Home
Register
Log in
There should be space for reloads in the BMP-3 version as well. But not for additional soldiers.
BTR-80/82A and variants: News
Hole- Posts : 2897
Points : 2897
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 44
Location : Merkelland
GarryB- Posts : 24981
Points : 25525
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Looking at the size of those missiles I rather doubt there would be room inside the vehicle for reloads. Perhaps saddle mounts on the rear deck of the hull...
The issue would be the length of the missiles... with only roof hatches and the little side door you couldn't put them in or take them out.
The BMP-3 with the rear walkway also wouldn't be able to carry spare missiles... the engine is in the back with a narrow walk way over top with a small troop area behind the turret... it simply does not have the rear space like a BMP-1 or BMP-2 with the seats removed which could store long spare missiles.
You would also need the additional troops to load the missiles... AFAIK in their tubes they are between 40 and 50kgs or so each.
Strapped to the sides and top of the rear hull you might carry a reload, but a reload vehicle would make more sense... a truck perhaps or a modification of the BTR-87 with the front mounted engine with a rear deck for reload missiles... perhaps with a turret mounted 30mm cannon that could have airburst shells to operate with these vehicles....
The issue would be the length of the missiles... with only roof hatches and the little side door you couldn't put them in or take them out.
The BMP-3 with the rear walkway also wouldn't be able to carry spare missiles... the engine is in the back with a narrow walk way over top with a small troop area behind the turret... it simply does not have the rear space like a BMP-1 or BMP-2 with the seats removed which could store long spare missiles.
You would also need the additional troops to load the missiles... AFAIK in their tubes they are between 40 and 50kgs or so each.
Strapped to the sides and top of the rear hull you might carry a reload, but a reload vehicle would make more sense... a truck perhaps or a modification of the BTR-87 with the front mounted engine with a rear deck for reload missiles... perhaps with a turret mounted 30mm cannon that could have airburst shells to operate with these vehicles....
GarryB- Posts : 24981
Points : 25525
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
It will be a long way until most of the units will be equipped with Bumerang. Until then the BTR-82 will fill the gaps, just like the BMP-3 forms now the base for new tracked vehicles in supporting roles.
I don't agree... wheeled vehicles are much quicker and easier to make and much cheaper to operate too, so I rather suspect Boomerang based vehicles will enter service rather quicker and in much larger numbers than the other types.
I think the BTR-82 and BMP-3 will continue to operate and be produced for export because they are still better than some alternatives or nothing...
Hole- Posts : 2897
Points : 2897
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 44
Location : Merkelland
But it will still take years to make them and the first priority is the BMP version. Sosna on BTR-82A can be put into service in the next two years.
And the russian army wouldn´t buy so much BTR-82A´s if the Bumerang could be supplied in large enough numbers in the next 5 years or so. There is also a new recon version of the BTR-82 in the pipeline.
And the russian army wouldn´t buy so much BTR-82A´s if the Bumerang could be supplied in large enough numbers in the next 5 years or so. There is also a new recon version of the BTR-82 in the pipeline.
GarryB- Posts : 24981
Points : 25525
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
It is going to be a few years before complete divisions are unified with one vehicle chassis... there are 26-27 different vehicle types that need to be developed to put together a full division, and while some are very similar and many only differ in their turret and hull fittings they wont be putting Armata divisions into service any time soon.
Perhaps what they will start doing is putting Armata tanks and Armata IFVs in service in a current tank or motor rifle division and gradually replace the non Armata types with Armata based vehicles.
They will likely do the same with Kurganets and Boomerang divisions too though the tanks in those divisions could remain T-90AMs until more of the vehicles are changed.
The advantage of having all Boomerang vehicles in a Boomerang division is being able to drive at 90km/h for four hours and then go straight in to battle... not destroying roads and bridges on the way, and not costing a fortune in maintenance.
While you still have tanks in your unit running at 90km/h would start fires...
There are going to be priority areas and non priority areas and even in those priority areas there are going to be vehicles that suit and vehicles that don't suit...
To fight in built up areas then Armata is a good choice but not cheap. To fight in wide open places with good road networks then wheeled vehicles are best, while wet areas with soft ground and not so many roads would suit the Kurganets amphibious tracked vehicles...
Just like now there will be tank heavy forces and troop heavy forces... both forces will have tanks and both forces will have BMPs, but the infantry forces will have AT components and will have more troops.
There is a financial cost to replacing all your armour with new armour and it wont be cheap... even the Boomerang have state of the art up to date optics and the guns and fire power of the Armata forces... they trade armour for mobility and reduced weigh... but they aren't 14 ton BTR-80s any more... these are 25 ton vehicles with protection levels better than current BMPs, and more importantly will also have APS systems and NERA and cage armour too when going in to combat...
