 235
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  hoom on Fri Jul 15, 2016 6:47 am

    Point was to illustrate the turret...

    That is the proposed IFV turret... it would need search and tracking radar for air defence roles...
    Which is why I don't know why people are talking AA.
    The quote in question that mentioned a coming 57mm made no mention of AA at all -> is probably talking about an IFV with 57mm -> Baikal.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jul 15, 2016 7:17 am

    Which is why I don't know why people are talking AA.
    The quote in question that mentioned a coming 57mm made no mention of AA at all -> is probably talking about an IFV with 57mm -> Baikal.c

    There have been several quotes mentioning 57mm as the replacement for 30mm in AA guns...

    one example from above:

    Ultimately, according to Tuchkov, the next likely project to be developed on the basis of the Bumerang platform is a 120 mm self-propelled artillery system, along with a 57 mm self-propelled anti-aircraft system.

    Note the Baikal turret is a proposed turret to upgrade the BMP-3 and other existing vehicles.

    They have already revealed the Epoch turret and a further upgraded version is expected to be revealed in a few years time... it is that upgraded turret that is expected to have a 57mm gun plus Kornet and sensors for the IFV role on the armata, Kurganets, Boomerang and typhoon chassis.

    For air defence use a totally different turret will be used that includes radar and probably missiles as the vehicle will likely replace the Tunguska/Pantsir type platform...


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

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

    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1516
    Points : 1558
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Jul 15, 2016 1:30 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    Actually rate of fire is relevant. But not for long series but bursts. Fire control with current state of electronics/optics is not limiting factor but ability to move barrel in stabilized way is.

    I disagree... this gun is supposed to be able to fire at about 300rpm, so we are talking about 5 shells a second... with guided shells unless the targets are very close together firing in a burst just means if the first shell gets a direct hit the other shells would need to be guided to targets very close to the previous target or wont have the energy to manouver and hit a different target in the time available... it is rather more likely that a single shot or two shot burst will be fired at a single target... two shells should be plenty for almost any aerial target in terms of damage.


    i was not specific enough, I was talking about 1 barrel but the rate of fire is important as you already agreed with. Just with 200rpm you can have 1 second 2-3 rounds burst which should be more then enough for A-10 not to mention any Cobra derivative. The issue her eis high rate of traversing up-down left -right and stabilization to keep precision of shooting in case of mass attack (then probably some missiles would be a nice add on).






    GarryB wrote: For air defence use a totally different turret will be used that includes radar and probably missiles as the vehicle will likely replace the Tunguska/Pantsir type platform...

    and that is a good question iin which cases thy would need missiles? Tunguska missiles have actually less range then 57mm not to mention 30mm guns. Only reason to add missiles would be IMHO saturation attack but would they add extra missiles to very 57mm AAD vehicle or built specialized with Morfeyr this is another question.

    hoom
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 233
    Points : 235
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  hoom on Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:32 am

    There have been several quotes mentioning 57mm as the replacement for 30mm in AA guns...
    Yeah ok my bad I actually missed that totally relevant bit on the end of that sentence Embarassed
    Not entirely convinced its not a mis-translation though.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 16, 2016 3:46 am

    and that is a good question iin which cases thy would need missiles? Tunguska missiles have actually less range then 57mm not to mention 30mm guns. Only reason to add missiles would be IMHO saturation attack but would they add extra missiles to very 57mm AAD vehicle or built specialized with Morfeyr this is another question.

    Soviet and Russian divisions have in their air defence battalions gun/missile vehicles and missile vehicles currently.

    Previously gun and missile were separate but as the most expensive components of light gun and light missile systems are duplicated when you have separate vehicles like Shilka and SA-9 or SA-13 then combining into a gun/missile vehicle makes sense.

    Previously there was little overlap... guns were short range and cheap and all weather day night capable, while missiles were available in smaller numbers but had better range and hit probability.

    With guided 57mm shells the range of the guns has increased significantly... as has its hit probability, but I suspect the lethal range for guided shells will likely be about 10km.

