Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #1

I thought the turrets were unmanned on the new IFVs. Could this just be a possible upgrade to the BMP-2? Maybe something for export?

This is probably the 57mm equivalent of the Kliver turret though looking at the size of the rounds I suspect this might be the 45mm gun perhaps. I suspect with the 57mm rounds there will be little room for crew.

I really like retractable Kornet-EM. I wonder if it's slaved to the main gun or independently aimed by the commander?

With capability against aerial targets and a high elevation main gun very likely I would suspect elevation of the missiles would be a requirement.

The fact that the proposed turret above has two crew in it suggests that this is a proposed turret for upgrading vehicles like the PT-76 or other vehicle types rather than the new IFV turret for new vehicles... which will certainly be unmanned.

The IFV turret for the new vehicles (armata, kurganets-10, boomerang-25, boomerang-10) will actually be RWS in the sense that they will be unmanned and separating the crew from weapons, ammo, and fuel for their safety.

The 45mm turret has been reportedly chosen for the Kurganets/Boomerang in preference over the 57mm model posted above. But there is a possibility that it could be used as an upgrade for older IFV's

The telescoped case of the 45mm should make the ammo relatively compact compared with the very large shells of teh 57mm, but the large case capacity of the 57mm would allow larger, more effective guided rounds to be developed.

Perhaps a solution could be found with two piece ammo?

A 45mm round with half the guided projectile down its centre surrounded by propellent with another piece that is all projectile the size of a full unfired 45mm round that joins on the front of the half of the missile in the standard shell.

Load the projectile first and then load the rear portion next to push the front part of the missile into the first part of the barrel with the rest of the missile and the propellent into the chamber so you can have a double sized projectile. The rate of fire will of course be lower, but with a guided shell even 60 rounds per minute will be devastating. You could have a separate loading feed for the guided front parts of the missile, or load the front part of the missile in front of the rear part of the missile in the ammo rack at the cost of a reduction of ready to use rounds, though the benefit of a much larger warhead/payload would make it worth it in my opinion.

The best option in my opinion however would be to just develop a 57mm telescoped round with more room for a guided projectile.

Than it will have to be an unmanned version of it.

That just means more ready to use ammo.

In fact an air defence model based on the IFV with the rear troop compartment replaced by an enormous automated ammo handling system with a couple of hundred extra rounds would make it a very potent BMPT with very impressive fire power for escort/guard duty missions.

The story I remember hearing is that the 57mm setup was originally developed as an upgrade for the PT-76 as a replacement for the old 76.2mm rifled gun and was based on the S-60 anti aircraft round used on the ZSU-57-2 SP and S-60 towed AAG.

The 45mm round was a new design especially designed for the BMP-4 to replace the 30mm round that was no longer effective against enemy IFV at useful battlefield ranges.

There was also a 45mm round used in an aerial cannon for the Il-102.

The issue seems to be that the 57mm round has more space for guided rounds which gives it an advantage, but the old style huge case takes up a lot of room in an armoured vehicle so the 45mm is looking good too.

The old 57mm rounds were powerful but not fantastic by todays standards in terms of HE capacity and AP performance, though new ammo types could certainly deal with that as an issue.

Personally I think the 45mm gun might have better performance, but the 57mm gun might win in the same way the 122mm gun was chosen over the 100mm gun for the IS-3 tank because the larger round probably has a more useful HE shell, and the AP will be almost as good, but most importantly I would think that the guided shell of the 57mm round will be better and a good guided round would be the best compensation for reduced ammo capacity.

Of course it is hard to give a definitive response without knowing the actual performance of either round... though they do want new and the 57mm round is not new.

Having said that a new 57mm round and gun would be useful for the Army, Navy and Air Force with guided shells revolutionising land and naval air defence and making air attacks using guns a lot safer too.

It is not really about weak or strong rounds... they could go for a high velocity 90mm round if they wanted a powerful gun, but at the end of the day they want the weapon to perform a specific task... this weapon doesn't need to penetrate tanks at 2km from the front... it is for use against non-tank targets like IFVs and other vehicles, and also light aircraft.

I rather suspect that if there is a 45mm round and a 57mm round in the running then for there to actually be a competition they both need to be able to do the job. The question then comes down to what added features do they add, and I suspect the 57mm round is hyping its guided shells, while I suspect the 45mm is hyping that it is a modern powerful compact round that can operate in a short compact gun mechanism, yet with potent HE and APFSDS rounds that will do the job.

It is completely possible that both weapons might enter service with the 45mm gun on lighter vehicles and the 57mm gun on medium vehicles.

It is also possible that they might decide the larger calibre is useful and to invest in a 57mm telescoped case round to be designed that combines the compact ammo and projectile capacity with the power and accuracy of a modern design plus the simple loading mechanism.

In fact they might design a gun that can fire either a 57mm or a 45mm telescoped case round and use both...or they could go for a 60mm high velocity round and use neither.