You might argue that a Boomerang doens't have the protection of a T-90AM, well that is true , but in a tank division that is 31 tanks or so... the rest of the vehicles are BMP-3 or BTR-80 or BRDM-2 or MTLBu level protection... so a Boomerang division will have 31 less well protected tanks but how many vehicles in a division???? 250? That would be 220 vehicles with better protection than the current tank division... and not just that... fully net centric communications levels, much better mobility... fully amphibious... much faster and much cheaper to operate... and with night vision and communications equipment and guns and ammo every bit as good as the latest T-90AM and as good as any of the newest upgraded other vehicles like the BTR-82 and BMP-3M and BMP-2M etc etc.
The Kurganets has better armour, and of course the Armata gives all the vehicles in the force tank level armour better than T-90AMs... what is not to like?
Perhaps what they will start doing is putting Armata tanks and Armata IFVs in service in a current tank or motor rifle division and gradually replace the non Armata types with Armata based vehicles.
They will likely do the same with Kurganets and Boomerang divisions too though the tanks in those divisions could remain T-90AMs until more of the vehicles are changed.
The advantage of having all Boomerang vehicles in a Boomerang division is being able to drive at 90km/h for four hours and then go straight in to battle... not destroying roads and bridges on the way, and not costing a fortune in maintenance.
While you still have tanks in your unit running at 90km/h would start fires...
There are going to be priority areas and non priority areas and even in those priority areas there are going to be vehicles that suit and vehicles that don't suit...
To fight in built up areas then Armata is a good choice but not cheap. To fight in wide open places with good road networks then wheeled vehicles are best, while wet areas with soft ground and not so many roads would suit the Kurganets amphibious tracked vehicles...
Just like now there will be tank heavy forces and troop heavy forces... both forces will have tanks and both forces will have BMPs, but the infantry forces will have AT components and will have more troops.
There is a financial cost to replacing all your armour with new armour and it wont be cheap... even the Boomerang have state of the art up to date optics and the guns and fire power of the Armata forces... they trade armour for mobility and reduced weigh... but they aren't 14 ton BTR-80s any more... these are 25 ton vehicles with protection levels better than current BMPs, and more importantly will also have APS systems and NERA and cage armour too when going in to combat...
You might argue that a Boomerang doens't have the protection of a T-90AM, well that is true , but in a tank division that is 31 tanks or so... the rest of the vehicles are BMP-3 or BTR-80 or BRDM-2 or MTLBu level protection... so a Boomerang division will have 31 less well protected tanks but how many vehicles in a division???? 250? That would be 220 vehicles with better protection than the current tank division... and not just that... fully net centric communications levels, much better mobility... fully amphibious... much faster and much cheaper to operate... and with night vision and communications equipment and guns and ammo every bit as good as the latest T-90AM and as good as any of the newest upgraded other vehicles like the BTR-82 and BMP-3M and BMP-2M etc etc.
The Kurganets has better armour, and of course the Armata gives all the vehicles in the force tank level armour better than T-90AMs... what is not to like?
medo- Posts : 3814
Points : 3898
Join date : 2010-10-24
Location : Slovenia
Hole wrote:But it will still take years to make them and the first priority is the BMP version. Sosna on BTR-82A can be put into service in the next two years.
And the russian army wouldn´t buy so much BTR-82A´s if the Bumerang could be supplied in large enough numbers in the next 5 years or so. There is also a new recon version of the BTR-82 in the pipeline.
Bumerang in air defense version will not come that quick in armament. Russia now need wheeled air defense complexes to slowly replace old Osa. Sosna with 10 km range is conditionally in this case SHORAD, while Gibka-S is VSHORAD. Practically all russian army SAMs are tracked: Strela-10, Tunguska, Tor, Buk, S-300V. Osa is only wheeled SAM for now as Strela-1 was retired long ago. Russian army need such cheaper and lighter wheeled SAMs to protect logistics and convoys behind the lines (to give basic protection in peace keeping missions as well). Boomerang is bigger and heavier, so it would be better to install actuall SHORAD in it like Pantsir or Tor-M2, to protect wheeled brigades on the battlefield. Of course alternative to BTR-82 could be Typhoon-U or Typhoon-K MRAPs, but they are too high and could be unstable, what mean, they could fire only from short stops. BTR-82 is just fine for that job. It have enough armor and is stable enough to fire on the move.
Isos- Posts : 5542
Points : 5534
Join date : 2015-11-06
I agree with Medo.
Wheeled shorad are needed also to protect some infrastructures from cruise missiles. Russia will never have enough s-400/pantsir/tor because they are quite expensive. There are lot of sensitive stuff to protect but that are less likely to be protected by higher level SAM systems.
Wheeled shorad are needed also to protect some infrastructures from cruise missiles. Russia will never have enough s-400/pantsir/tor because they are quite expensive. There are lot of sensitive stuff to protect but that are less likely to be protected by higher level SAM systems.
Hole- Posts : 2897
Points : 2897
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 44
Location : Merkelland
Mars-2000 recon vehicle
dino00 likes this post
|
|
|