    I rather suspect the use of Pantsir type missiles on a 57mm gun armed vehicle makes a lot of sense... with 20km range or 40km range missiles used against aircraft while the smaller 57mm guided shells could be used against cheap drones or incoming munitions like Hellfire or even Javelin...

    The talk is laser homing 57mm shells but I like the idea of simple command guided shells like the command guided Pantsir missiles... cheap and simple... the main question is can it be made compact enough to leave enough space for a decent HE payload...

    Having a vehicle with morfei and a 57mm gun would be an interesting turn of events... because it reverses the range capabilities of the current SPAAGAMSs...ie the missile will have a shorter range than the guns... Smile


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

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

    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1516
    Points : 1558
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Jul 16, 2016 5:19 am

    GarryB wrote: I rather suspect the use of Pantsir type missiles on a 57mm gun armed vehicle makes a lot of sense... with 20km range or 40km range missiles used against aircraft while the smaller 57mm guided shells could be used against cheap drones or incoming munitions like Hellfire or even Javelin...

    if you define compact as of size of current Pantsir probably it woudl fit. Trading 4x30mmm and ammo ws 1x57mm you might be actually better off. The problem I see is stability of platform. Cannot imagine firing on move 57mm on vehicle with high gravity center while driving on bumpy terrain without stopping and securing platform.

    And being able to uze gun in real time is crucial for moving columns.



    GarryB wrote:
    The talk is laser homing 57mm shells but I like the idea of simple command guided shells like the command guided Pantsir missiles... cheap and simple... the main question is can it be made compact enough to leave enough space for a decent HE payload...

    I wish also to eat cake and have it Smile Couple years ago on Gurhkan was published work of Russian 57mm research of guided ammo. Also for slow moving area targets. With more explosives vs less muzzle speed (700m/s vs. 1000 m/s) they got amount of explosives on level of 76mm gun. But this works for slow UAV/UACV or helos but not something fast. Probably burst 2-3 rounds with less explosives but higher speed projectiles is better solution.


    GarryB wrote:
    Having a vehicle with morfei and a 57mm gun would be an interesting turn of events... because it reverses the range capabilities of the current SPAAGAMSs...ie the missile will have a shorter range than the guns...  Smile

    and even worse...for a good reason - gun is to cheaply take down anything flying in range/height of about 10km envelope but...in case of massive attack many UCVs/AGTMs/helos even planes gun is has too little time to tak eit down in real time no tot mention barrel heating after continuous bursts for a minute or so...

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jul 17, 2016 3:47 am

    The problem I see is stability of platform. Cannot imagine firing on move 57mm on vehicle with high gravity center while driving on bumpy terrain without stopping and securing platform.

    With guided shells then extremely accurate stabilisation systems are not so important.

    For land based targets high rate of fire is not important.

    When driving across rough terrain the targets will likely be less than 4km away and guided shells would be able to deal with most target types easily enough even with one or two shots.

    And being able to uze gun in real time is crucial for moving columns.

    Few systems could do that currently.

    The extended range of guided 57mm shells means even having to stop to fire a round would not be that big a deal as the high flight speed and extended range means actually a missile would still be better than a cannon shell as an SA-22 will hit a target at 20km before a 57mm shell would hit a target at 10km. The 57mm shell will likely leave the barrel at about 900m/s but the missile will achieve about 1.2km/s at about 1.5km range and its greater mass will allow it to push through the air much more efficiently than the smaller lighter 57mm shell.

    I wish also to eat cake and have it Smile Couple years ago on Gurhkan was published work of Russian 57mm research of guided ammo. Also for slow moving area targets. With more explosives vs less muzzle speed (700m/s vs. 1000 m/s) they got amount of explosives on level of 76mm gun. But this works for slow UAV/UACV or helos but not something fast. Probably burst 2-3 rounds with less explosives but higher speed projectiles is better solution.

    I disagree... it is not speed that ensures a hit.... it is guidance. The Americans think high velocity makes air to air cannon fire more effective with their 1km/s 20mm cannon rounds but the Soviets and Russians with their 700m/s 23mm cannons have much better performance.

    1,000mps is the armour piercing 57mm rounds used for anti armour work... the HE shells with guidance will be much less dense and much lower velocity... simply because most of the cartridge case will be filled with projectile with little room for propellant.

    and even worse...for a good reason - gun is to cheaply take down anything flying in range/height of about 10km envelope but...in case of massive attack many UCVs/AGTMs/helos even planes gun is has too little time to tak eit down in real time no tot mention barrel heating after continuous bursts for a minute or so...

    The tunguska has a liquid cooling system for the barrels... I rather suspect any anti aircraft variant of the 57mm in land and sea based models will have a liquid cooling system fitted to allow excellent rates of fire.

    The enemy will run out of drones before even one vehicle fires off its 150-200 shells.

    Remember the guided shells will likely be effective to 12km or so, but even proximity fused unguided HE shells will be effective to 5-6km too against dumb straight flying UAVs.

    We know that there is a unification of design with the SA-22 and the Hermes and that the latter has been shown in drawings based on a truck mount that looks very much like a Grad vehicle with 40 odd launch tubes.

    Now if the 57mm gun based SPAAG has no room for missiles then it would make sense to have a gun vehicle able to control several missile launch vehicles around the place... with all the sensors and command and control systems mounted on the 57mm gun vehicle and lots of missile carrying trucks sitting around the place waiting for a launch command...

    Of course that raises the question... why bother with a 57mm gun when a 125mm gun could fire a missile with a decent HE payload for an airborne target and have room for a scramjet motor and some fuel to fly at high speed all the way to the target at 15-20km range... but then who is to say they don't already have that for their MBTs...


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

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

    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1516
    Points : 1558
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Jul 17, 2016 6:22 am

    GarryB wrote:
    The problem I see is stability of platform. Cannot imagine firing on move 57mm on vehicle with high gravity center while driving on bumpy terrain without stopping and securing platform.

    With guided shells then extremely accurate stabilisation systems are not so important.

    For land based targets high rate of fire is not important.


    We do not talk about moving on highway but bumpy terrain. I was talking about flipping over when you fire ...



    GarryB wrote:
    And being able to uze gun in real time is crucial for moving columns.

    Few systems could do that currently.

    The extended range of guided 57mm shells means even having to stop to fire a round would not be that big a deal as the high flight speed and extended range means actually a missile would still be better than a cannon shell as an SA-22 will hit a target at 20km before a 57mm shell would hit a target at 10km.  The 57mm shell will likely leave the barrel at about 900m/s but the missile will achieve about 1.2km/s at about 1.5km range and its greater mass will allow it to push through the air much more efficiently than the smaller lighter 57mm shell.


    Yes you can but why if 57mm round is by 2orders of magnitude cheaper then the missile. But "instant" ability to shoot is one of huge advsnteges of gun system.



    GarryB wrote:
    I disagree... it is not speed that ensures a hit.... it is guidance. The Americans think high velocity makes air to air cannon fire more effective with their 1km/s 20mm cannon rounds but the Soviets and Russians with their 700m/s 23mm cannons have much better performance.

    but no low velocity guns were used in AA role for a reason. Targets do change trajectory so th sooner projectile reach them the bigger chance thye can be hit.


    GarryB wrote:
    and even worse...for a good reason - gun is to cheaply take down anything flying in range/height of about 10km envelope but...in case of massive attack many UCVs/AGTMs/helos even planes gun is has too little time to tak eit down in real time no tot mention barrel heating after continuous bursts for a minute or so...

    The tunguska has a liquid cooling system for the barrels... I rather suspect any anti aircraft variant of the 57mm in land and sea based models will have a liquid cooling system fitted to allow excellent rates of fire.

    The enemy will run out of drones before even one vehicle fires off its 150-200 shells.
    but 80 only is shoot ready in Biakal module...Water cooling so far not used in salf-propelled variants but can help to sustain good practical rate of fire though.




    GarryB wrote:
    Remember the guided shells will likely be effective to 12km or so, but even proximity fused unguided HE shells will be effective to 5-6km too against dumb straight flying UAVs.
    For now, drones wil become much smarter soon and will start use hive tactics.



    GarryB wrote:
    Of course that raises the question... why bother with a 57mm gun when a 125mm gun could fire a missile with a decent HE payload for an airborne target and have room for a scramjet motor and some fuel to fly at high speed all the way to the target at 15-20km range... but then who is to say they don't already have that for their MBTs...

    If you believe guided projectile flies like AA short range 30g menuvering missile then yes 125mm can replace 57mm in this role. otherwise 1000m/s+ Vo, 200rds/sec with large drum of ammo with 30% of weight, gun is much much better alternaive

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 734
    Points : 917
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Jul 17, 2016 8:16 am

    The selection of 57 mm as the main unified caliber for future ground forces medium caliber cannons is the first serious attempt, since at least 4 decades, to gain a strong, reliable and unilateral "advantage" in the everlasting battle between tactical CAS vehicles ,tactical airborne ISR assets and organic elements (not directly AD related) of mechanized and armoured ground divisions.


    57 mm round, in theirs modern iteration, in facts do not allow only to achieve an unmatched level of efficiency - in terms of range of engagement, flexibility, lethality and reliability - against practically all kind of foreseeable battlefield menaces ,being them ground or air based, but allow also already from day one to render practically obsolete and/or unsurvivable entire class of weapons (in particular the main air to ground tactical missile of likely opponents, in the shape of all iteration of AGM-114 mounted today on fixed wing/rotary wing/UAV platforms, and gliding bombs of almost all type) and theirs delivering platforms.


    Just to render more clear what just said is sufficient to say that the initial, most basic, version of modern domestic 57 mm autocannon will widely outrange ....for remain silent on the crushingly lopsided economical and time of production match-up.... not only all versions of AGM-114 but even the future JAGM up to its increment 2 ,planned for introduction not earlier than half of next decade !

    The central point of this "imbalance" is even more related to the fact that a 57 mm burst achieve same or better result against the grouind target against which are usually employed those missiles or bombs but will also allow to destroy helicopters, dispersed infantry, UAV/UCAV, glide and corrected bombs, low flying aircraft, cruise missiles etc...

    Moreover to the contrary to what appened in the past ,where the field remained substantially plain because was possible to integrate the same gun caliber also in CAS aircraft and helicopters - at example the 30 mm autogun was integrated in CAS aircraft ,as in the A-10 and Su-25, literally building the aircraft around it, in order to render compatible the enormous recoil of those autogun with theirs frail aerodynamic equilibrium - it will be impossible to implement 57 mm cannon on helicopters, fixed wing aircraft or UCAV.

    franco
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1732
    Points : 1772
    Join date : 2010-08-17

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  franco on Sun Jul 17, 2016 9:03 am

    The Kurganets-25 is a tracked modular platform that will be used as a basis to build new types of infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers.

    MOSCOW (Sputnik) – The Kurganets-25 platform can carry a crew of three and eight personnel. It is a fully amphibious vehicle, travelling at a speed of over 6 miles per hour in the water.

    The Kurganets-25 platform can be fitted with a 30mm automatic cannon, a 7.62mm machine gun and four Kornet anti-tank guided missile launchers.

    The first combat-ready vehicles are set to be produced by 2020 as only prototypes have been displayed so far.



    Explains the decision to continue producing the BMP-3 until then.

    Also is the production start date for the Boomerang still 2018?


    Project Canada
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 529
    Points : 538
    Join date : 2015-07-19
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  Project Canada on Sun Jul 17, 2016 2:02 pm

    franco wrote:The Kurganets-25 is a tracked modular platform that will be used as a basis to build new types of infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers.

    MOSCOW (Sputnik) – The Kurganets-25 platform can carry a crew of three and eight personnel. It is a fully amphibious vehicle, travelling at a speed of over 6 miles per hour in the water.

    The Kurganets-25 platform can be fitted with a 30mm automatic cannon, a 7.62mm machine gun and four Kornet anti-tank guided missile launchers.

    The first combat-ready vehicles are set to be produced by 2020 as only prototypes have been displayed so far.



    Explains the decision to continue producing the BMP-3 until then.

    Also is the production start date for the Boomerang still 2018?


    I wonder why it will take that long to get it into service? Maybe the design is not yet perfected? Engines/parts will not be localized until the said date etc?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jul 18, 2016 1:06 am


    We do not talk about moving on highway but bumpy terrain. I was talking about flipping over when you fire ...

    I would suggest the recoil management for the gun would deal with that risk... if teh 18 ton Sprut doesn't roll over when firing its 125mm gun then I think firing a 57mm gun should be rather safer.

    Of course I have seen slow motion footage of a Sprut firing its main gun and it jumps quite a bit at the front of the vehicle, though not until the round is well on its way...

    Yes you can but why if 57mm round is by 2orders of magnitude cheaper then the missile. But "instant" ability to shoot is one of huge advsnteges of gun system.

    Current models of TOR and Pantsir can fire while moving, but very few other vehicles I have ever heard of can do the same. Even Shilka can fire on the move... but with reduced accuracy.

    The point is that with guided shells precise accuracy with the first shot is not important any more... any inaccuracy can be compensated for in flight with the guidance system, so even firing at a very low rate of fire while on the move... say one shot every 3-4 seconds will be more than enough to deal with a range of threats... with optics and radar stabilisation... guidance accuracy should not reduce much at all.

    but no low velocity guns were used in AA role for a reason. Targets do change trajectory so th sooner projectile reach them the bigger chance thye can be hit.

    Actually that is why no large calibre guns are used in the AA role by modern armies because even if the aiming is perfect the flight time of the shell means that the target area will be a box of space and not a point in space. The more the target turns or speeds up or slows down the bigger the box. The 23mm and 30mm cannon got their effectiveness by firing 100-200 rounds and the recoil and distance meant those rounds were evenly spread around the point of aim effectively filling that box with potential killers. To hit a smaller target requires rather more rounds... 500-1,000 for a cruise missile or small drone which is totally impractical.

    The solution is a guided shell and because that solution can compensate for the manouvers of the target and for small targets then velocity stops being important.

    In the IFV role of course the velocity is important for penetration, but with guided shells actually hitting the target relies on being aimed ahead of the target for a proper intercept and enough manover capability to be able to hit the target big or small in the time allowed.

    Velocity for the guided shell becomes unimportant except that it needs forward velocity to close range on the target.

    but 80 only is shoot ready in Biakal module...Water cooling so far not used in salf-propelled variants but can help to sustain good practical rate of fire though.

    Like I said Baikal model is IFV turret... it is limited because its primary role is troop transport so the rear of the vehicle can't have more ammo it needs to carry troops.

    The anti aircraft model will have the rear of the hull to store more ammo. And being a dedicated air defence vehicle it will have other modifications like air search radar and tracking radar and optics optimised for tracking aerial targets and of course water cooled barrels like on Tunguska and Shilka.

    For now, drones wil become much smarter soon and will start use hive tactics.

    Yeah... and 57mm shells can become much more dangerous when the HE warheads are replaced with EMP warheads that disable drones from 50 metres... one shell going off within a swarm and its all over.

    Small targets like little drones means 30mm shells become useless because the density needed of shells to hit small targets means too many shells need to be fired at one time just to hit one target.

    If you believe guided projectile flies like AA short range 30g menuvering missile then yes 125mm can replace 57mm in this role. otherwise 1000m/s+ Vo, 200rds/sec with large drum of ammo with 30% of weight, gun is much much better alternaive

    Yeah... the thing is that to get a drone to pull 30 gs at the right moment to evade incoming cannon fire it would need some sort of sensor to detect the incoming rounds... so you can pretty much make your outgoing rounds detect the radar sensors or laser sensors that are used to detect ground fire to destroy the drones.

    The outgoing shells don't need to pull 30gs... they just need warheads with directional warheads that explode towards the target fired by proximity fuse or command based on data collected by the firing vehicle... which can have much more powerful and precise sensors than anything fitted to either a missile or a drone or a guided shell.


    I wonder why it will take that long to get it into service? Maybe the design is not yet perfected? Engines/parts will not be localized until the said date etc?

    I suspect getting all the features and capabilities they demand of such a vehicle makes the lighter vehicles rather more demanding than the heavier ones.

    It is also important to point out that the entire families of these vehicles need to be developed and produced... there is unification of systems and sensors and weapons where possible... ie the armata will have a 152mm self propelled artillery version called Coalition, but I doubt Boomerang will have a 152mm artillery vehicle.

    To keep the vehicle families pure I suspect a truck based on transmission and engine etc etc for each vehicle family which might include artillery... tube and rocket for boomerang and typhoon.

    I also suspect sanctions will mean all Russian transmissions and components including radar and EO systems...


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

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

    Benya
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 170
    Points : 174
    Join date : 2016-06-05
    Location : Budapest, Hungary

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  Benya on Tue Jul 19, 2016 4:51 am

    franco wrote:The Kurganets-25 is a tracked modular platform that will be used as a basis to build new types of infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers.

    MOSCOW (Sputnik) – The Kurganets-25 platform can carry a crew of three and eight personnel. It is a fully amphibious vehicle, travelling at a speed of over 6 miles per hour in the water.

    The Kurganets-25 platform can be fitted with a 30mm automatic cannon, a 7.62mm machine gun and four Kornet anti-tank guided missile launchers.

    The first combat-ready vehicles are set to be produced by 2020 as only prototypes have been displayed so far.



    Explains the decision to continue producing the BMP-3 until then.

    Also is the production start date for the Boomerang still 2018?


    Well, according to TASS, the Russian Ministry of Defense ordered 200 BMP-3s in 2015 so far, and it's very unlikely to order more due to the planned shift of production capacity to the Kurganets APCs/IFVs., so the Kurganets' production will likely to begin in mid/late 2017, or early/mid 2018. The procurements of new BMP-3s are started in last year (2015), and are likely to end in (2017)

    As for the Boomerang, its preliminary tests by the army/MoD are likely to be end this year, so serial production can start in 2017 in the Arzamas Machine Building Plant (Arzamas, Novgorod region), the same factory that produced the older BTRs.

    TASS article about the BMP-3 order:

    http://tass.ru/en/defense/819772

    also TASS article about the start of Kurganets production:

    http://tass.ru/en/russia/793643

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jul 20, 2016 3:58 am

    Keep in mind that the Kurganets-25 IFV model is not the only vehicle replacing the BMP-3... all the IFV models of new vehicles are replacing the BMP-3.

    That means the IFV version of Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang and Typhoon is replacing the BMP-3 as an IFV in the various different units.

    Note the IFV sensor and weapon suite has been developed and largely standardised amongst the different vehicles, though of course the Typhoon MBT might have a 57mm gun instead of a 125mm gun, and of course the Armata version MBT might eventually get a larger calibre main gun than the 125mm gun too.


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

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

    Benya
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 170
    Points : 174
    Join date : 2016-06-05
    Location : Budapest, Hungary

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  Benya on Wed Jul 20, 2016 8:23 am

    GarryB wrote:Keep in mind that the Kurganets-25 IFV model is not the only vehicle replacing the BMP-3... all the IFV models of new vehicles are replacing the BMP-3.

    That means the IFV version of Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang and Typhoon is replacing the BMP-3 as an IFV in the various different units.

    Note the IFV sensor and weapon suite has been developed and largely standardised amongst the different vehicles, though of course the Typhoon MBT might have a 57mm gun instead of a 125mm gun, and of course the Armata version MBT might eventually get a larger calibre main gun than the 125mm gun too.

    Typhoon MBT??? lol! lol! lol!

    I think that a 7.62 or 12.7 MG mm mounted on an RCWS is just enough for the Typhoon. Smile

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jul 21, 2016 5:39 am

    I agree... the Typhoon family is a light recon unit type vehicle family so the concept of MBT does not really apply.

    Even the Sprut concept of light tank is too heavy for a typhoon based gun platform... Sprut would be a Boomerang level vehicle.

    The Typhoon family gun platform would probably have a 57mm main gun and be very light and highly mobile including air dropping capability.

    Apart from recon units I would suspect the main users of the Typhoon family vehicles will be in low intensity COIN type missions where paramilitary forces would be used normally.

    The bulk of the Russian Army in my opinion will be mostly Kurganets and Boomerang based... with the former having better tactical mobility in places where roading is poor while the latter having better strategic mobility being better able to operate on roads in places in Europe where roads are good quality.


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

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

    Benya
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 170
    Points : 174
    Join date : 2016-06-05
    Location : Budapest, Hungary

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  Benya on Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:29 pm

    Latest article about the Boomerang platform

    Russian land and naval forces will receive armoured vehicles derived from the Bumerang platform.

    The Russian Army and Marine Corps may receive armored vehicles derived from the Bumerang commonized armored wheeled chassis, according to the Izvestia daily. The Military Industrial Company (VPK), which is the major manufacturer of armored personnel carriers (APC), infantry fighting vehicles (IFV) and armored cars for the Russian Armed Forces, has started the preliminary tests of an amphibious APC derived from the Bumerang.

    The Russian Army and Marine Corps may receive armored vehicles derived from the Bumerang commonized armored wheeled chassis, according to the Izvestia daily. The Military Industrial Company (VPK), which is the major manufacturer of armored personnel carriers (APC), infantry fighting vehicles (IFV) and armored cars for the Russian Armed Forces, has started the preliminary tests of an amphibious APC derived from the Bumerang.



    The K-17 Bumerang is an IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) fitted with a an electrically powered unmanned turret mounted in the centre of the hull. The turret is armed with the 2A42 30mm automatic cannon.

    According to Sergei Suvorov, spokesman for VPK LLC, the Bumerang will be a quantum leap in Soviet and Russian wheeled APC development, because it will be based on a common combat platform fit for use by both the Army and Marines. As was reported in the press, the advanced wheeled APC is slated for service entry in 2017.

    "Eight wheels are the only thing the Bumerang and in-service BTR-80 and BTR-82 armored personnel carriers have in common," Suvorov said. "In other respects, the Bumerang is an utterly different commonized platform designed for the inventories of the Army and Navy - the latter’s Marine Corps in particular."

    According to Suvorov, a problem of the BTR-80 family is its relatively low protection against landmines and improvised explosive devices. Therefore, troops prefer to ride the APCs on top, rather than inside. The low mine protection was among the causes of the advanced APC’s development. The Bumerang was unveiled to the public on May 9, 2015. Its key feature is modularity, i.e. the ability to spawn a whole family of combat vehicles based on the same chassis. The Bumerang’s derivatives include the K-16 APC and K-17 IFV. This allows the platform to be offered to virtually any Russian uniformed service, be it the Army, National Guard or Marines.

    The Russian Army and Marine Corps may receive armored vehicles derived from the Bumerang commonized armored wheeled chassis, according to the Izvestia daily. The Military Industrial Company (VPK), which is the major manufacturer of armored personnel carriers (APC), infantry fighting vehicles (IFV) and armored cars for the Russian Armed Forces, has started the preliminary tests of an amphibious APC derived from the Bumerang.



    The K-16 Bumerang is an APC (Armoured Personnel Carrier) fitted with a small unmanned turret armed with a 12.7 mm heavy machine gun.

    Expert Victor Murakhovsky says the Marines are like the Paras - a rapid reaction force. Under the plans drawn up in 2015, the Marines were to take delivery of T-90 tanks, BMP-3 IFVs, BTR-82A APCs, BRDM-3 armored scout vehicles, 120-mm 2S31 Vena self-propelled artillery systems, upgraded air defense weapons, small arms, rocket launchers and automatic grenade launchers. Of the whole of this arsenal, however, only the BTR-82A can fully handle the amphibious assault on an austere beachhead. The expert explained that the Marines had asked for a dedicated combat vehicle to be developed as a replacement for their classical APC, but this has not been done due to the defense budget reduction.

    The military is a stickler to the commonality and modularity of its armor. Therefore, the Bumerang may be regarded as a tradeoff between the seaworthiness of an amphibious assault vehicle and an enhanced firepower, say, by means of unmanned automated fighting modules.

    The most promising of automated fighting modules is the Baikal. It packs a 57-mm automatic gun with a maximum rate of fire of 120 rd./min., an ammunition load of 200 rd. and a range of 12 km.

    The 57-mm caliber is the most versatile one these days. It is more than the 30 mm of the BTR-82A’s gun, but less than the 100 mm of the main armament of the BMP-3 IFV. The Bumerang features higher wet gap crossing capability, ground agility and crew protection. For the first time, a Russian APC has its engine compartment in the bow of the hull. The solution has both increased the crew protection and enlarged the troop compartment. The troops embark and disembark through the rear door with the ramp now. This sets the vehicle apart from the Soviet-built APCs that the troops had to exit via side doors, according to the Izvestia daily.

    Arrow Link to the article: http://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/russian_land_and_naval_forces_will_receive_armourd_vehicles_derived_from_the_bumerang_platform_12807162.html

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jul 29, 2016 3:57 am

    The 57-mm caliber is the most versatile one these days. It is more than the 30 mm of the BTR-82A’s gun, but less than the 100 mm of the main armament of the BMP-3 IFV. The Bumerang features higher wet gap crossing capability, ground agility and crew protection. For the first time, a Russian APC has its engine compartment in the bow of the hull. The solution has both increased the crew protection and enlarged the troop compartment. The troops embark and disembark through the rear door with the ramp now. This sets the vehicle apart from the Soviet-built APCs that the troops had to exit via side doors, according to the Izvestia daily.

    The 57mm gun is certainly more powerful than the 30mm cannon, but in many ways will also be better than the 100mm gun of the BMP-3 in that the 100mm gun has a range limit of 7km and is really only a HE shell lobber and can carry 8 guided missiles.

    In comparison the 57mm gun can carry up to 200 shells with good punch to 12km with guided rounds and HE and APFSDS rounds as options making it more flexible than the 100mm.

    Also the Boomerang is NOT the first Soviet APC with a front mounted engine... BMP-1, BMP-2, BTR-40, BTR_152, BTR-50 all had front mounted engines. Only the wheeled BTR-60/70/80/82/90 have rear mounted engines and the BMP-3 IFV.


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

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

    PapaDragon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3667
    Points : 3779
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Jul 31, 2016 8:15 pm


    Fresh pics of Boomerang with some additional features




    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  Zivo on Sun Jul 31, 2016 8:44 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Fresh pics of Boomerang with some additional features

    I just mentioned the magnetic countermeasure suite in the armata thread. Rolling Eyes

    I wonder why the EM trawl doesn't extend as far back on the 12.7mm version.

    PapaDragon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3667
    Points : 3779
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Jul 31, 2016 9:57 pm


    One more. Nice hatch cover/windscreen, I've been wondering if they will get those.


    robognus
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 6
    Points : 6
    Join date : 2016-07-28

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  robognus on Mon Aug 01, 2016 3:19 am






    Sponsored content

    Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:52 pm


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 03, 2016 5:52 pm